Dispensationalist Way Of Thinking...

[a_boo_boo]

Dispensational speaking, right divide, left divide, For Jew, For Gentile,Time Past, But Now, Things to Come, Jesus, Paul... Im still reading a bit about dispensational way of understanding the Bible... I gotta long way to go.. If any of you can help me out please reply... But please dont say any thing with out the Scripture to back up your position... Thank You!

[joelkaki]

I'm afraid that the dispensational divisions of Scripture are unwarranted in Scripture. There is one olive tree of God's people (Romans 11:17-24), and thus the dispensational division of OT Israel and the NT church cannot be maintained.


Joel

[Darth Xena]

And I would agree with Joe on that one.

[Hitch]

As DFs like to say... just read and pray the HS to teach you. You'll never come up with DF doctrines that way and but you wont have all that contraption to unravel iether.

Hitch

[Hitch]

Dee Dee Warren:
And I would agree with Joe on that one. Ya know,,it looks like they dont want to come out unless they have an ace in the hole, like a adminstrator's devotion.

Several DF distinctives have been seriously challenged and if the game were subject to time if would be won by forfiet.


Hitch

[bar Jonah]

joelkaki:
I'm afraid that the dispensational divisions of Scripture are unwarranted in Scripture. There is one olive tree of God's people (Romans 11:17-24), and thus the dispensational division of OT Israel and the NT church cannot be maintained.


Joel
Yes, there is one root. One Lord, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the root.

Unfortunately, Covies seem to think that Israel is the root, and the Gentiles are grafted onto Israel. Which begs the question -- How can Israel be cut off from the root if she IS the root?

No, Israel was cut off from the root, and the Gentiles were grafted onto the root. Israel cut off, seperated from God. Gentiles grafted in. One root, one "olive tree."

Jesus gave the parable of that olive tree soon before His death, and in that parable, He said He had come to this tree for three years, looking for fruit. But it had born no fruit. He said the tree would have one more year, and if it still didn't bear fruit, He would cut it down.

And cut it down, He did. But one day, He will graft Israel back in. Of course, He can't do that unless He cuts off the Gentiles first, and Paul warns the Gentile believers of that day. And that day will be the Rapture, removing the Gentile believers so He can graft Israel back onto the root and return to working with Israel.

One root, one Lord.

A non-dispensational view that claims the OT Israel and the NT church are the same... cannot be maintained.

[Patroclus]

Unfortunately, Covies seem to think that Israel is the root, and the Gentiles are grafted onto Israel. Which begs the question -- How can Israel be cut off from the root if she IS the root?

Oh, Jim, you can do better than that. You have to know that #1, it is not literarily prudent to expect all metaphors to hold perfectly. #2 It is not hermeneutically prudent to " " " " "

Take Job 12:7-10. Do you see the "Hand of God" imagery? Here again, we know that it is not prudent to expect anthropomorphisms to hold much water, though they do make a nice metaphor. If you take it too far, the "Hand of God," begs the question, if God is male...? That, of course, is a ridiculous question.

That is the first problem. The second problem is: "why do the jews have to be a root?"

If you keep pursuing the Olive Tree metaphor, I'll have to suggest that most healthy trees have more than one branch.

[bar Jonah]

Patroclus:
Oh, Jim, you can do better than that. You have to know that #1, it is not literarily prudent to expect all metaphors to hold perfectly. #2 It is not hermeneutically prudent to " " " " "

Take Job 12:7-10. Do you see the "Hand of God" imagery? Here again, we know that it is not prudent to expect anthropomorphisms to hold much water, though they do make a nice metaphor. If you take it too far, the "Hand of God," begs the question, if God is male...? That, of course, is a ridiculous question.

That is the first problem. The second problem is: "why do the jews have to be a root?"

If you keep pursuing the Olive Tree metaphor, I'll have to suggest that most healthy trees have more than one branch.
Of course God didnt' have a literal hand. We all agree this is a metaphor. Jesus is a door, but He isn't made of wood with hinges, and so forth. All of this is old hat. But Jesus being the root, with Israel as a branch of that root, is also a metaphor (obviously), and this metaphor is defined as such. Where is Israel elsewhere defined metaphorically as the root? She isn't. She is a branch. And Paul says the Israel branch is cut off, and the Gentile branch is grafted in, in Israel's place. Israel gone, Gentiles in her place. If some other scripture contradicts this explicit description given by Paul, please bring it to my attention.

And I didn't "pursue the Olive Tree metaphor here. Someone else brought it up, and I responded to it, correcting their misunderstanding of said parable.

[Patroclus]

And I didn't "pursue the Olive Tree metaphor here. Someone else brought it up, and I responded to it, correcting their misunderstanding of said parable.

granted.


How broad-sweeping is this cutting-off?

[bar Jonah]

You tell me, Pat. I dare say it didn't include those Jews who were already believers in their prophecied Mashiyach. God obviously isn't going to abandon them to Hell just because of the work of Saul the "Torquemada of Israel," and the failure of their fellow children of Jacob. :)

[Patroclus]

I am not sure. I shy away from exluding a group of people from the special work of God.

However, consider what Paul was up against when he made that reference. Here come these people saying that one must first be circumcised before they can be saved. There were two problems with this.

1. The Hellenized world saw this as a mutilation. There were many who avoided Judaism because of this. When Christianity said it was unecessary, we see a lot of new Gentile converts... big surprise!

2. How do you separate the religious rites of Judaism from the rites of pagan traditions. The openess of Christianity was key to its growth.

Of course, circumcision does not damn a person to hell. But, when it is a means to salvation, it is worthless, and perhaps damning. Those Jews who became Christians were obviously not damned, but the problem was with those who taught, as my NT prof calls, "Jesus plus _______."

It wasn't only dangerous to theology, it was dangerous to the fledgling religion. Paul had to make a separation. I do not think that verse means that the Jews are "cut-off" from their inheritance.

[bar Jonah]

Patroclus:
I am not sure. I shy away from exluding a group of people from the special work of God.

However, consider what Paul was up against when he made that reference. Here come these people saying that one must first be circumcised before they can be saved. There were two problems with this.

1. The Hellenized world saw this as a mutilation. There were many who avoided Judaism because of this. When Christianity said it was unecessary, we see a lot of new Gentile converts... big surprise!

2. How do you separate the religious rites of Judaism from the rites of pagan traditions. The openess of Christianity was key to its growth.

Of course, circumcision does not damn a person to hell. But, when it is a means to salvation, it is worthless, and perhaps damning. Those Jews who became Christians were obviously not damned, but the problem was with those who taught, as my NT prof calls, "Jesus plus _______."

It wasn't only dangerous to theology, it was dangerous to the fledgling religion. Paul had to make a separation. I do not think that verse means that the Jews are "cut-off" from their inheritance.
You seem to think that Paul "cut off" Israel. No, Pat, I'm sorry, but God cut Israel off. See Romans 11:21. See the whole chapter.

[Patroclus]

Reading through again, especially 25-32, I don't see anybody "cut off." Rather, I see avenues for grace and mercy.

[bar Jonah]

If you back up a tick and read verse 24, you'll see what he's talking about in 25-32, namely that Israel will someday be grafted back into that "cultivated olive tree." Someday, when the "fullness of the Gentiles has come in." He's speaking of the Gentiles and saying that we (at a corporate level) can be cut off just as Israel was, at which time Israel would once again be "grafted into their own olive tree."

But until that day comes, Israel is cut off, broken off from Jesus, who is the root.

You don't see anyone "cut off?" Are you serious, Rob? I am baffled.

Romans 11:15-24
15For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,[6] if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

[Patroclus]

Jim, I know what you are saying (and I do not expect to win this debate--you have spent far more time thinking about this than I have), I am just saying that I do not think it is as severly far-reaching as some people (yourself included sometimes) make it out to be.

[bar Jonah]

God doesn't do things halfway. He isn't "sort of" just or "sort of" righteous. I'm not saying you think He is... only that you might consider that aspect of His character in regards to any presuppositions you may have in viewing the dispensational hermeneutic. If you fear it would be unjust or unreasonable of God to cut off His own chosen people, remember that God is an "all or nothing" god. And He did say in His parable of the fig tree that if the tree failed, it would be cut down.

Yes, at first the church grew under the leadership of the Twelve. But something else happened -- Saul. The "Torquemada of Israel," he persecuted and, by his own words, "destroyed" the church. Yes, destroyed -- Galatians 1:13, "portheo," which means to destroy or waste. Some translations say, "tried to destroy," but there is no "tried" there. It is a completed verb. Even my own favored NKJV says "tried to," because the translators had a presupposition that surely the Jerusalem Church couldn't have been destroyed, could it? Surely Paul didn't really mean he destroyed it? How can that be? But I take Paul's word for it. That thing ended, and a new thing began.

Galatians, 1:23, Peter speaking to Paul at the Jerusalem Council, he agrees that Paul destroyed the church. "Portheo," completed verb.

Galatians 2:18, Paul speaking to Peter at the Jerusalem Council, saying again that he destroyed the church. This time, "kataluo," which also means to destroy, to overthrow, to disintigrate, to demolish. Again, a completed verb. Paul's ministry wasn't a continuation of Peter's and the Twelve's. Indeed, Paul said in Galatians 2 that he got nothing from them.

Obviously, the congregations of Peter and the Twelve still existed, or who did they minister to and write letters to? Yet they say that church was destroyed. In what sense? It is clear there was a true finality involved, and this can only otherwise mean that their ability to continue and grow was ended. Finished. Their church and their "dispensation" ended when those apostles passed away. Their ministries died with them.

So I would ask you to consider the possibility that God did indeed cut Israel off, and justly so, after warning from Jesus Himself. That this is confirmed by both Peter and Paul, who agreed that Paul's (Saul's) persecution ended the ability of Peter's church to continue.

[Hitch]

RI a moderator on this forum is allowed to spread this vomit:


Obviously, the congregations of Peter and the Twelve still existed, or who did they minister to and write letters to? Yet they say that church was destroyed. In what sense? It is clear there was a true finality involved, and this can only otherwise mean that their ability to continue and grow was ended. Finished. Their church and their "dispensation" ended when those apostles passed away. Their ministries died with them.


And you clowns chide me for calling this trash heresy? Clowns meaning Dee Dee in this case. This is a lie, it has no foundation in logic much less the Scriptures and is contrast to 2,000 years of church history. It is shame such appears on any christian forum.


Take care

Hitch

[bar Jonah]

Hitch:
RI a moderator on this forum is allowed to spread this vomit:


Obviously, the congregations of Peter and the Twelve still existed, or who did they minister to and write letters to? Yet they say that church was destroyed. In what sense? It is clear there was a true finality involved, and this can only otherwise mean that their ability to continue and grow was ended. Finished. Their church and their "dispensation" ended when those apostles passed away. Their ministries died with them.


And you clowns chide me for calling this trash heresy? Clowns meaning Dee Dee in this case. This is a lie, it has no foundation in logic much less the Scriptures and is contrast to 2,000 years of church history. It is shame such appears on any christian forum.

Take care

Hitch
I wasn't citing opinion. I quoted FACT. The manuscripts of that passage state that the church was destroyed. Look it up. But obviously, the church still existed, so it must have been destroyed in some other sense than for all its believers to die or be removed physically. This is the most basic logic applied to the earlier fact.

If you want to ignore cold, hard facts and the simplest level of logic, you are welcome to do so. It's a free country, Hitch. But if you think facts and logic are "vomit," you are seriously in the minority. And now you're resorting to name-calling (clowns). This is not edifying for anyone involved, but only serves to show you can't actually defend what you believe. Please, show some self-restraint. For the sake of yourself and others.

[smilax]

RightIdea:
Yes, at first the church grew under the leadership of the Twelve. But something else happened -- Saul. The "Torquemada of Israel," he persecuted and, by his own words, "destroyed" the church. Yes, destroyed -- Galatians 1:13, "portheo," which means to destroy or waste. Some translations say, "tried to destroy," but there is no "tried" there. It is a completed verb. Even my own favored NKJV says "tried to," because the translators had a presupposition that surely the Jerusalem Church couldn't have been destroyed, could it? Surely Paul didn't really mean he destroyed it? How can that be? But I take Paul's word for it. That thing ended, and a new thing began.The tense is imperfect, (eporthoun in 13, eporthei in 23,) so it is not a "completed" verb.

[bar Jonah]

smilax:
The tense is imperfect, (eporthoun in 13, eporthei in 23,) so it is not a "completed" verb.
According to what or who? Not according to Strong's Literal translation...

[smilax]

RightIdea:
According to what or who?Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 26th edition.

[Darth Xena]

And you clowns chide me for calling this trash heresy? Clowns meaning Dee Dee in this case. This is a lie, it has no foundation in logic much less the Scriptures and is contrast to 2,000 years of church history. It is shame such appears on any christian forum.


Hitch, you are my friend, and I am sorry you feel that way, but hey, I appreciate your honesty. I am selective with the word heresy. But.... no one ever thinks that I agree with dispensationalism as I most firmly do not. I think it is grievously wrong. I make no bones about that. But these are also my brothers and sisters in the Lord. I have been on the receiving end of the heresy charge by a dispensationalist and liked it not at all. When have I ever made it unclear that I thought dispensationalism was wrong? Never. If you want to fault me for that, that is your right, and I hold no hard feelings.

[bar Jonah]

smilax:
Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 26th edition.
Which source is right? My source or your source? Not that the argument as a whole (or even most of it) rests on this point. Just a good question for the moment.

[Darth Xena]

I forwarded the question to Jaltus, our resident Greek Geek.

[smilax]

RightIdea:
Which source is right? My source or your source?Well, yours is a translation, and mine is a Greek text, so... In any case, Young's Literal Translation properly expresses the imperfect:

Galatians i, 13, 23: "For ye did hear of my behaviour once in Judaism, that exceedingly I was persecuting the assembly of God, and wasting it... And only they were hearing, that `he who is persecuting us then, doth now proclaim good news -- the faith that then he was wasting'."

[bar Jonah]

smilax:
Well, yours is a translation, and mine is a Greek text, so... In any case, Young's Literal Translation properly expresses the imperfect:

Galatians i, 13, 23: "For ye did hear of my behaviour once in Judaism, that exceedingly I was persecuting the assembly of God, and wasting it... And only they were hearing, that `he who is persecuting us then, doth now proclaim good news -- the faith that then he was wasting'."
But mine is the translation AND the original Greek text, together. So your first statement isn't true. I do like Young's, I must admit. But it's not perfect, anymore than any other translation.

Young's was done over a century ago. Would that make it "past imperfect," too? ;)

[smilax]

RightIdea:
But mine is the translation AND the original Greek text, together.I'm not quite sure what you're nitpicking about. Technically, you said you were using "Strong's Literal Translation," not, "Strong's Literal Translation and Original Greek Text, Together." But the text most assuredly does not say "portheo" as you have suggested, because that means, "I waste," (first-person present tense.) And the point stands that you cannot defend the assertion that the church was destroyed based on these passages.

[Act9_12Out]

I would like to chime in on the "Olive Tree" debate. The first and most fundamental concept to grasp is that yes, Israel has "fallen" has been "cast away" but will be restored. What does it mean that God has "cast them away?" Does this mean God is through dealing with them? No Way! Their blindness is "in part."

When God began to implement His plan of redemption for mankind, he worked toward starting a group of believers that would be sanctified (set apart) from the heathen of the world. This group of believers is known as "believing Israel." God dealt with this people from the beginning and even sent His Son for them.The New King James Version

Matthew 15
15:24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."After the nation of Israel rejected His Son and hung Him on a cross, God continued working with these people. He continued to offer their promised, earthly knigdom (Acts 1:11, 2:38, 3:19-21). The "straw that broke the camel's back" if you will, came at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. Israel was set aside because of their unbelief" (Rom 11:20). An interesting note: Acts 7:55 is the only time that the Son is shown standing in the NT. Just as Jehovah stood many times in the OT to judge Israel, Christ now stands in judgement over Israel in Acts 7. God sets Israel aside, and "cuts them off" from the ability to believe in the circumcision message and become members of the church that is Israel. God raises up the Apostle Paul shortly after with a new set of house rules for the body of Christ. The blood of Christ saves all who believe, but God, being the Perfect Steward over His creation changes the way He asks man to show faith many times throughout the Bible.

The point of Romans 11 is WARNING! Paul is warning members of the body of Christ. He is telling them that, just as God "cut off" Israel from having the ability to believe and become in a position of salvation in the church that is Israel, body members may also be "cut off" from the ability to believe and enter the body of Christ. In short, God is warning that He is able to "set aside" the body and change His house rules once again.The New King James Version

Romans 11
11:11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.
11:12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
11:14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
11:15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
11:16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
11:18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
11:20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
11:24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
11:25 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.You see, loss of salvation is not an issue here. The point of the passage is to show that Israel fell "bacause of their unbelief" and the body of Christ may also be taken out of God's program to believe into the body of Christ.

In Christ, --jER

[joelkaki]

I'm starting an Olive Tree, so maybe you might want to transfer your post over there. I will respond to some of what you have said there.


Joel

[Jaltus]

The imperfect does in fact express an incomplete action. It is called "imperfective aspect," which means that it is seen as ongoing.

By the way, stay away from Strong's other than for looking up specific words. It is generally wrong about defining things.

My motto is: "If it is from Strong, it is probably wrong."

[bar Jonah]

And what is the source of your presupposition regarding Strong's untrustworthiness?

[Darth Xena]

Jaltus.

[smilax]

So can you prove that there were three people of Christ, namely Israel, the apostolic church, and the Pauline church? And that the second group was destroyed? If not, I'm going to take John's word over yours that the twelve apostles are the foundations of the wall of Jerusalem, which is the one people of God.

[bar Jonah]

Who said there were three peoples of Christ? There was supposed to be only one people of God -- Israel. The rest of the world was supposed to come to Israel to be saved. They only way to have received eternal life was to become a Jew. The apostolic church was simply a new stage in that plan. But that church failed because Israel failed at a corporate level, despite some individual conversions. So God went a new direction, founded the Body of Christ (as opposed to the Bride of Christ) through Paul. We know that these people were seperate from the apostolic church. Peter and Paul agreed they would go their separate ways and not contact each others' congregations. Why keep them separate?

All are saved by Christ's sacrifice and nothing else. Are there "two people's of God?" Yes and no, depending on the context of the conversation.

[smilax]

RightIdea:
There was supposed to be only one people of God -- Israel.Mmm, so God screwed up? And what of the (you can even call it corporate if you want) election in Ephesians i, 4?All are saved by Christ's sacrifice and nothing else.That has nothing to do with what I was getting at.

[Hitch]

If not, I'm going to take John's word over yours that the twelve apostles are the foundations of the wall of Jerusalem, which is the one people of God.

Odd isnt it that the apostles ,to a man, always expanded the application of the OT wrt the church and it took the kookieness of DF thinking to miniturize that same church 2,000 years later.

Take care

Hitch

[smilax]

Hitch, if you think I'm a dispy, you're misinterpreting my words.

[Hitch]

smilax:
Hitch, if you think I'm a dispy, you're misinterpreting my words. LOL I was agreeing with you. Especially wrt the foundational position of the Apsotles as a whole.

[bar Jonah]

smilax:
Mmm, so God screwed up? And what of the (you can even call it corporate if you want) election in Ephesians i, 4?That has nothing to do with what I was getting at.
It's sometimes challenging to not get too frustrated with statements like this.

No no no no no.

God does not screw up. No true Christian dispensationalist believes that. MAN screwed up. Why can't you understand that?

Jeremiah 18, we tell you again and again and again. God wishes for X. Man screws up, and God withholds X. Man returns to God's will, and God grants X. A nation turns away from God's will -- Did God screw up? Of course not; that's outright heretical. No, mankind screws up, and God responds. I don't understand how such a simple concept can be so difficult to comprehend for people who clearly have greater than average intelligence.

[smilax]

Did God intend for the apostolic church to cease and the Pauline church to take over? Which people screwed up that led to the downfall of Peter's gig?

[bar Jonah]

Which people screwed up? Have you not read Acts at all?

The religious leaders of Israel, and most of all, Saul himself. How can that not be obvious? Why do you think Paul said he had been the chief of sinners? Because he had persecuted the church, and had been the person most responsible for Israel's failure.

[smilax]

Did Saul's actions lead to the total failure and consequent abandonment of the mission of the apostolic church?

I would say the Gentiles screwed up, too. What's to stop God from commissioning yet another dispensation?

[GrayPilgrim]

RightIdea:
And what is the source of your presupposition regarding Strong's untrustworthiness?

My favorite example with Strong's would be

"EKKLHSIA - from EK - KALEW a calling out"

the verb kalew is not attested until a few hundred years after ekklhsia in the Classical Greek! All the stuff about the church being hte "called out ones" based on this word, comes straight from Strong, not anyone before him.

As my Greek prof used to say, "A Butterfly is not a stick of butter with wings."

[bar Jonah]

smilax:
Did Saul's actions lead to the total failure and consequent abandonment of the mission of the apostolic church?

I would say the Gentiles screwed up, too. What's to stop God from commissioning yet another dispensation?
Saul's actions led to the end of God's plan to make the one true Church through Israel. The people saved in that church remained in that dispensation until they died. Most likely, this dispensation ended with the natural death of John, the last of the apostles of the Twelve. God wasn't going to pull the rug out from under these believers, who were given the promise of Jacob/Israel.

So these two dispensations overlap. Which is exactly what Paul is talking about in Galatians 1. This "other gospel" is the gospel message of Peter's church. Paul's followers, the members of the Body of Christ, received only the promise of Abraham, as Paul explains later in Galatians.

Can the Gentiles be cut off? You bet. My gosh, Paul warns against this very thing in Romans 11. :)

Romans 11:17-25
17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 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.