Romans 11

[agedman]

I has never ceased to amaze me the way people will take plain teaching by Paul such as is found in Romans 11 and turn it to their own scheme.

After decades of attempting to show the foolishness of some views by pointing to Romans 11, and by going verse by verse and at times expressing the original language, some just continue in their own blindness and obstinacy.

Figured that some just won't agree with Paul until the Lord demonstrates it.

Just as @glad4mercy systematically presented truth, and just as such is always rejected, it doesn't change.

Here are some basic denials seen and I have heard in the past concerning Romans 1

1. There are no longer ethnic Jews. That is a lie. DNA testing proves it.
2. There is not an end to the gentile time. That is a lie. Ostriches deny the truth, too.
3. There will never be a national Israel. That is a lie. History bears witness.
4. God has no plan for national Israel being brought to Christ. That is a lie. ALL the prophets spoke concerning the matter will be fulfilled, just as all the prophets spoke concerning the second advent.
5. There is never a millennial reign, temple, physical return of Christ,.... That is a lie. The Scriptures state such will come.

And on it goes.

I have heard and read people completely discredit whole passages of OT prophecy just to maintain their view. How bold such must be in their dismissal of such Scriptures as no longer viable or have veracity concerning the future.

I may not agree with all that @glad4mercy may post on the BB, but to deny that he has posted accurately concerning Paul's writing in Romans 11 in this thread is just wrong.

 

[glad4mercy]

Romans 11:26 < Romans 10:1 < Romans 9:27, ". . . a remnant shall be saved: . . ."

Paul is not merely repeating himself over and over again. His argument in Romans 9-11 is progressing towards the mystery in Romans 11:25. The best bible exegetes are with me on the interpretation of Romans 11 as being a future restoration of Israel.

 

[glad4mercy]

Glad has a Calvin reference.

What about.

I'll read it, if I can.

First time I've even seen 'Calvin's' words, other than a couple of sentences here on The Board.

I have more against Calvin than any of you.

Let's see how he handles The Book, then.

I do not agree with Calvin on everything, but he was spot on on Romans 11.

So was the RC Sproul.

So was Gill

So was Jamieson , Faucett, and Brown

Probably a lot of others too.

 

[glad4mercy]

I has never ceased to amaze me the way people will take plain teaching by Paul such as is found in Romans 11 and turn it to their own scheme.

After decades of attempting to show the foolishness of some views by pointing to Romans 11, and by going verse by verse and at times expressing the original language, some just continue in their own blindness and obstinacy.

Figured that some just won't agree with Paul until the Lord demonstrates it.

Just as @glad4mercy systematically presented truth, and just as such is always rejected, it doesn't change.

Here are some basic denials seen and I have heard in the past concerning Romans 1

1. There are no longer ethnic Jews. That is a lie. DNA testing proves it.
2. There is not an end to the gentile time. That is a lie. Ostriches deny the truth, too.
3. There will never be a national Israel. That is a lie. History bears witness.
4. God has no plan for national Israel being brought to Christ. That is a lie. ALL the prophets spoke concerning the matter will be fulfilled, just as all the prophets spoke concerning the second advent.
5. There is never a millennial reign, temple, physical return of Christ,.... That is a lie. The Scriptures state such will come.

And on it goes.

I have heard and read people completely discredit whole passages of OT prophecy just to maintain their view. How bold such must be in their dismissal of such Scriptures as no longer viable or have veracity concerning the future.

I may not agree with all that @glad4mercy may post on the BB, but to deny that he has posted accurately concerning Paul's writing in Romans 11 in this thread is just wrong.

Thanks Brother

You may be surprised with how much we agree on. My views are much different now than they were years ago when I used to post here formerly, if you are thinking about my posts from back then.

 

[Alan Gross]

.
So you put part of Gill's commentary and leave the part out you disagree with? I wouldn't do that personally.

I put what I put from me, first.

He has a way of stating a lot that is a Blessing.

He was not sound or very clear on Church Truth.

Just as I was told by someone who must know, or he wouldn't have said it, he said Gill would beat the Armenians to a pulp, and whether or not an Armenian thing was being advanced by them.

Anyway, I do that with Church Truth, because the understanding of The church ORGANIZATION JESUS CREATED, is so sparse.

His discussion on Roman's 11, I cut at some general idea he spoke of as the 'Gentile church state'.

I think his conception of those words would be, 'The New Testament Kingdom of The Son', including all Saved people alive, at a given time.

I can't put the word 'church' in something like that, unless he meant all those who were members of The Lord's churches.

You can or can't expect everything someone says to be perfect.

He went afield and spoke of the wonderful Blessing of God to those in our Present Age that Know God, but where, or why, what is the Jew thing?

An overlap with Spiritual Israel's Blessings Promised?

Dunno.

That confusion can be in people's heads.

"oh, be good to Israel as a Nation, or God won't like it" = stupid saying.

 

[glad4mercy]

I put what I put from me, first.

He has a way of stating a lot that is a Blessing.

He was not sound or very clear on Church Truth.

Just as I was told by someone who must know, or he wouldn't have said it, he said Gill would beat the Armenians to a pulp, and whether or not an Armenian thing was being advanced by them.

Anyway, I do that with Church Truth, because the understanding of The church ORGANIZATION JESUS CREATED, is so sparse.

His discussion on Roman's 11, I cut at some general idea he spoke of as the 'Gentile church state'.

I think his conception of those words would be, 'The New Testament Kingdom of The Son', including all Saved people alive, at a given time.

I can't put the word 'church' in something like that, unless he meant all those who were members of The Lord's churches.

You can or can't expect everything someone says to be perfect.

He went afield and spoke of the wonderful Blessing of God to those in our Present Age that Know God, but where, or why, what is the Jew thing?

An overlap with Spiritual Israel's Blessings Promised?

Dunno.

That confusion can be in people's heads.

"oh, be good to Israel as a Nation, or God won't like it" = stupid saying.

I can see partial quoting, but not cutting off a quote in the middle of a paragraph. That's just me, though. That's cool. You can do what you want.

 

[Alan Gross]

Calvin's commentary on Romans 11

That blindness in part, etc. “In part,” I think, refers not simply to time, nor to the number, but means, in a manner, or in a measure; by which expression he intended, as it seems to me, only to qualify a declaration which in itself was severe. Until does not specify the progress or order of time, but signifies the same thing, as though he had said, “That the fullness of the Gentiles,” etc. The meaning then is, — That God had in a manner so blinded Israel, that while they refused the light of the gospel, it might be transferred to the Gentiles, and that these might occupy, as it were, the vacated possession. And so this blindness served the providence of God in furthering the salvation of the Gentiles, which he had designed. And the fullness of the Gentiles is to be taken for a great number: for it was not to be, as before, when a few proselytes connected themselves with the Jews; but such was to be the change, that the Gentiles would form almost the entire body of the Church. (363)

The word for “blindness” is πώρωσις, hardness, callousness, and hence contumacy. “In part,” is generally regarded as having reference both to extent and duration: the hardness did not extend to all the Jews, and it was not to endure, but to continue for a time; and the time is mentioned, “until the fullness of the Gentiles come in.” This is obviously the meaning, and confirmed by the whole context. The attempt of [Grotius ] and [Hammond ], and of some of the Fathers, to confine what is said to the Apostolic times, is wholly irreconcilable with the drift of the whole passage and with facts.

Much as been written on the words , ἄχρις οὖ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθὟ. That the event was future in the Apostle’s time, (and future still as history proves) is evident, especially from the following verse, “and so all Israel shall be saved.” The plain construction of the passage is, “until the fullness of the Gentiles shall come.” What this “fullness” is to be has been much controverted. But by taking a view of the whole context, without regard to any hypothesis, we shall, with no great difficulty, ascertain its meaning. The “fullness” of the Jews in Romans 11:12, is determined by Romans 11:26; it includes the whole nation. Then the “fullness of the Gentiles” must mean the same thing, the introduction of all nations into the Church. The grafting more particularly signifies profession. It then follows that all nations shall be brought publicly to profess the gospel prior to the removal of the hardness from the whole nation of the Jews. There may be isolated cases of conversion before this event, for “in part” as to extent the hardness is to be: but all shall not be brought to the faith, until the faith spread through the whole world: and the effect of their restoration will be a great revival of vital religion among the professing Gentiles, according to what is said in Romans 11:15. This is clearly the view presented to us in this extraordinary passage, when all its parts are compared with each other.

[Hammond ] tells us, that many of the Fathers wholly denied the future restoration of the Jews, and we are told by [Pareus ] , who mentions some of the same Fathers, that they maintained it. But it appears from the quotations made by the first, that the restoration disallowed was that to their own land, and that the restoration referred to by the latter was restoration to the faith; two things wholly distinct. That “Israel” means exclusively the Jewish nation, was almost the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, according to [Estius ]; and that their future restoration to the faith is here foretold was the sentiment held by [Beza ], [Pareus ], Willet, [Mede ], and others, and is generally held by modern divines. — Ed.

"It then follows that all nations shall be brought publicly to profess the gospel prior to the removal of the hardness from the whole nation of the Jews."

This is an odd formula to bring forth, as if 'the Word of The Lord Came to Calvin'.

That thing would have to be dismissed, as a guess, right or wrong.

I hope he doesn't do that a lot.

 

[Alan Gross]

I can see partial quoting, but not cutting off a quote in the middle of a paragraph. That's just me, though. That's cool. You can do what you want.

I gave the link.

I'm not scared of giving the link to any original writing.

It benefited what I said.

Then, I didn't have a need to emphasize flesh.

 

[glad4mercy]

I put what I put from me, first.

He has a way of stating a lot that is a Blessing.

He was not sound or very clear on Church Truth.

Just as I was told by someone who must know, or he wouldn't have said it, he said Gill would beat the Armenians to a pulp, and whether or not an Armenian thing was being advanced by them.

Anyway, I do that with Church Truth, because the understanding of The church ORGANIZATION JESUS CREATED, is so sparse.

His discussion on Roman's 11, I cut at some general idea he spoke of as the 'Gentile church state'.

I think his conception of those words would be, 'The New Testament Kingdom of The Son', including all Saved people alive, at a given time.

I can't put the word 'church' in something like that, unless he meant all those who were members of The Lord's churches.

You can or can't expect everything someone says to be perfect.

He went afield and spoke of the wonderful Blessing of God to those in our Present Age that Know God, but where, or why, what is the Jew thing?

An overlap with Spiritual Israel's Blessings Promised?

Dunno.

That confusion can be in people's heads.

"oh, be good to Israel as a Nation, or God won't like it" = stupid saying.

Speaking of Arminians. Here's something from my favorite Arminian....

WESLEY's Explanatory Notes.

Verse 25
[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

St. Paul calls any truth known but to a few, a mystery. Such had been the calling of the gentiles: such was now the conversion of the Jews.

Lest ye should be wise in your own conceits — Puffed up with your present advantages; dreaming that ye are the only church; or that the church of Rome cannot fail.

Hardness in part is happened to Israel, till — Israel therefore is neither totally nor finally rejected.

The fullness of the gentiles be come in — Till there be a vast harvest amongst the heathens.

Verse 26
[26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

And so all Israel shall be saved — Being convinced by the coming of the gentiles. But there will be a still larger harvest among the gentiles, when all Israel is come in.

The deliverer shall come — Yea, the deliverer is come; but not the full fruit of his coming. Isaiah 59:20

Verse 28
[28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

They are now enemies — To the gospel, to God, and to themselves, which God permits.

For your sake: but as for the election — That part of them who believe, they are beloved.

Verse 29
[29] For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance — God does not repent of his gifts to the Jews, or his calling of the gentiles.

 

[Alan Gross]

1689 as in 1689 Baptist confession of faith? My position is fully compatible with Calvinism.

Calvin's commentary on Romans 11

That blindness in part, etc. “In part,” I think, refers not simply to time, nor to the number, but means, in a manner, or in a measure; by which expression he intended, as it seems to me, only to qualify a declaration which in itself was severe. Until does not specify the progress or order of time, but signifies the same thing, as though he had said, “That the fullness of the Gentiles,” etc. The meaning then is, — That God had in a manner so blinded Israel, that while they refused the light of the gospel, it might be transferred to the Gentiles, and that these might occupy, as it were, the vacated possession. And so this blindness served the providence of God in furthering the salvation of the Gentiles, which he had designed. And the fullness of the Gentiles is to be taken for a great number: for it was not to be, as before, when a few proselytes connected themselves with the Jews; but such was to be the change, that the Gentiles would form almost the entire body of the Church. (363)

The word for “blindness” is πώρωσις, hardness, callousness, and hence contumacy. “In part,” is generally regarded as having reference both to extent and duration: the hardness did not extend to all the Jews, and it was not to endure, but to continue for a time; and the time is mentioned, “until the fullness of the Gentiles come in.” This is obviously the meaning, and confirmed by the whole context. The attempt of [Grotius ] and [Hammond ], and of some of the Fathers, to confine what is said to the Apostolic times, is wholly irreconcilable with the drift of the whole passage and with facts.

Much as been written on the words , ἄχρις οὖ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθὟ. That the event was future in the Apostle’s time, (and future still as history proves) is evident, especially from the following verse, “and so all Israel shall be saved.” The plain construction of the passage is, “until the fullness of the Gentiles shall come.” What this “fullness” is to be has been much controverted. But by taking a view of the whole context, without regard to any hypothesis, we shall, with no great difficulty, ascertain its meaning. The “fullness” of the Jews in Romans 11:12, is determined by Romans 11:26; it includes the whole nation. Then the “fullness of the Gentiles” must mean the same thing, the introduction of all nations into the Church. The grafting more particularly signifies profession. It then follows that all nations shall be brought publicly to profess the gospel prior to the removal of the hardness from the whole nation of the Jews. There may be isolated cases of conversion before this event, for “in part” as to extent the hardness is to be: but all shall not be brought to the faith, until the faith spread through the whole world: and the effect of their restoration will be a great revival of vital religion among the professing Gentiles, according to what is said in Romans 11:15. This is clearly the view presented to us in this extraordinary passage, when all its parts are compared with each other.

[Hammond ] tells us, that many of the Fathers wholly denied the future restoration of the Jews, and we are told by [Pareus ] , who mentions some of the same Fathers, that they maintained it. But it appears from the quotations made by the first, that the restoration disallowed was that to their own land, and that the restoration referred to by the latter was restoration to the faith; two things wholly distinct. That “Israel” means exclusively the Jewish nation, was almost the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, according to [Estius ]; and that their future restoration to the faith is here foretold was the sentiment held by [Beza ], [Pareus ], Willet, [Mede ], and others, and is generally held by modern divines. — Ed.

; "and that their future restoration to the faith is here foretold was the sentiment held"

Whoever the "Ed" is, put 'sentiments' out there.

A man saying something.

Other people saying it.

That doesn't mean the least little thing to me.

They have 'read the Prophets' and took something away from them about National Israel that is spoken of Spiritual Israel, is my guess.

If everyone on Earth does that, I'm not going to.

 

[glad4mercy]

; "and that their future restoration to the faith is here foretold was the sentiment held"

Whoever the "Ed" is, put 'sentiments' out there.

A man saying something.

Other people saying it.

That doesn't mean the least little thing to me.

They have 'read the Prophets' and took something away from them about National Israel that is spoken of Spiritual Israel, is my guess.

If everyone on Earth does that, I'm not going to.

John R. Rice.

The Coming Kingdom of Christ

Lots of references to the prophets here

I am not in full agreement with Rice. I believe Israel will be converted IMMEDIETELY BEFORE Jesus second advent, not when Jesus comes back. But I'm not dogmatic on that.

 

[Alan Gross]

I can see partial quoting, but not cutting off a quote in the middle of a paragraph. That's just me, though. That's cool. You can do what you want.

Do the people here all have an embedded misunderstanding and lack of Bible knowledge, when anything about The Lord's church He Has The New Testament FULL of Teachings on, is mentioned?

According to me.

I just skipped it there, as I always would anywhere.

Kenneth Copeland has Blessing in his teachings on some subjects, but if I record a tape, I've edited out "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that that whole crowd has goofy ideas about.

Going into explosive wording that he may not and those here may not appreciate as denying God His Glory in The church that Jesus Built's existence they just don't know, is where I chose to give that up, in the passage.

Preachers sometimes 'wonder' and close their Bible and put there elbows on it and say, "my daughters stillborn baby will be a full grown woman when I see her in Heaven".

O. K., Preacher.

"Jesus is going to try to Preach the Gospel to The Jews, when the 1,000 year alarm clock winds down to the end of a made up illusion in the carnal thinking I'm doing".

O. K., Preacher.

Copeland says some doozys, in person.

On purpose. Slipped back into his full con mode.

Not O. K., Preacher.

Take the meat and leave the bones.

Gill didn't have Bible for those musings, when he usually does, in spades.

 

[Alan Gross]

Speaking of Arminians. Here's something from my favorite Arminian....

WESLEY's Explanatory Notes.

Verse 25
[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

St. Paul calls any truth known but to a few, a mystery. Such had been the calling of the gentiles: such was now the conversion of the Jews.

Lest ye should be wise in your own conceits — Puffed up with your present advantages; dreaming that ye are the only church; or that the church of Rome cannot fail.

Hardness in part is happened to Israel, till — Israel therefore is neither totally nor finally rejected.

The fullness of the gentiles be come in — Till there be a vast harvest amongst the heathens.

Verse 26
[26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

And so all Israel shall be saved — Being convinced by the coming of the gentiles. But there will be a still larger harvest among the gentiles, when all Israel is come in.

The deliverer shall come — Yea, the deliverer is come; but not the full fruit of his coming. Isaiah 59:20

Verse 28
[28] As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

They are now enemies — To the gospel, to God, and to themselves, which God permits.

For your sake: but as for the election — That part of them who believe, they are beloved.

Verse 29
[29] For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance — God does not repent of his gifts to the Jews, or his calling of the gentiles.

Covenant of Grace Promise to Save the Remnant of The Jews.

 

[Alan Gross]

John R. Rice.

The Coming Kingdom of Christ

Lots of references to the prophets here

I am not in full agreement with Rice. I believe Israel will be converted IMMEDIETELY BEFORE Jesus second advent, not when Jesus comes back. But I'm not dogmatic on that.

So, something Comes About for Jews, just before Jesus Comes?

Oh, well.

I certainly didn't say, 'when He Comes Back'.

Judgment WIll Be all He Brings for all the lost.

And no, 'left behind' insanity, of course.

...

Aside from that, looks like we need to add, ". I believe Israel will be converted IMMEDIETELY BEFORE Jesus second advent", to Roman's 11, somewhere.

Where?

Let's see it.

 

[Alan Gross]

I like this simple and concise explanation better...

{13} For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your {b} own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be {c} come in.

(13) The blindness of the Jews is neither so universal that the Lord has no elect in that nation, neither will it be continual: for there will be a time in which they also (as the prophets have foretold) will effectually embrace that which they now so stubbornly for the most part reject and refuse.
(b) That you are not proud within yourselves.
(c) Into the Church.

Geneva Study Bible

There it is.

"(as the prophets have foretold) will effectually embrace that which they now so stubbornly for the most part reject and refuse."

Geneva did it.

Got something, somewhere, from a Prophet.

What?

Is that we're, "A bunch of Jews will be Saved immediately before Jesus Returns", is, too?

Maybe the Prophets say something.

Maybe something they said is totally misconstrued and attempted to be jammed into these Roman 11 verse, where there is nothing remotely TAUGHT THERE ABOUT IT.

IT IS ADDED.

SURMISED.

Argueing from silence.

What do the verses look like when it's added to them?

The same?

 

[glad4mercy]

So, something Comes About for Jews, just before Jesus Comes?

Oh, well.

I certainly didn't say, 'when He Comes Back'.

Judgment WIll Be all He Brings for all the lost.

And no, 'left behind' insanity, of course.

...

Aside from that, looks like we need to add, ". I believe Israel will be converted IMMEDIETELY BEFORE Jesus second advent", to Roman's 11, somewhere.

Where?

Let's see it.

why I said right before He comes. Read the prophets again.

 

[glad4mercy]

There it is.

"(as the prophets have foretold) will effectually embrace that which they now so stubbornly for the most part reject and refuse."

Geneva did it.

Got something, somewhere, from a Prophet.

What?

Is that we're, "A bunch of Jews will be Saved immediately before Jesus Returns", is, too?

Maybe the Prophets say something.

Maybe something they said is totally misconstrued and attempted to be jammed into these Roman 11 verse, where there is nothing remotely TAUGHT THERE ABOUT IT.

IT IS ADDED.

SURMISED.

Argueing from silence.

What do the verses look like when it's added to them?

The same?

zechariah 12

 

[Alan Gross]

I has never ceased to amaze me the way people will take plain teaching by Paul such as is found in Romans 11 and turn it to their own scheme.

After decades of attempting to show the foolishness of some views by pointing to Romans 11, and by going verse by verse and at times expressing the original language, some just continue in their own blindness and obstinacy.

Figured that some just won't agree with Paul until the Lord demonstrates it.

Just as @glad4mercy systematically presented truth, and just as such is always rejected, it doesn't change.

Here are some basic denials seen and I have heard in the past concerning Romans 1

1. There are no longer ethnic Jews. That is a lie. DNA testing proves it.
2. There is not an end to the gentile time. That is a lie. Ostriches deny the truth, too.
3. There will never be a national Israel. That is a lie. History bears witness.
4. God has no plan for national Israel being brought to Christ. That is a lie. ALL the prophets spoke concerning the matter will be fulfilled, just as all the prophets spoke concerning the second advent.
5. There is never a millennial reign, temple, physical return of Christ,.... That is a lie. The Scriptures state such will come.

And on it goes.

I have heard and read people completely discredit whole passages of OT prophecy just to maintain their view. How bold such must be in their dismissal of such Scriptures as no longer viable or have veracity concerning the future.

I may not agree with all that @glad4mercy may post on the BB, but to deny that he has posted accurately concerning Paul's writing in Romans 11 in this thread is just wrong.

Oh my God.

Yeah, that's all misinterpretation of Old Testament Prophecy.

They speak of Israel and sometimes the Blessings of The Current Day of The Lord, then The Day of Vengence of our God, that is separated by a comma.

Israel is very often, 'The Spiritual seed of Abraham".

Their transitions can be abrupt, between their references to The Day of Salvation (now) and Eternity.

Certainly, expressing New Testament Truths, in Old Testament language makes for Wonderful Revelations.

Returning the Mosaic System of Sacrifices, that were representational and symbolic emblems, to start with, back to a restored Mosaic System of Sacrifices, not so much.

No Worship there.

No insight.

No Blessing.

Just pure junk.

...

Those notions do not grasp their Present Day Application, as New Testament Truths, couched and expressed in Old Testament language.

No wonder a pot load of God-Hating and denying Jews are said to jump up and get a Jesus, "Just before He Returns".

Yep.

All off, in the Literature reading.

 

[glad4mercy]

There it is.

"(as the prophets have foretold) will effectually embrace that which they now so stubbornly for the most part reject and refuse."

Geneva did it.

Got something, somewhere, from a Prophet.

What?

Is that we're, "A bunch of Jews will be Saved immediately before Jesus Returns", is, too?

Maybe the Prophets say something.

Maybe something they said is totally misconstrued and attempted to be jammed into these Roman 11 verse, where there is nothing remotely TAUGHT THERE ABOUT IT.

IT IS ADDED.

SURMISED.

Argueing from silence.

What do the verses look like when it's added to them?

The same?

read the book I linked by John Rice. Lots of scripture references in there

 

[Alan Gross]

why I said right before He comes. Read the prophets again.

Sounds good.

Makes you think.

Then, wait a minute.

Yeah, read 'em.