This Generation: Watch - Be Ready, Matthew 24:32-44

 

We are in Matthew chapter 24 and this morning what I want to do is complete what I started last time. I finished by introducing the parable of the fig tree. That is crucial for understanding what is happening within this particular passage. But in the middle of that there's this interesting phrase that comes along and in the verse 34 where Jesus says, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place". And I finished with a quote from Hal Lindsey, kind of leaving you hanging a little bit for the rest of the story, because there are many who have been influenced by not only him but many other what I call popular prophecy teachers, and they have taken this view that this generation is the generation that sees the return of the of the Jews to Israel, the restoration of the modern state of Israel in 1948, or the return of the reunification of Jerusalem and the Six-Day War. In June 1967. This year is the 50th anniversary of that.

 

CBN has produced a feature film that, from the trailer that I had seen, looks fabulous. It is taking one of the probably one of the paratrooper brigades and reenacting a sort of docudrama of the us of the Six-Day War, and following them up onto the temple mount, the recapturing of East Jerusalem and the return of the Western Wall in the temple mount to Israel's possession. So this is an interesting time. Now if though either one of those dates were the beginning of the signs and the generation was 40 years, which is what many people say, then we would be in the Tribulation now, the Rapture would have occurred. So how are we to understand "this generation"?

 

This brings up several issues related to several other key things that Jesus says in relation to the parable of the fig tree. The main idea, as we will see, is that this generation, once we identify what this generation is, is the focal point of the commands that come up with the expectations to watch to be prepared and to be ready. If that this generation is the generation that begins to see the signs and those signs occur now in the church age, then we are to watch and be ready, and it's talking about the Rapture. If this generation is the generation within the Tribulation, then these passages are talking about the Second Coming of Christ, which is what is been the focal point up to this point, and not the Rapture. And among dispensationalists that is the prominent view although there is a vocal and growing minority to take the view that this is going to be talking about the Rapture.

 

So what I want to do is a brief review of a few key things to remember. Secondly, address the meaning and significance of the parable of the fig tree, address the question of the meaning of the phrase "this generation", and then following that there's a comparison made with the time of Noah, and then following that are the statements about two people in the field, one is taken another's left behind. Many people think that's the Rapture. What exactly does that mean? Who is taken and who remains?

 

As we look at the first issue of key things to remember what I want to do is remind you of some of things we have studied. First of all we have to keep in mind that this is Jewish background. Matthew was written to a Jewish audience. Matthew says very little about the church. The word church, EKKLESIA, only occurred two times in the Gospels, both in Matthew, but only one has the technical sense church. No content is given; no teaching is given. At this point the disciples knew nothing about the church or the church age. Second, all the events described in verses four through 31 take place within the seven-year period of the Tribulation of Daniel 70th week.

 

I spent a lot of time covering why that was so. Sometimes people think that I mired down in these details, but I do it for a reason, because the views of several dispensationalists is that some are part of verses 4 through 14 are occurring in this time. For example, seeing wars and rumors of wars and earthquakes and famines and all those things. If what we see today is what is talked about there then we could be that generation that sees these things. But if those things are all within their unique distinct wars, famines, earthquakes, are within the seven years, then this generation who sees these things is talking about those within the seven-year Tribulation.

 

I pointed out that there is a parallel between what is described in verses four through eight, called the beginning of sorrows, and the seal judgments of Revelation chapter 6. Third, in Matthew 24:27, Jesus describes the circumstances surrounding His return. That's the Second Coming. He comes to the earth and what He describes when He talks about the fact that the sun is darkened, the moon doesn't give his light (verse 29), that is clearly a day of the Lord description from Amos and from Joel. However, the term day of the Lord is not used. Now that seems technical, but what happens is you will hear from some people who are arguing that the Rapture occurs in the second half of the Tribulation, that what is here that is imminent, using the thief analogy, that this is the day of the Lord.

 

In 1 Thessalonians chapter 5 Paul talks about the day the Lord coming like a thief in the night. When I study the day the Lord there's a broad reference which would include all the Tribulation, but in all the passages that talk about the sun being dark and the moon not giving its light, that's all just the final few days, just before Jesus returns. So that limits in those passages "day of the Lord", to the end of the Tribulation. But the point is that when Jesus begins to talk in verse 36, "But of that day and hour no one knows," those who say that that day equals the day of the Lord have no textual basis for that. Because in the Old Testament whenever you see "that day" describing the day of the Lord there's always a precedent within the passage. The day of the Lord is already mentioned, either earlier or little bit later so that when they say afterwards "that day", it refers to the phrase day of the Lord. Jesus never uses the phrase day of the Lord. So, claiming that is really reading other passages into this text when it's not justified.

 

A fourth thing to remember is that there are key differences between the Rapture and the Second Coming. A key principle of interpretation that I talked about last time was consistently violated in a lot of studies, especially when the contrast is between pre-trib and post-trib where they see certain similarities, Jesus is returning, they're talking about PAROUSIA which is a general, not a technical term for His coming, clouds angels, trumpet. If any of those things are mentioned, even though the details may be different, there is the assumption that because there are similarities there are differences.

 

I talked about these illustrations. There's a difference between a car and truck, a difference between a bush and a tree. It's not the similarities that are important, it's the differences; it's those details that are significant. I also talked about the difference between a jet fighter and a transport plane or cargo plane, the difference between a daffodil and a sunflower. It's the difference in the details that are important.

 

Then we covered a variety of differences between the Rapture and the Second Coming. I'm adding one to that list today and that is that Christ gathers believers to meet him in the air. There is a gathering, and that's described in 1 Thessalonians 4:17: "the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, the dead in Christ will rise first and we who are alive and together shall be caught up with it with them in the clouds, and thus will be with the Lord forever".

 

However, in the Matthew 24:31 passage that many will take as the Rapture, that reads: ÒAnd He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." There are those who will say that's the Rapture. Well if that's the Rapture, then we are talking about a rapture at the end of the Tribulation. But there are definite differences. We meet the Lord in the air in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17. This passage talks about the angels regathering the elect, the saved Jewish believers of the Tribulation period and returning them to Israel. This is seen in passages like Jeremiah 16:14, 15 where we are told by the Lord, "Therefore, behold, the days are coming (in the future), says the Lord, that it shall no more be said the Lord lives, who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt", looking back to the restoration to the land at the time of the Exodus. "but, ÔAs the LORD lives, who brought up the sons of Israel from the land of the north and from all the countries where He had banished them.Õ For I will restore them to their own land which I gave to their fathers".

 

Isaiah 27:12, 13 is significant because it mentions a trumpet with this particular thing: "In that day the LORD will start {His} threshing from the flowing stream of the Euphrates to the brook of Egypt, and you will be gathered up one by one, O sons of Israel. It will come about also in that day that a great trumpet will be blown, and those who were perishing in the land of Assyria and who were scattered in the land of Egypt will come and worship the LORD in the holy mountain at Jerusalem."

 

That is talking about the future return of elect Israel. That's not talking about anything going on today, it's talking about this miraculous return than the angels gather the elect together.

 

Now what is the meaning and significance of the parable of the fig tree? We have to remember the question that is being answered. The disciples had just heard Jesus say that the temple is going to be destroyed, not one stone will be left on another, and they asked him to basic questions. When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming in the end of the age? They are asking from a Jewish perspective about Jewish issues—the  destruction of the Temple and the time when the Messiah will come to establish His kingdom.

 

Nothing here is related to the church, the church age, or the Rapture. He is talking about the sign in Matthew 24:27, "For as the lightning come from the east and flashes even to the west, will the coming of the Son of Man be". And that is the sign. Verse 30, "then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven". Notice, in all these verses, in the parallels, it uses the title Son of Man again and again and again. That comes from Daniel chapter seven. Daniel is looking into the future when the Son of Man will be given the kingdom by the Ancient of Days, and He immediately comes to the earth. So this is clearly a Second Coming passage. He doesn't have the kingdom yet; it's not given to the Son of Man until just prior to His return to the earth. So we are not in any form of the kingdom right now. But it reinforces what I'm saying here because we will see the Son of Man terminology in related passages that make it clear this won't be talking about the Rapture. It's talking about the Son of Man receiving the kingdom, coming to the earth to establish His kingdom.

 

So he gives the parable. "Now learn this parable from the fig tree". He could have used any tree. He is not making a point out of the fact that this is a fig tree versus a sycamore tree, but I think the fact that He uses a fig tree which is a symbol for Israel is an indication that he's talking about God's plan for Israel; He is not talking about the church. Now he's not making a point out of that but the fig tree has been used by Him to symbolize judgment on Israel, and so that's in the background of this of this imagery.

 

In the spring, and we see this with other trees. Now the trees begin to put forth little sprouts and the leaves come forth and we know spring is here. Summer is near. That's His basic point here: that you can tell what is going on. This is a parable. The word parable in the Greek is a broader term than what it means in English but it's a generally a broad term for some kind of illustration for something in the realm of reality. Some story is told to compare and to instruct about something in the unseen or spiritual realm. So the purpose of the parable is to give instructions. Sometimes it was given in parable form to sort of cloak what was being said so that only those who understood the keys to the parable, would understand. Then Jesus would tell his disciples what each part that had significance meant. The parable here just simply says, when its branches already become tender and puts forth leaves you know that summer is near.

 

Let me give you a couple of points about interpreting parables. First of all, unless parables are specifically connected one parable doesn't interpret another parable. The reason I say that is because we will see this a little later on in Matthew chapter 25 when we talk about the parable of the talents, that there is a parallel similar to the parable of the minas in Luke 19, and there are those who because of their similarity, will use Luke 19 to help them interpret the parable of the talents. That's not justifiable. Now if you have two parables that are given one after the other where one builds on elements of the previous one, that's different. But what I'm talking about here is going to another book, another context, to take a parable and then use it to interpret another parable.

 

Second, to extremes to avoid is over-generalizing a parable on the one hand, and second, to try to make every detail of the parable mean something. Jesus usually tells us what the point is, and describes which elements of the parable have significance for the point that He is making. So we don't want to under interpret or over interpret the parable.

 

Third, the parable must be interpreted in the light of the immediate context first, and then in terms of the context and argument of the specific book. Many times when people come along and take parables completely out of context and use them for what ever reason or purpose they want to, and it just sort of free flows and doesn't have anything to do with the original context in which it was given. So we have to interpret in terms of the immediate context and in the context and argument of the specific book, and since the immediate context here is talking about Israel and the return of Jesus at his Second Coming to establish His kingdom, then we must interpret this in that light, and in terms of the context and argument of the book.

This is a Jewish book talking about the offer of the kingdom and in the postponement of the kingdom, so that must inform our meaning or interpretation.

 

Matt 24:32-34 NASB  ÒNow learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, {right} at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

 

In verse 33 I want you to notice something. He is talking to the disciples, but is really talking through the disciples to those who will see these things take place. They wont. He says, "So you also, when you see all these things"—not some of these things, not just your wars and rumors of wars and an increase in famines and pestilence—know that it is near. What is the "it"? It is the Second Coming to establish the kingdom. It's not talking about the Rapture. It can't be to talk about the Rapture because then the Rapture would be at the end of the Tribulation, because the people who are seeing at would be waiting for the Rapture. So since the Rapture occurs before the Tribulation church age believers won't be witnessing the these things, these signs that are all take place within the seven-year Tribulation period.

 

So He says, "So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near the doors". Question: What generation is He addressing? He's addressing the generation that will see all these signs. That's not you and I. We are not were not seeing that yet; we are not within the Tribulation.

 

Then He says, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place". What is the meaning of "this generation"? I showed you last week this quote from Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey. He takes this view that has been very influential for people to date set. No date setting is never been part of dispensational theology. Date setting was part of historicism. Historicism is the idea that I can look at the current events and figure out where I am between Revelation 4 and Revelation 19. And unfortunately, especially in the earlier years of dispensational theology, many were still influenced to varying degrees by some historicism. So they would identify certain things and try to figure out what the signs of the times were and how close we might be to the Rapture. That is borrowing from another system.

 

I think in the last 20 or 30 years a lot of work has been done by dispensational scholars, recognizing that that's a problem and we need to be pure futurists: that all of this is in the future; none of it is being seen in terms of current events. So anyway, we see from this that Hal's interpretation was that in 1948 the fig tree first put forth its leaves. Jesus said—this is the last paragraph—this would indicate that He was at the door ready to return. Then He said, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place"—obviously in context the generation that would see the signs. That's true, we would agree with that. It's the generation sees the signs. But Lindsey says, chief among them is the rebirth of Israel. We don't see that anywhere in the passage; that's not what is being talked about. So he is reading things in there and came to the conclusion that 1948 was the beginning; 40 years was a generation—that would be 1988, seven years earlier would be 1981. I guess we missed the Rapture!

 

Later I think he, and I know others, shifted it to 67: 40 years later would be 2007, the Rapture would've occurred in 2000. Woops! We missed it again.

 

Date setting is a problem because no one knows when the Rapture will occur. No signs are necessary before that. So this phrase "this generation" has been basically interpreted three ways. First of all, that this generation was addressing the first-generation Jew. Now two groups take this. First of all, preterists take this view. They believe that everything is fulfilled by 70 AD and this is all code language for God's judgment on Israel in AD 70. And so that's the preterist's view. But liberals take that view: Jesus was talking to that generation in front of Him; none of this happened. Jesus was wrong, end of story. Poor Christians, they believed Jesus. That is just an attack on the historicity and inerrancy of the Scripture.

 

Second, this is an interesting view because the word that is used here for generation can at times mean race, or an ethnic group, and this is the interpretation that it refers to the race of Jewish people. Jesus would be saying then that this race, i.e., the Jews, will not disappear from the earth until all this is been fulfilled. That's true but that's probably not the best option in context.

 

The third option is the best and that it is the Tribulation generation that sees these things. This is the best, not those who are still in the church age who witnessed the stage setting (which was Hal's view) but this is referring to the Tribulation generation. So it's after the Rapture that these events that are listed from Matthew 24:4 on take place. That's the best interpretation.

 

This generation then equals the generation within Daniel's 70th week, that is, those that are the Tribulation generation who witnessed the events spoken about from Matthew 24:4 and all. Thus this generation shows that God's judgment had a time cap. As Jesus said earlier, "if these states weren't cut short", that doesn't mean it's going to be less than seven years, but that seven years is a shortening of what it could have been. But if it had been allowed to go longer then man would completely destroy himself. So God has a time on the limits for this judgment.

 

Verse 32-34 emphasizes that this generation that sees these things should learn from the parable of the fig tree. This isn't talking about us. It's not talking about the church or the church age, it's clearly talking about this generation of the Tribulation era. They're to learn something from the parable of the fig tree.

 

In verse 35, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away." And what Jesus is doing here is comparing the temporal unstable reality of creation that is finite to His Word and to His thought: that His word is eternal; His word is unshakable; His word is absolute stability, and that it will not ever be destroyed. Heaven and earth, that is all the universe, is finite and it's not stable, but His words are infinite and they will by no means pass away. What is He doing? He is reminding that generation that is in the Tribulation that they can count on His words being true so that they can have stability in the midst of the most horrendous period of human history. They can count on His promises that He will return and establish His kingdom, and that they can survive.

 

The parable of the fig tree is a parable to show that you can within the Tribulation see that the coming of the Messiah is near. However, you can't pinpoint. That's what comes up in verse 36. So this next section talks about the judgment that will occur during that time, and who is taken and who remains. Now there's more debate about that. There are two views within dispensational futurists. One is that this is talking about the Rapture, those were taken in the Rapture and those who remain. And those who remain would be, if it is the Rapture, those who will go through judgment. And if it is the Second Coming, than those who remain are the believers, the survivors of the Tribulation.

 

Now what throws people off is the sense of imminency that is expressed in chapter 24:36. People say, well we don't know when the Rapture is going to occur. It could be at any at any moment, no one can set a date. Jesus seems to indicate that's what He is talking about here in verse 36. If we just took this verse out of context that might be so, but we can't do that. "Of that day and hour". Notice: It's not just that day. If this was an Old Testament passage talking about the day of the Lord, and it had already been mentioned, it would just say "of that day". It never adds this phrase "and hour". "Hour" indicates he's talking about something with greater specificity, not just the day but down to the hour of that day and hour He says, "no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only". Now there are people who ask questions about this. How can Jesus not know? Jesus in his humanity, in His role as the incarnate Son of God during the first advent, part of his portfolio of knowledge did not include this in his humanity. He was not to know when the second coming would be, and He's emphasizing that it's imminent in a sense, just as we'll see in the analogy with Noah's flood, there was a certain sense of uncertainty or immanence, even at that time, with the coming of the flood.

 

You could see Noah, for example, start preaching and you and he just laid out the basic structure of the ark. You could say, well it has taken a while to complete the ark. I have a lot of time but once he completed the ark. You might say, well, I still have time. He didn't have the animals there and then it would take time to gather the animals. But once Noah went in and close the door, well this is going to happen right away. But then a day goes by two days goes by; you don't know when it's precisely going to happen. You know it's soon, but you don't know precisely when it's going to happen. That's what Jesus is talking about here: with that precision. "Of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only". So this is not saying that Jesus and His deity would not know when this would happen because He is omniscient, but that in His humanity this was not part of what was given to Him to know. And it's not talking about the Rapture because the analogy that is given in the next few verses doesn't fit the rapture, it fits the Second Coming.

 

Matthew 24:37 NASB ÒFor the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah".

 

This is an illustration where Jesus is comparing the circumstances prior to the Second Coming with the circumstances prior to the flood. It begins with this phrase "as in the days of Noah". In the Greek this is the phrase HOSPER, which is a comparative attitude, and it indicates that it is in the same way, based on other words that are used in the text. Jesus' point is that the coming of the Son of Man is going to be exactly like the coming of the flood at the days of Noah. The coming of the flood was a judgment; the coming of the son of man to the earth is going to begin a series of judgments. So the focal point here is on judgment, not on the rescue or deliverance of believers from the judgment. And He describes the situation in verse 38: NASB ÒFor as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark."

 

And people say will wait a minute. If you're living in the Tribulation you have all these prophecies telling you that it's only going to last seven years and you can count it down almost to the day. Why would people in the midst of all of these judgments still be living as if things were normal? Well the phraseology here is talking about the life before the flood. In the days before the flood, what were they doing? They were going through life's normal activities as if no judgment were coming, because they were suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. That's Romans 1:18, "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them. For God has shown it to them." In essence, unbelievers were rejecting the revelation saying, "It's not gonna happen". So there is much denial about the return of Jesus and the establishment of his kingdom at the end of the tribulation as those before the flood. They were they were in complete denial of everything that Noah said. They were going about normal activities of life.

 

This is the same thing that we see. People will be going to the degree that they can in those horrific times, they will be going through the normal activities of life as if there is no end of everything about to happen. They are suppressing the truth; they are living in a fantasy world. And what is happening in 38 and 39 is this focus on the normality of life before the flood, and it's going to be the same kind of thing before the coming of the Son of Man. Notice we have that phrase again. The coming of the Son of Man Son of Man is related to his taking the kingdom, not the church. Matthew 24:39 NASB "and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be".

 

Then is described the kind of suddenness that will take place.

 

Matthew 24:40 ÒThen there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left."

 

Now if we go back and we look at the description in verse 39, "They did not know until the flood came and took them all away". Who is taken away? Noah and his family in the ark? Or everybody else on the earth, the unbelievers? The unbelievers are taken away by the judgment. So when Jesus says that two men will be in the field, one will be taken, he's taken in judgment. That fits the illustration that is given and fits the context. The other is left on the earth. He survived the Tribulation to go into the millennium.

 

Matthew 24:41 NASB ÒTwo women {will be} grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left". Then He says, Matthew 24:42 NASB  ÒTherefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming". 

 

He is not talking to the disciples about the Rapture, He is talking to this generation who see these signs. He still talking to that Tribulation generation and says, "You don't know what hour". Notice. He uses the tighter time word, not the broader word. He doesn't say, "what day your Lord is coming," He says, "You don't know what hour your Lord is coming".

 

Luke 12:39, 40 is a similar passage talking about the same thing. NASB ÒBut be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. [40] ÒYou too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect.Ó This is the same kind of meaning. The "you" there refers to the disciples, but He speaking through them to that generation that will be in existence when the Son of Man comes to establish his kingdom.

 

Back to Matthew 24:43 NASB ÒBut be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into".

 

That thief illustration is used again in Revelation 16:15, where we had Jesus speaking directly if you have a red letter Bible, Revelation 1615 is in red letters. Jesus speaks now when I taught Revelation 16, I wasn't aware this often happens at in studies as you grow and mature that there is was a whole certain web of interpretations that were grounded by a couple different groups on an article written identifying the day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5 as imminent, just as the rapture is imminent. And so the author of that article believes the Rapture is what starts the seven-year period of the day of the Lord. The author of that article was Robert Thomas. He is the only one who takes his view, but that's his view. He also is written, the arguably the best--although I disagree with him in a number of places—exegetical commentary (two-volumes) on Revelation, which I was studying through when I taught Revelation. I didn't realize that the interpretation he took of this passage was connected to his interpretation of Matthew 24 first excellent chapter 5. Now I'm aware that there's this whole connection.

 

I went back and in order to demonstrate—this is what he says it is, which is what I taught—that this is an aside to the church that that is listening to John. In order to really prove that you have to show that John makes these kinds of asides to his present 90 AD audience in more than just this one passage. There is no other aside like this in the entire book of Revelation. That's what I was guessing, but want to make sure so I read everything through. There's nothing like that anywhere else. As he says, it could be either way. It could be an aside, or it could be using the same language addressing the Tribulation generation just before Jesus comes back to say, "Keep watching, keep your garments less you walk naked and they see your shame".

 

What happens is there is a similarity here with a couple of things that are said to the overcomers in the seven letters to the seven churches. What is a primary rule of hermeneutics? Similarity doesn't mean they're identical. He violates a fundamental rule. "Mr. hermeneutics" violates a fundamental rule of hermeneutics. Basically he argues similarity here means that it must be talking to church age believers, not to tribulation saints. And having gone through all that, I saw some other things as well. It's very clear that this idea of a thief coming in the night, this illustration of sudden unexpectedness is used of different things in the Scripture. It is used of the Rapture, it is used of the day of the Lord, and it is used of the arrival of Jesus at the Second Coming.

 

This I think really shows that the parable of the fig tree is a warning to the generation who sees the signs to be ready, to be watching, so they won't be taken by surprise when the Lord returns at the Second Coming, because there will be judgment.

 

Now that's what sets up the next set of parables. They're all talking about the judgment of those who survived the Tribulation, but you have a whole group of people in the free grace alliance who have been following Joseph Dillow for a while, and they are going to argue that all the coming parables talk about the church because the Rapture got introduced, starting in verse 36. The argument they always cite goes back to those articles that are mentioned by Bob Thomas. But what's interesting is that Thomas gives him a foundation. But Thomas doesn't believe the Raptures in the last part of Matthew 24 so they just cherry picked what he said to go for now. The reason I say that is because there are people listening to me people who are in this congregation, for whom that information is important. Some of you are just saying: Well, it's interesting. I'm glad to know this is the Rapture, I'm going to move on and that's fine. But there are others who have been going to Pre-trib for the last 10 or 15 years, and they're little more knowledgeable and want to know answers to specific questions.

Slides