Corpus-Paul

[lejeune AT comcast.net]

Nanos wrote:

Sorry about the length; I hope the interested reader will find it useful.

Billy:

I for one am very interested in this discussion, and I find it very useful. Thanks for taking the time.

 

Gallant wrote:

Moreover, Paul speaks in 11.19ff of the breaking off of branches; surely it
is not overstating the case to call this a "fall."

Billy:

It seems to me that he makes this expicit in 11.22 "indeed on the ones having-fallen, severity." Here, it is the same root as in 11.11.

 

Nanos:

...the covenant [of grace] with Israel is still in effect, exemplified in the remnant on behalf of the whole...

 

Remnant might be too strong a word for this. It seems to me that the word means "all that is left" so there is no longer a whole to represent.

 

Nanos:

...those of us who are not content with the replacement theology...

 

Billy:

No doubt by this that you mean that you are opposed to the idea that the church replaces Israel. I can see how that language is offensive. What about the idea that the remnant, rather than representing the whole, becomes (or replaces) the whole?

Is this just as offensive?

 

Thanks,

--
Billy LeJeune
Teacher
Hillsboro School
Franklin, TN