Isa. 59 & Rom. 11 ("and thus all Israel will be saved" in context)

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by asterisktom, Apr 17, 2010.

  1. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    The New Covenant for New Creatures
    Isaiah 59:20-21 - The Gospel according to Isaiah & Paul

    Some Bible topics are hard to write about because they are obscure and based on difficult Scripture. Others -like this topic - are also hard to write about, but for a different reason: The topic is a rich one. The temptation to overflow the outline is a real one. In fact this very passage has its own inspired commentary, Romans 11:25-36. Paul, combing over this very theme of the New Covenant, ends the chapter with his exuberant doxology, v.33-36:

    "Oh, the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!"

    Also - and getting to the point of this article - Paul drew from Isaiah 59:20 and made applications that are often overlooked today.

    Here is Isaiah 59:20-21:

    “The Redeemer will come to Zion,
    And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,”
    Says the LORD.

    "As for Me,” says the LORD, “this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,” says the LORD, “from this time and forevermore.”


    Paul's quotation in Romans 11:25-27:

    For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

    “ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
    And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

    For this is My covenant with them,
    When I take away their sins.”

    Coming or Going?
    This is a good question. In Isaiah we have Christ, Redeemer, coming to Zion. In Romans we have Christ, the Deliverer, coming out of Zion. The answer is - yes. Both. The fact that Paul quoted from the somewhat variant LXX (Septuagint) shouldn't distract us here. Both are true. The Messiah will come to His own, suddenly coming to His Temple. But He will also, through His earthly ministry, resurrection and presence (Parousia) come out of Zion. He will - through the instruments of those who are His - bring the Gospel message to the four corners of the Earth, gathering His elect. These are the "greater works" which Christ promised His followers would achieve - certainly greater in geographic scope.

    Christ will come to Zion, says Isaiah, to those in Jacob who "turn from their transgression". This can easily be misunderstood by those who are not well-read in the Bible as "God helps those who help themselves". But there are many passages that show that we are unable to turn from transgression unless God already has been convicting us. The verse in Isaiah just means Christ will come to His own elect. More on this later in Isaiah.

    And how does the Redeemer turn us from our transgression? By His Spirit and His words. The next verse shows us that His Spirit and His words will never depart from us. The Word of God frees us from ourselves, cleanses us, strengthens us, forms Christ in us. This verse in Isaiah has several cross-references: some earlier in the Old Testament, like Joshua 1:8; others in the New Testament, like John 6:63;17:17; Eph. 5:25-27; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 2:2-8.

    Christ will come out of Zion, says Paul, and He will - and here is a closer look at our salvation than even Isaiah gave us - turn ungodliness away from Jacob. This is much more than the false notion that "God helps those who help themselves". This is: God helps us to desire to help ourselves ourselves. Or, to use another of Paul's verses: He "works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure", Phil. 2:14, and "the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age", Titus 2:11-12.

    All of Zion will be saved.
    Paul's passage is very often misconstrued, as if to say that there will come a time when all of physical Israel will be saved. "But", you might protest, "doesn't Scripture say exactly that?" Yes, it does. But three hermeneutic principals must be kept in mind: Concept, context, cross-reference.

    1. Concept (Or Definition, but that would mess up my alliteration!): What "Israel" did Paul mean when he said "All Israel will be saved"? There are times when he refers to physical Israel, like in Rom. 9:3,

    "my brethren according to the flesh"

    but more often he refers to spiritual Israel. Consider these two passages: Rom. 9:6b-7a and, especially, Rom. 2:27-29

    "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham"

    " And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."

    This last passage from Rom. 2 shows us most clearly who Paul has in mind when he refers to Israel: those who are circumcised in heart, who live according to the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, not the letter that kills.

    2. Context: This is where many, many translations and paraphrases do us a great disservice. How? Well, they effectively isolate "All Israel shall be saved" from the rest of the sentence! Did you know that the original sentence extends both before and after that more famous sound bite? The NIV and others especially separate the previous thought, cutting the sentence up. The sentence should read:

    "For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and so [that is, in this manner] all Israel will be saved..."

    There are two clarifications as to all of Israel's being saved.
    A. It will be "in this manner" - the manner just described in the previous phrase: It will consist of both Jew and Gentile, the latter taking advantage of a blindness of the former. These two groups, Jews and Gentiles will thus make up the total number of the redeemed, the Israel of God.

    B. It will be "as it is written" - according to the the two passages cited by Paul. This brings us down to the third hermeneutic principle.

    3. Cross-reference: This brings us back, first of all, to our original passage in Isaiah as well as to Jeremiah 31:33-34. Actually, some Bibles see the second part of Paul's quotation to be drawn from Isaiah 27:9, but that passage in Jer. 31 seems to fit better.

    At any rate, whether from Isaiah or Jeremiah, the topic is always the New Covenant. This New Covenant is the Spirit of God breathed into us, the words of Christ, enabling ever-growing discernment and joyful obedience. It is Christ in us, the hope of glory. The Word of God dwelling in us richly not only brings out in us not only cheerful, God-praising songs with grace in our hearts, but also enables us to put on Christ more and more completely. This nothing more nor less than our wonderful Christian new life, growing in grace and faith.

    I write all this to show that there is no room in this passage, Romans 11:26a, for this strange notion of all of physical Israel being saved in some future event, by some future stimulus that would have to be contrary to God's usual New Covenant dealing. The Gospel has always been received by faith.

    There will never be a time when a multitude of Jews will be so moved by the supposed sight of the nail-prints our Saviour and then mourn so completely that all will pass over from death unto life. God will not go contrary to His Word. This was the very truth the damned rich man stumbled upon too late: If one is unpersuaded by Moses and the prophets they will not be convinced by One coming from the dead. Whether the One comes from the grave or heaven is actually moot.

    The treasures of our new life in Christ are invisible. That is why they are of faith, 2 Cor 3:18

    "while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal."

    The spiritual Zion that we have been studying in Isaiah is invisible but, for all that, it is even more glorious. This Heavenly Jerusalem in the pages of Scripture grows greater and greater, even as the physical one fade and disappears in a cloud of age-ending judgment.

    Our Zion today is still growing worldwide. Think of it: The greatest city in the world - and it has only one Door - Christ. And there is only one way to this heavenly city and that is through Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

    We don't need to see nail-prints. His word has already pierced our conscience and His Word has healed us and is growing us.
     
    #1 asterisktom, Apr 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 17, 2010
  2. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Deleted, I'll try and be nice.
     
  3. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    asterisktom:

    Well done:thumbs:

    peace to you:praying:
     
  4. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Thank you!
     
  5. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    The above is what is called in laymen's terms "the nub".

    As I have mentined Tom in past postings, I'm a dispensationalist in the process of expanding my horizons and as such studying Riddlebarger. In his book A case for Amillennialsm, page 27 he writes "Dispensationalism is clearly on the wane in academic circles". Of course Riddlebarger is no friend of preterism either but the ratio of ink devoted to slaying the giant (dispies) vs. preterists is fairly large. So, I'm giving you credit for being ahead with respect to the academic curve.

    I enjoy your posts so please don't take me seriously as I'm just an armchair theologian wannabe. But let me say this, I have spent more time and effort by far with Riddlebarger than Ryrie and the more I read, the less inspired I become. I understand you have a difference of opinion with Riddlebarger but I think you have more in common with him than with Chafer as the nub illustrates.

    Take care,

    Thomas
     
  6. asterisktom

    asterisktom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    21
    Thanks for the comments, Tom. I know that there is a lot of similarity between Riddlebarger's beliefs and mine, preterism being a prickly exception. I don't want to overlook those many points of agreement.

    I really do believe that dispensationalism is on the wane. But I am not necessarily enthusiastic about what seems to be replacing it: a wide-spectrum pan-Christianity (downplaying key doctrines), emergent church, and - even within my camp - a "Calvinism" that is often personality-driven ("We are of Sproul. We are of Piper") or merely creedal.
     
  7. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said Sir.

    Realizing that we are talking apples and oranges, I'm beginning to mentally come to the conclusion that Riddlebarger's eschatology is really no eschatology at all. His book is a poor choice for someone looking to learn about Amillinnialism because he is basically writing to people who already are amil. And here I am, just a simple laymen occupying a pew. It is true that I have a secular B.S. degree and I took one (1) class at Philidelphia College of Bible in the early 1990s. But I'm not anything like what a knowledgable person should be for having been a born again Christian for almost 35 years.

    True confession, I have experienced periods lasting several years that I didn't read one verse of the Bible. The Lord though pulls me back into his loving arms. From the beginning, even before I accepted the Lord as my Savior and even before I had any concept of doctrine, I had this personal need to know the basis of the Christian faith. One day, before I knew what the gospel was or even knew a christian personally, I got into my car and went to a Christian bookstore and bought a Bible. This was the beginning of my on again/off again quest to understand what God really expects from me.

    So, I study theology on my own as I don't know anyone (even my pastor whom I've known and loved for over 20 years) who spends as much time trying to understand the various schools of thought. Not that I've come very far in this quest. But I cannot accept as an answer to a question, an answer such as "historical protestant teaching has always held..." or "the reformers believed....". No, God gave us a book and He wants us to study it and He wouldn't have given us this book only to confuse us.

    In times past, when God acted, it was a spectacular event. When the Red Sea parted, when the walls of Jericho fell, when the flood came, it was spectacular. And these events had different meaning to folks based on their standing before God. So, when The Lord Jesus returns for his own, it will be spectacular, just as the Bible says.

    And that Sir, is my opinion on the matter.

    Take care,
    Tom
     
    #7 thomas15, Apr 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2010
  8. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    May I recommend 2 books that shook my world, very similar to the world you are now in. This book changed me radically as soon as I began reading it: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0915815354/?tag=baptis04-20

    It not only taught me eschatology from a different perspective it taught me how to interpret the Bible. Something our good SBC pastors never seem to get around to doing.

    Once I absorbed that book, I then took the next logical step which is found here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0938855263/?tag=baptis04-20

    These are two cornerstone books for me. I promise you you will not be bored reading these two gems. In fact, I think in the revised edition of Who is this Babylon, he takes on Riddlebarger's Amillinnialism. Food for thought.


    Actually he takes on Riddlebarger in this revised book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0979933765/?tag=baptis04-20
     
    #8 Grasshopper, Apr 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2010
  9. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Grasshopper,

    I appreciate your taking the time to respond. From reading the reviews on Amazon I get the impression that the books you recommend are preterest. Correct me if I'm wrong. What I want to do is crack one nut at a time and that is Amillennialism. My complaints with Riddlebarger preaching to the choir isn't as much of a problem for me personally as I have quite a few of the books in his footnotes and can read the source material in context for myself. I started reading this book 7 weeks ago and still have about 2o pages to go. It is slow and tedious work to comprehend the discussion and fully digest everything. When I'm done, hopefully by the end of the week, I'm going to have to re-read it to fill-in some of the blanks. It is an enlightning book but not for the reasons I immagine the author envisioned.

    What Riddlebarger does though is takes a concept like the "already-not yet" doctrine, explains it in a few short paragraphs which fails to convince me, then he builds his entire case based on agreement with this baseline doctrine.

    To me there is a difference between being concise and accesssable and fluffing over an important doctrine. Without going into specifics, he does what he accuses his opponents of, that is playing fast and loose with the facts and he misrepresents his opponents theology as a matter of practice. Some of what he writes is in my opinion borderline unchristian. And you would think that due to his chosen subject, there would be some discussion about the dispensationalist view on the tribulation. There really isn't much on this.

    Riddlebarger, like many non-dispensationalist take the Tim LaHays of the world to task for their end times views. While I have not read the left behind books, I do know that they are fictional accounts and yet they are being treated as theology.

    I do have the Tim LaHay Prophecy Study Bible and if LaHay was a date setter, one would think that this would be the place for him to do it. He does not, and in a discussion about the modern state of Israel, a time-line of the Zionist movement is given but there is no commitment to the concept that the present state of Israel is "it". There are no ( i think) refrences or footnotes citing LaHay or Jenkins and maybe one or two to Lindsey in a book with 1000s of footnotes, what does that tell you?

    I hope that I'm not coming across as a shill for a doctrine. I'm truly trying to understand Amill and in time will address preterism. I'm also looking into the early church fathers as my main question has more to do with the question of "true Israel" and not the 1000 years.

    Have a great day,
    Tom
     
  10. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
  11. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom,
    To try to get back on topic (sorry for taking this thread on a joy-ride). This is what you are asking me to believe, I add words in italics to make a point:

    Acts 1:4-12

    4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave spiritual Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

    5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

    6 So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to spiritual Israel?"

    7 He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

    8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in spiritual Jerusalem, and in all spiritual Judea and spiritual Samaria, and to the ends of the spiritual earth."

    9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

    10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.

    11 "Men of spiritual Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

    12 Then they returned to spiritual Jerusalem from the hill called the spiritual Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day's walk from the spiritual city.

    In my opinion, if you are going to apply spiritual to some things, why not to everything, would not consistency demand it? Is this correct? No? If the deciples were standing on a literal mound of olives [vs. 12] in a literal city [vs.4] in a literal country of Israel [vs.4], then why not a literal kingdom [vs.6]?

    Thanks,
    Thomas
     
  12. Edward 1689er

    Edward 1689er
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Messages:
    141
    Likes Received:
    0
    In this verse the apostle Paul clearly connects the future conversion of the Jews with the expectation of the Second Coming of Christ.
     
  13. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    IMO, the Holy Spirit makes a clear distinction between spiritual and physical Israel throughout the scriptures in the simple distinction that there is NEVER any condemnation on spiritual Israel, but physical Israel is cursed in every way. Period. Only comfort to spiritual Israel. :)
     
    #13 kyredneck, Apr 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2010
  14. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Go ahead Brother, make your case. You have my complete attention.
     
  15. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    Well Brother, I really don't know how to begin to make my case; maybe start with the book of Isaiah. I don't believe it to be a coincidence that Isaiah is 66 chapters long which coincides with the 66 books of the the Bible, and that the 40th chapter begins with 'Comfort ye, comfort ye my people', as opposed to the previous 39 chapters which are filled with doom and gloom. :)
     
  16. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Tom I'm sure can give a more scholarly response than this, but here are a few thoughts.

    There is a clear usage of type/anti-type found in scriptures. Physical events, peoples, activities point to future spiritual realities. That is what the Old Covenant was, a physical type of future spiritual realities. Law written on stone points to Law written on the heart, circumcision of the flesh points to circumcision of the heart, etc......(see Hebrews). So also the nation of Israel typifies the spiritual fulfillment that is the Church.

    Paul in Galations 4 tells us that the physical Jerusalem was representative of the Old Covenant and in bondage under the Law. However he shows us that there is a New Jerusalem that is "the mother of us all". That heavenly Jerusalem is the new covenant aka Mt. Zion. You have come to Mt Zion: http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-hebrews-12-22-24.htm


    You asked this:

    Could not the same question be asked of those on the other side? Are we to say this is not spiritual water:

    Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
    Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
    Joh 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

    Is this a different water than what is found in Revelation:

    Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

    This water comes from a river that flows from the Throne of God. (Rev 22:1)

    The Throne of God found in the New Jerusalem:

    Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

    This New Jerusalem is the Church:

    Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
    Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

    Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
    Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

    It seems as the Old transfered into the New so also the nature changed from physical to spiritual.

    Paul shows us this by identifying who is a descendant of Abraham:

    Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

    We are Israel.

    1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

    You said this:



    1st, Daniel tells us when the Kingdom was to come. Secondly how would one not see a physical Kingdom?

    Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:


     
  17. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do understand my Brother your situation. One of the complaints I have with Dr. Riddlebbarger is he starts out by informing the novice reader that everyone sees their theology through a lens of conditioning (my paraphrase). What he doesn't say is that everyone doesn't include himself.

    I like a theological debate just as much as anyone else. While dispensationalism isn't perfect, it tries to be consistant as much as possible and literal when possible. At the end of the day though it's what the Bible teaches, not a systematic theology book.

    It is hard to change views held for years, i know. And it isn't easy to be the object of ridicule and it's easy to ridicule dispensationalist. What I don't care for personally is the person, like Riddlebarger who states from the start that he used to be a dispensationalist as if that has some extra bamm. No, take in the arguements, weigh all the data and make a decision. If a better arguement comes along, modify as necessary. I'm finally at the point in my life that I don't feel the need to "win" every arguement as long as I'm not loosing the arguement I have with myself.

    While I think there isn't enough emphasis on theology these days, the real issue is are confessing you need and are you trusting in the shed blood of the only Son of God?

    Grasshopper, I will read your post later.

    Thaks,
    Thomas
     
  18. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,569
    Likes Received:
    276
    I'm sorry Thomas, I've never read Dr. Riddlebbarger, so I can't relate with you on this. I may expand my horizons though, but if I do, I think I'll begin with Sproul.

    Amen Brother, be true to yourself (in your case it'll most likely be the Spirit).
     
  19. AnotherBaptist

    AnotherBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    What bothers me more as a pre-miller more than what you stated above is exactly "how" some of these people supposedly "held" to their former position of dispensationalism in the first place. When I dig deeper, I sometimes find out that they really had no hermeneutical foundation for it at all. They had just read "books". Swayed by whatever "winds" were blowing behind them from reading those "books", they accumulate teachers who match their currently favored pre-suppositions. Of course, the same can be said of others who hold other eschatological positions also.

    It wasn't this way with me. My foundational hermeneutics were founded and grounded as pre-mill from the starting gate over 35 years ago. To me it was simple (as God says He uses to confound the world). There was an Israel in the Old Testament who were given Promises. God is either done with them or He isn't. He will either fulfill those promises to that "Israel" or He won't. For me, adhering to the literal/historical/grammatical method of interpretation and contexts founded on that hermeneutic have never failed me. Anything else associated with pre-mil (dispensationalism, "rapture" timing, etc.) is a matter of constant testing and revisiting by me and will continue to be so.

    You sound like you are seeking that "peace" like I was. I hope you find it. I have. :)
     
  20. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    And this Sir brings us back to my post #5, the "nub".
     

Share This Page

Loading...