What is meant by being "grafted in" and "cut off?"

[Aaron]

I'm 99.999% in agreement with you, I think. So are you thinking the vine of Jn 15 and the tree (or root) of Ro 11 are the same?

The same idea from different points of view, yes.

 

[kyredneck]

This is where you take the allegory too far. It's kind of like taking the Parable of the Unjust Judge too far and concluding that God only answers our prayers to get us off His back. The point of the parable was to pray and not grow weary of it, even though from our point of view God has turned a deaf ear to us.

The point of Paul's allegory is that the Israel of God is made up of people from all families of the earth, that they who stand, stand by faith, and that God is no respecter of persons. You say you're a jew? So what? God can make jews of these rocks laying here.



From our point of view, the corrupt natural branches appeared to have been a part of the Israel of God all along, and are simply being cut off now because of the Gospel. The temptation of people from other families is to think the jews were cut off to make room for them, but Paul is plain, they were cut off because of unbelief. It isn't that they believed and then quit believing. They had always abided in unbelief, though they reaped the carnal benefits of the blessings of God under the Old Testament, e.g., prosperity, safety, nobility, etc. But now the judgment of God has come upon their unbelief. It's now apparent that the law and the prophets have been fulfilled, and though they once knew Christ by the flesh, they now know Him that way no more, 2 Cor. 5:16. There is no more temple, no more sacrifice, no more priesthood. No one may approach that way anymore.

Those in unbelief never were a part of the Israel of God. But the tree is being purged and the wild olive branches, sheep not of this fold, are being grafted in. So all Israel will be saved.


No, and even naturally speaking that's a reach. If that were the case it would seem the people would be better represented not as branches, but as gleaners picking the fruit.

Stand. IOW pleasing to God. Living justly.

Abiding in the tree, yes. It's the root, Christ, that bears us, and the Spirit that gives us life.

No. Being cut off is a judgment.

Excellent.

 

[Skandelon]

This is where you take the allegory too far. It's kind of like taking the Parable of the Unjust Judge too far and concluding that God only answers our prayers to get us off His back. The point of the parable was to pray and not grow weary of it, even though from our point of view God has turned a deaf ear to us.

Well, I'm not taking the analogy anywhere, I'm just asking questions about your conclusion. I now understand that you see the tree as true Israel, Christ as the root and the Spirit as the sustenance, but you think it goes too far to think that Paul is saying men are attached and then cut off of this tree/root/sustenance.

The point of Paul's allegory is that the Israel of God is made up of people from all families of the earth, that they who stand, stand by faith, and that God is no respecter of persons. You say you're a jew? So what? God can make jews of these rocks laying here.

I actually don't have a problem referring to the tree as true Israel, because as I stated earlier, I believe the tree represent the means through which God reveals himself. Just as man needs a conduit (prophets, scripture, apostles, church etc) by which God communicates to us, so too a branch needs a tree and root to receive its sustenance.

So, when Paul speaks of Jews being cut off, he is saying that they have been refusing his holding out his hands all day long (Rom 10:21), thus they have had the revelation but have refused it and grown hard to it, so its being cut off. No more revelation. This is why Israel is blinded from the gospel (spirit of stupor, parabolic language). But, this is a temporary hardening. They can be provoked to jealousy by the Gentiles and come to faith (Rm 11:14). They can leave their unbelief and be grafted back in (join the church) and here God's revelation again.

The Gentiles have not been getting the special revelation of God all these years, but now it is being sent to them (grafted in to the revelation by which they too can enter covenant), and they are hardened to it, "they will listen." (Acts 28:28) But if they do what Israel did and rebel against the revelation they too might be cut off from the revelation (tree).

No. Being cut off is a judgment.

Do you believe its a permanent judgement meant for non-elect ones? Or do you believe as kyredneck stated earlier that being cut off is a merciful act of discipline which could lead some to salvation?

 

[Aaron]

Excellent.

:thumbs: Thank you!

 

[Aaron]

I actually don't have a problem referring to the tree as true Israel,

Well, yeah you do, because you assert that the branches are nations, not the tree. And because you contradict it with your next statement: "... because as I stated earlier, I believe the tree represent the means through which God reveals himself."

But there's more: You must believe in plural Israels, because the natural branches being cut off are plural.

It's obvious the branches are individuals, the tree is a nation, and the root is Christ. In a variation of this theme, as kyredneck pointed out, Christ said, "Ye are the branches."

So, when Paul speaks of Jews being cut off, he is saying that they have been refusing his holding out his hands all day long (Rom 10:21), thus they have had the revelation but have refused it and grown hard to it, so its being cut off. No more revelation. This is why Israel is blinded from the gospel (spirit of stupor, parabolic language). But, this is a temporary hardening. They can be provoked to jealousy by the Gentiles and come to faith (Rm 11:14). They can leave their unbelief and be grafted back in (join the church) and here God's revelation again.

Not only is this a reach, and quite removed from the context of Romans, but it's an interpretation forced upon it by a fallacious eschatology. You have to assume a future for political, geographical and natural Israel. It's over. The OT is done. All political, geographical and natural Israel is these days is antichrist. There is a New Nation now. A Holy Nation, a Royal Priesthood, and that is the Body of Christ, the children of Abraham by faith.

But Israel hasn't been cast off. Paul holds his own conversion up as proof of that. He is a natural branch, but he stands by faith. So Israel hasn't been cut off. Only those who don't stand by faith are cut off.

The Gentiles have not been getting the special revelation of God all these years, but now it is being sent to them (grafted in to the revelation by which they too can enter covenant), and they are hardened to it, "they will listen." (Acts 28:28) But if they do what Israel did and rebel against the revelation they too might be cut off from the revelation (tree).

Again, the tree is the Israel of God, and the branches are believers.

Do you believe its a permanent judgement meant for non-elect ones? Or do you believe as kyredneck stated earlier that being cut off is a merciful act of discipline which could lead some to salvation?

The Spirit didn't say non-elect. It said natural. I can only say what the Scriptures say, and they say that God is able to graft the natural branches back in.

 

[kyredneck]

The same idea from different points of view, yes.

Concerning the similarities between the similes given in Jn 15 & Ro 11, the thought occurred to me (during Church service yesterday) the it requirs 'the husbandman' of Jn 15 to perform the 'grafting in and cutting off' of Ro 11.

 

[Skandelon]

Well, yeah you do, because you assert that the branches are nations, not the tree. And because you contradict it with your next statement: "... because as I stated earlier, I believe the tree represent the means through which God reveals himself."

But there's more: You must believe in plural Israels, because the natural branches being cut off are plural.

It's obvious the branches are individuals, the tree is a nation, and the root is Christ. In a variation of this theme, as kyredneck pointed out, Christ said, "Ye are the branches."

Actually, I stated very early in this discussion that nations are made up of individuals, thus I have no problem with us applying these concepts to individuals as they relate to the nations being addressed.

So, lets take an individual Jew through the process.

1. God sends him prophets, priests, kings and scriptures...He holds out his hands to him (Rm. 10:21) desiring to gather him but he is unwilling (Matt 23:37). =This BRANCH is grafted in at this point.

2. His heart grows calloused and hardened to the revelation of God.

3. God sends the messiah, but keeps this Jew in darkness (hardens him so he can't see the obvious truth). = This BRANCH is cut off from the revelation

4. The Jew sees the change in the Gentile believers and is provoked by envy. His will is provoked and he examines the truth of the gospel. He believes and is grafted back in. = This "natural" BRANCH is grafted back into the tree

See, I'm fine with taking this individually. Why wouldn't I be?

And the reason I have no problem with the tree being viewed as "true Israel" is because Israel is the means through which God revealed himself for generations, and as I stated, I believe the tree represents the revelation by which men can relate (covenant) with God.

Not only is this a reach, and quite removed from the context of Romans, but it's an interpretation forced upon it by a fallacious eschatology.

It may appear that way for you because you have grown so accustom to interpreting this passage from your perspective. I assure you though, it looks as "forced" and stretched to those from the other side.

You have to assume a future for political, geographical and natural Israel. It's over. The OT is done. All political, geographical and natural Israel is these days is antichrist. There is a New Nation now. A Holy Nation, a Royal Priesthood, and that is the Body of Christ, the children of Abraham by faith.

I'm not sure how this relates to my view.

But Israel hasn't been cast off. Paul holds his own conversion up as proof of that. He is a natural branch, but he stands by faith. So Israel hasn't been cut off. Only those who don't stand by faith are cut off.

I agree. Paul, like the Jew in the example above was hardened and "cut off" while he was still Saul. But, a remnant from Israel was specifically chosen by God to take the message of reconciliation to the rest of the world. Paul was one of those Jews. God lifted his hardening and used effectual means (not some irresistible inward calling, but outward clear signs) to ensure his messenger would take this message to the Gentiles.

Proof that God effectually calls his divinely appointed messengers (using outward means) is not proof that God effectually calls certain individuals in their audience (through secret inward means).

Again, the tree is the Israel of God, and the branches are believers.

Even the branches who are cut off?

I would say that ingrafted branches are potential believers, while cut off branches are in rebellion and need to be provoked.

 

[Aaron]

And the reason I have no problem with the tree being viewed as "true Israel" is because Israel is the means through which God revealed himself for generations, and as I stated, I believe the tree represents the revelation by which men can relate (covenant) with God.

So you equate the Church or the Nation with divine revelation? That's like saying a child is the act which brought him into being. You have grown so accustomed to bending the Scriptures into pretzels that you don't even recognize when you form self-contradictory and mutually disqualifying conclusions.

[snip extraneous verbage]

It may appear that way for you because you have grown so accustom to interpreting this passage from your perspective. I assure you though, it looks as "forced" and stretched to those from the other side.

No doubt, but my interpretation is a better fit to the straightforward reading of the passage and its position in the book.

Even the branches who are cut off?

The unbelievers are cut off. They're not in the tree.

I would say that ingrafted branches are potential believers, while cut off branches are in rebellion and need to be provoked.

So, God just substituted one set of unbelievers for another? Well, then I say the tree is the North Pole and the branches are Santa's elves. I mean if we're going to completely disconnect ourselves from the passage we might as well go all out.

 

[Aaron]

Concerning the similarities between the similes given in Jn 15 & Ro 11, the thought occurred to me (during Church service yesterday) the it requirs 'the husbandman' of Jn 15 to perform the 'grafting in and cutting off' of Ro 11.

Indubitably. :thumbs:

 

[Skandelon]

So you equate the Church or the Nation with divine revelation? That's like saying a child is the act which brought him into being. You have grown so accustomed to bending the Scriptures into pretzels that you don't even recognize when you form self-contradictory and mutually disqualifying conclusions.

I'm not sure you really understand my conclusion. I'm not EQUATING the church or Israel with divine revelation. I'm saying that these things (church/Israel) are the means through which God reveals himself. This finding is not unique to me either. Even Gill, a noted Calvinistic scholar, wrote:

This is to be understood, not of the exclusion of the Jews from their national church; for the persons designed by the "branches", were the principal members of it, as the civil and ecclesiastical rulers, the priests, Scribes, and Pharisees, and the far greater part of the people; and on the other hand, the apostles and followers of Christ were put out of their synagogues, and deemed by them heretics and apostates: nor of the destruction of the Jewish nation, city, and temple; for as yet they existed as a nation, their city of Jerusalem was in being, and their temple standing: but of their being left out of the Gospel church, gathered among them, they not believing in the Messiah, but rejected and crucified him; and though afterwards the Gospel was preached to them, they despise it, contradicted, and blasphemed it; so that it pleased God to take it wholly away from them, when they might be truly said to be, "as branches broken off"; which phrase seems to be borrowed from ( Jeremiah 11:16 ) ; they were withered, lifeless, and hopeless, being cast off by God, and neglected by his ministers, the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation: and this was the case of the generality of the people; for though the apostle only says "some", making the best of it in their favour against the Gentiles, and speaking in the softest terms; yet they were only a few, a seed, a remnant, that were taken into the Gospel church, and the rest were blinded, hardened, rejected, and left out for their unbelief:

So, while his soteriology is clearly different, he too sees the tree in same respect that I have presented.

No doubt, but my interpretation is a better fit to the straightforward reading of the passage and its position in the book...The unbelievers are cut off. They're not in the tree.

But if they were cut off, that means they were once attached, which throws a wrench in that so called "straightforward reading of the passage."

So, God just substituted one set of unbelievers for another?

That is not what I said. Please at least attempt to understand my point of view, even if you disagree with it. Israel had been receiving God's special revelation and many rebelled against it for generations and grew calloused, so he binds them over to be hardened/blinded/cut off, and sends the message to the Gentiles "because they will listen." (Acts 28:28 <--- Read this). Jews are thus being hardened or "cut off," while Gentiles are being grafted in.

Well, then I say the tree is the North Pole and the branches are Santa's elves. I mean if we're going to completely disconnect ourselves from the passage we might as well go all out.

I'm presenting a scholarly non-Calvinistic rendering of Romans 11 (some of which is more consistent with Calvinistic scholars than your view); and you resort to patronizing and demeaning retorts? Really? Is that necessary? This reveals a lack of maturity and objectiveness on your part and does nothing to further our discussion.

 

[Aaron]

But if they were cut off, that means they were once attached, which throws a wrench in that so called "straightforward reading of the passage."

You're not presented with a tree with all its natural branches intact. When Paul puts the tree before us, it has had many of the natural branches removed and the wild branches grafted in. That's the tree that's presented.

I can go further and say that there was a time when there was no root, just an olive pit. Can I say there was a time when there was no Christ?

Deal with the picture that Paul painted. Don't add or take away from it.

 

[Aaron]

I'm not sure you really understand my conclusion. I'm not EQUATING the church or Israel with divine revelation. I'm saying that these things (church/Israel) are the means through which God reveals himself.

I think that if you really knew what you were trying to say, you would be more consistent. You said, and I quote:

Couldn't it just be that the tree represents the revelation of God by which men respond either in faith or unbelief? [Note: you did not say means, you said the tree was the revelation.] Special revelation came through Israel thus making them the natural branches, but now the revelation is coming through the church which the Gentiles are joining in great numbers...being grafted into the revelation of God so as to respond either in his "kindness" or in unbelief and pride.[And so people are branches grafted into a revelation?]
​

You don't know what the heck you're talking about and you're just simply revising it as you go.

This finding is not unique to me either. Even Gill, a noted Calvinistic scholar, wrote:

So, while his soteriology is clearly different, he too sees the tree in same respect that I have presented.

Holy Cow. Gill just seconded my opinion, and you think he is saying what you said?

That is not what I said.

Yes, it is. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "potential." Besides, you said earlier that the wild branches grafted in are the gentiles who may respond to the "tree of revelation" or not.

Please at least attempt to understand my point of view, even if you disagree with it.

All I have are your words, and they are ambiguous and contradictory. If I have a hard time understanding your point of view, don't blame me.

 

[J.D.]

This is where you take the allegory too far. It's kind of like taking the Parable of the Unjust Judge too far and concluding that God only answers our prayers to get us off His back. The point of the parable was to pray and not grow weary of it, even though from our point of view God has turned a deaf ear to us.

The point of Paul's allegory is that the Israel of God is made up of people from all families of the earth, that they who stand, stand by faith, and that God is no respecter of persons. You say you're a jew? So what? God can make jews of these rocks laying here.



From our point of view, the corrupt natural branches appeared to have been a part of the Israel of God all along, and are simply being cut off now because of the Gospel. The temptation of people from other families is to think the jews were cut off to make room for them, but Paul is plain, they were cut off because of unbelief. It isn't that they believed and then quit believing. They had always abided in unbelief, though they reaped the carnal benefits of the blessings of God under the Old Testament, e.g., prosperity, safety, nobility, etc. But now the judgment of God has come upon their unbelief. It's now apparent that the law and the prophets have been fulfilled, and though they once knew Christ by the flesh, they now know Him that way no more, 2 Cor. 5:16. There is no more temple, no more sacrifice, no more priesthood. No one may approach that way anymore.

Those in unbelief never were a part of the Israel of God. But the tree is being purged and the wild olive branches, sheep not of this fold, are being grafted in. So all Israel will be saved.


No, and even naturally speaking that's a reach. If that were the case it would seem the people would be better represented not as branches, but as gleaners picking the fruit.

Stand. IOW pleasing to God. Living justly.

Abiding in the tree, yes. It's the root, Christ, that bears us, and the Spirit that gives us life.

No. Being cut off is a judgment.

I would like to join KYredneck in commending this excellent post!

 

[Skandelon]

You're not presented with a tree with all its natural branches intact. When Paul puts the tree before us, it has had many of the natural branches removed and the wild branches grafted in. That's the tree that's presented.

I can go further and say that there was a time when there was no root, just an olive pit. Can I say there was a time when there was no Christ?

Deal with the picture that Paul painted. Don't add or take away from it.

Sure, any analogy can go beyond its given intent. I agree with that assertion. And the idea of the preexistence of Christ is CLEARLY not the intent of the analogy, so this would be a good example of taking the analogy too far. But, the concept of branches being cut off this tree is not nearly so far fetched considering that it actually says they could be cut off and some had indeed been cut off. How that would even come close to correlating with the example of Christ, the root, not preexisting is beyond me.

By your interpretation, they couldn't have been really cut off from the tree because it would be taking the analogy too far to even suggest that they were really ever attached to begin with. I'm sorry, but that is not willing to read the clear intent of the analogy. What else could be meant regarding being cut off if it doesn't imply they were once attached? What are they cut off of if not the tree?

 

[Skandelon]

I think that if you really knew what you were trying to say, you would be more consistent. You said, and I quote:

First, allow me to thank you for providing my actual quote. I think that helps the discussion and it sure beats the generalized accusations. I apologize if I wasn't clear. But I think you will see and understand my intent if you look a little more closely at the quote you provided:

Couldn't it just be that the tree represents the revelation of God by which men respond either in faith or unbelief? [Note: you did not say means, you said the tree was the revelation.] Special revelation came through Israel thus making them the natural branches, but now the revelation is coming through the church which the Gentiles are joining in great numbers...being grafted into the revelation of God so as to respond either in his "kindness" or in unbelief and pride.[And so people are branches grafted into a revelation?]
​

Notice the sentence I emboldened. It says the revelation CAME THROUGH Israel/Church. As I'm sure you know, the word 'through' is a indication of the MEANS by which something comes. That was what I was intending to communicate, if it was unclear, I apologize. Maybe you understand now?

In post 43 I also expounded saying, "I actually don't have a problem referring to the tree as true Israel, because as I stated earlier, I believe the tree represent the means through which God reveals himself. Just as man needs a conduit (prophets, scripture, apostles, church etc) by which God communicates to us, so too a branch needs a tree and root to receive its sustenance." And it was to this quote you accused me of equating "the Church or the Nation with divine revelation." I think you just misunderstood, but now hopefully you are understanding.

You don't know what the heck you're talking about and you're just simply revising it as you go.

Is this necessary? I'm trying to have a civil conversation about teachings of scripture with a fellow brother in Christ. Can we treat each other with the love and respect those scriptures clearly teach us to employ with each other?

Holy Cow. Gill just seconded my opinion, and you think he is saying what you said?

Then maybe we aren't understanding each other very well. You are very clearly saying that the tree doesn't represent the special revelation of God and the gospel would be the foremost of all God's revelations, yet Gill clearly states that there being cut off is in reference to the "gospel church" and goes on to say: "the Gospel was preached to them, they despise it, contradicted, and blasphemed it; so that it pleased God to take it wholly away from them,[what is he taking away from them? The gospel, which is the special revelation of God] when they might be truly said to be, "as branches broken off"; which phrase seems to be borrowed from ( Jeremiah 11:16 ) ; they were withered, lifeless, and hopeless, being cast off by God, and neglected by his ministers, the Gospel being removed from them, and they without the means of grace and salvation [again, what has been removed from those who are "cut off"? THE GOSPEL, the REVELATION OF GOD and the MEANS of SALVATION.]

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "potential." Besides, you said earlier that the wild branches grafted in are the gentiles who may respond to the "tree of revelation" or not.

Well the POTENTIAL of them being CUT OFF is presented by the analogy, not me: "21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off."

Now, either those INDIVIDUALS who have been grafted in have the POTENTIAL of being cut off, or Paul is bluffing rending this analogy and warning meaningless.

All I have are your words, and they are ambiguous and contradictory. If I have a hard time understanding your point of view, don't blame me.

These are confusing matters and I understand that misunderstanding will happen, but if we are objectively attempting to engage with each other in an honest discussion I think we can better understand each other's perspective. Despite your perception, I have not contradicted myself, you have simply misunderstood me. I will attempt to be more clear if you will attempt to read ALL that I say and try to fully understand my point before prematurely drawing conclusions.

Blessings to you.

 

[Aaron]

The Gospel Church is an entity. It's the tree. The operations of the church are not represented. The church does not graft in or cut off. It's the Father Who does that.

We simply have the Israel of God, the Church, in three parts; the root, the fatness and the branches. The branches are from all the families of the earth, they stand by faith, and God is no respecter of persons.

That's all there is and there ain't no more.

I see no reason to persue unwarranted speculation. :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

The Gospel Church is an entity. It's the tree. The operations of the church are not represented.

The gospel is an "operation" of the church and as Gill explains, that is what has been removed from those cut off. How is what he says in agreement with your view?

The church does not graft in or cut off. It's the Father Who does that.

We agree on this point. Why would you think we wouldn't?

We simply have the Israel of God, the Church, in three parts; the root, the fatness and the branches. The branches are from all the families of the earth, they stand by faith, and God is no respecter of persons.

That's all there is and there ain't no more

So, you disagree with Gill on this point, right?

I see no reason to persue unwarranted speculation. :wavey:

Are you calling Gill's words "unwarranted speculation?" I just want to be clear before you bail on our discussion again.

 

[Aaron]

The gospel is an "operation" of the church and as Gill explains, that is what has been removed from those cut off. How is what he says in agreement with your view?

Don't turn it around. It is they who have been removed from the Gospel church. He does not present it as an operation, he presents it as an entity made up of believing jews with gentiles grafted in.

The Gospel church is so called for its excellency the olive tree being a choice tree, as they were a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; for its fruitfulness, bringing forth berries that are wholesome, delightful, and useful, so the saints are filled with the fruits of grace, and good works, which are by Christ to the praise and glory of God; for its beauty when laden with fruit, so a Gospel church is beautiful maintaining the purity of Gospel doctrine, discipline, worship and conversation; "his beauty shall be as the olive tree", ( Hosea 14:6 ) ; see ( Jeremiah 11:16 ) ; and for its verdure and durableness, and growing on the mountains, all which may denote the continuance and firmness of the church of Christ. Now the Gentiles being grafted into a Gospel church state with the believing Jews, partook of the same root and fatness as they did, being built upon the same "foundation of the apostles prophets", ( Ephesians 2:20 ) ; rooted, grounded, and built up in the same church state they enjoyed the same privileges, had the doctrines of Christ and his apostles preached to them, communicated with them in the ordinances of the Gospel, and were satisfied with the goodness and fatness of the house of God; for they became "fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel", ( Ephesians 3:6 )
​

The Gospel church is the Israel of God as Gill, and I, understand Galatians 6:16:

which is a further description of the persons, for whom he prays for these blessings; and is not to be understood by way of distinction from them, but as an amplification of their character; and as pointing out the Israel, by way of emphasis, the Israel, or Israelites indeed, the spiritual Israel, as distinct from Israel according to the flesh; see ( 1 Corinthians 10:18 ) . The "Israel of God", or as the Arabic version reads it, "Israel the propriety of God"; which he has a right unto, and a claim upon; who are chosen by him, Israel his elect; who are redeemed by him, out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation; who are called by his grace, and are styled Israel his called; who are justified in his Son, and by his righteousness; and for whose sake he is exalted as a Prince and a Saviour, to give them repentance and remission of sin; and who are, or will be saved by him, with an everlasting salvation; and is a name that includes all God's elect, whether Jews or Gentiles: though it may have a particular respect to such of the Israelites, or Jews, God had foreknown and reserved for himself; and who believed in Christ, and walked as new creatures, without confidence in the flesh.
​

It is clear that the tree represents an entity, and it is doubly clear that Gil expounds upon it as such. Just as Christ is the true Priest, Offering and Altar, The Gospel church is the true Israel, the true propriety of God, not national nor geo-political Israel.

So, you disagree with Gill on this point, right?

Not at all. He and I said exactly the same thing.

Are you calling Gill's words "unwarranted speculation?" I just want to be clear before you bail on our discussion again.

You weren't clear on what Gil was saying, how can you be clear on what I'm saying?

 

[Aaron]

I would like to join KYredneck in commending this excellent post!

Very kind of you to say so, sir. :type:

 

[Skandelon]

Don't turn it around.

Nothing is being turned around Aaron. I quoted him directly and he clearly states that those being cut off have "the Gospel (means of revelation) being removed from them," which is the point I was seeking to prove in providing the Gill quote. Not to mention, the point you ridiculed me for making.

The Gospel church is the Israel of God as Gill, and I, understand

And if you read back through my posts you will see that is not even a point of contention with me. I affirmed that the tree was representative of Israel and the church. I just went on to affirm that those are the means through which God reveals himself to man so as to reconcile and relate to them. The gospel is a means of reconciliation and those who are "cut off" are being blinded from that revelation.

It is clear that the tree represents an entity

An entity with what purpose? To reveal God's means of relating to man, maybe? Again, I've never disputed the tree as being representative of the entity called "the church," "true Israel" or "the gospel church" because all those represent the same thing...the "entity" through which God has chosen to make himself known to man...by the Law through prophets in the OT and by the Gospel through apostles and the church in the NT.

and it is doubly clear that Gil expounds upon it as such. Just as Christ is the true Priest, Offering and Altar, The Gospel church is the true Israel, the true propriety of God, not national nor geo-political Israel.

Are you suggesting that I've made the argument that the tree is representative of "geo-political Israel?" Are you sure you are engaging with my posts, or just your perception of what you think I believe?

Not at all. He and I said exactly the same thing.

You weren't clear on what Gil was saying, how can you be clear on what I'm saying?

I understand perfectly what Gill is saying. I wrote a dang dissertation on the guy. I'm not, nor have I ever, claimed we agree on the soteriological points. Nor have I argued that he disagrees with your points on the matters you have raised here. I ONLY quoted him to show his perspective on what an individual is being cut off from so as to prove that your ridicule of my perspective on that point regarding revelation was unwarranted.

How else can you take Gill's quote, "the Gospel was preached to them, they despise it, contradicted, and blasphemed it; so that it pleased God to take it wholly away from them?"