Why do Calvinists on this board think my arguments are "new"???

You are focusing on the provocation, my post was on the equivalent meaning of jealous and zealous. Still, to provoke as a verb wouldn't it be such that it speaks as to an outside stimulus. The renewal of the 'zealous' spirit would be such IMO that it would reawaken the Jew to the truth of Christ through the Gospel. Now, this would also be accomplished (or could be) through Christ's admonish to them to search the scriptures, for they are that which testify of me.

God Bless.
Bro. dallas

 

1. Sorry, I missed the point made by your exposition of the Greek. As I said, I am a hill-billy. Still, I think it goes deeper than this. Forgive me for not having already done so, but I will begin to perform a more in depth study. Thanks for your post.

2. What I mean to say here is that Christ satisfied each sacrifice detailed and offered in the O.T. In view of this, even in the O.T. the Jew bringing a sin-offering, peace-offering, etc. would have necessarily looked beyond these offerings to the final ultimate completion of them in that one promised to them (beginning with the promise to Adam, following through to the prophecy of Moses concerning him). Without this, the offerings would have had not carried the effect of atonement, nor renewal of fellowship. (Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Service )

To say that the Jew had a clear view of the purpose of God would be incorrect; but I believe this would be comparable to those of the N.T. who were looking for and expecting the Messiah and recognized his presence in the child as being the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (9.6), these being represented by Anna and Simeon. It is for this reason that Paul speaks of the 'advantage' of the Jew; Rom. 3.1-3. You have rightly mentioned Rom. 10, in as much as this was necessary in order for the Gentile to be brought in (unless I am mistaken, the Gentile could only offer a sin offering in the O.T. dispensation, economy or what ever we call it, is this right?).

God Bless.
Bro. dallas

 

Something to that effect. The O.T. sacrifices were shadows of the N.T. sacrifice. The Jew, if ever he was atoned in the O.T. was not atoned because of the sacrifice that he or she brought, but by the belief that this sacrifice would some day be completed in the messiah. This one would take the office of the priest and the sacrifice to the completion, making them one in satisfaction to God.

Hope that helps.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

ok, maybe I am too zealous

The truth as I see it is that the Jew had fallen into acceptance that it was the present sacrificial system that produced the reconciliation of the Messiah.

Perhaps it is difficult because you are attempting to tie your belief system to a particular scripture and for this reason are only seeing the tree instead of the forest. (this would be acceptable if you were a logger ). On the other hand, perhaps I am viewing so much of the forest I am unable to see the 'tree.' However, in order to recognize the individual truths that are taught in Scripture it is true that we must place them in light of the rest of the revealed text, correct?

OK, then it follows, in my way of thinking that the O.T. sacrificial system is relevant here because the apostle is speaking concerning the Jews; and this ties Rom. 11 to the entire Jewish system of sacrifices and worship of the Temple etc.

Because of this view, which I admit may only be my own, it is impossible for me to approach such scripture as at Rom 11 apart from drawing on the limited knowledge I possess of the O.T. system.

I am sorry for any confusion this system creates among all the readers here, but this is the approach I take, I have yet been unable to break from it.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Does this help?

. . .
. ... .
. . .

These are the first dots I have posted, maybe you need an eye exam?

Bro. Dallas

 

No, when I put them into the posting screen, they were the figure of H I something happened and they did not turn out that way though. I am working on your 'may' apple proposal. I still believe the 'should' is indicative of the future perfect, well we will discuss it there.

Bro. Dallas