any sincere Bible students have been deceived by the tactics of the Rapture Cult on many different fronts. One of the most notorious efforts is found in Romans 11 where a casual reading of a single verse, taken out of context, can be twisted to make it appear that at some future point God will miraculously convert all Jewish people to Christianity. This teaching is an abomination as that particular lie is deeply rooted in the Antichrist system we identify as the Rapture Cult. The following work is a thorough look at the verse in question (Romans 11:26), and the entirety of Romans chapter 11.

For openers, the primary difficulty in this understanding the truth of this verse is the Apostle Paul's seemingly abrupt shift in focal points in and around verse 26 - "And so all Israel shall be saved�." A close analysis will indicate that what he actually does is make a concluding point to his prior statements in the chapter. It was because of this contextual fluidity that I kept moving further and further back in the chapter in order to reconstruct the flow of his thoughts - thus, a lengthy piece on the subject seemed in order.

Several things can help in understanding this passage. First, recognize you're reading a letter that has ALREADY addressed who Israel is several pages (chapters) previously. Paul has ALREADY elaborated extensively on, and identified the "seed" of Abraham as being fulfilled in the promised Messiah (1:3, 9:8). 

Paul has ALREADY elaborated on the fact that "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children�" (9:7). Paul has already stated that the "promise" to the SEED of Abraham [which is Christ], "that he should be heir of the world," was not through the law [a phenomena that was peculiar to Israel] but by faith.

Paul has ALREADY clearly stated that "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (9:8)

One may suppose, since Paul has repeatedly instructed the churches in each city to read the epistles written to the other churches (Col 4:16, I Thess 5:27) that the Romans had read the Galatian epistle written several years previously. Thus, Paul has ALREADY stated that "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29)

Thus, by the time we get to chapter 11 of Romans, it has already been established there are two Israels - "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). In a similar vein, it has already been established there are two groups of Jews - "He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly�But he is a Jew which is one inwardly�.in the spirit" (Rom 2:28).

All these statements have preceded the statement that "all Israel shall be saved". Had Paul said "and so, all Jews shall be saved," there would probably be no question he was speaking of the "inward" Jews, but because he used the collective term "Israel" immediately after having referred to what could be distinguished as 'natural' Israel, there is some difficulty in recognizing WHICH Israel he is referring to in which "ALL" are saved.

A good question would be, is it consistent to think that Paul has spent chapter upon chapter repeatedly articulating how Israel "stumbled" because they did not embrace the Messiah by FAITH as the seed of Abraham, then abruptly say 'Oh well, they're all going to be saved anyway?' Or another variation would be, 'it won't matter in the long run, because no matter what they do, all Israel shall be saved.'

This 'predestined irresistible grace' is the proposition being put forth by the Dispensationalists. It runs counter to the overwhelming body of Scripture, and the central theme of the New Testament.

The claim that God must save all of physical Israel is usually based on a perceived irrevocable promise to that particular family - but a carrying over into the modern era of a perceived promise to "remember" Israel ignores the fact that the promise to "remember" Israel was already fulfilled in the Messiah's arrival. Furthermore, the "remnant" that is prophesied to be saved among the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" are specified to exist in the early Christian church.

Because Paul has already repeatedly stated there is such a thing as a "remnant" of Israel (11:4,5) and there are two "Israels" with an unbelieving Israel that is not "the Israel of God" (Gal 3:29) - it is consistent for him to be referring to the 'saved' Israel when he writes "all Israel shall be saved."

Conversely, it is not consistent with the preponderance of New Testament doctrine to think he is saying all the Jews will be saved, when there is no such promise, prophecy, or explicit statement anywhere in Scripture. The lack of Scripture promising that "all" of physical Israel will be saved doesn't even account for the last two thousand years of history - to say nothing of the fact that every indication we have is that the modern Israeli nation is up to their eyeballs in the present apostasy.

Now, let's follow the flow of Romans 11 on a verse by verse basis: 

1. I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

He says, of course God has not cast away his people, i.e. 'I'm evidence of that fact because I'm saved, and I "also am an Israelite."

2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? How he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

He again notes how what has happened is not to be perceived as a "casting away" of Israel, and compares the present circumstance to Elijah's prior prayer "against Israel."

3. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

He quotes I King 19:10 which is the textual support for the prior statement that Elijah, who was then recognized as the key prophet of Israel, had spoken against Israel. In that passage, Elijah said to the LORD "�the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away."

4. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

Paul notes that God corrected Elijah and informed him that he was not the only servant of God left in Israel, but that God said "I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal" - a recitation of I Kings 19:18.

5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Paul compares this episode to "this present time [when] also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." Because there are not multiple prophecies dealing with multiple eras in which God will constantly save a "remnant," we have no Scripture indicating there will be yet another significant remnant of the Jews brought into salvation in the end times.

6. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

He elaborates on how the grace that saved the remnant was not rooted in works, but is the free gift of God.

7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

A key verse, Paul uses the term "Israel" here referencing the lost "part" of Israel (see verse 25). He rather diplomatically says "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for�" rather than a more pointed conclusion that the Israel He is speaking of has rejected the only salvation that is available to them. In the 2^nd portion of the verse, we have a clear statement that the "elect" is composed of the Christians. Indeed, verse 7 is the smoking gun for those that erroneously claim the Jews are the elect in Matthew 24's post-tribulational return. Note also how "the rest" - anyone but the elect - "were blinded."

8. (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

The Apostle quotes a prophecy of Isaiah that natural Israel's rebellious nature has resulted in blindness. God has closed their eyes "forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but ohave removed their heart far from me�." (Isaiah 29:13 - 3 verses after Paul's citation)

9. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompence unto them:

He now cites from David with an imprecatory prayer against natural Israel - not dissimilar to Elijah's earlier pronouncement. Since all Israel is not Israel and there is a remnant of Israel, one would have to recognize that David's prophetic curse against "Israel" is not against the remnant of Israel - but against the "part" of Israel that abides in unbelief.

10. Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.

A continuation of David's curse on Israel - a quote from Psalm 69:23. With these citations from Elijah, Isaiah, and David, Paul has shown that Israel has been turning away from the LORD for a very long time.

11. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Here Paul says "Have they stumbled that they should fall?" and answers himself "God forbid." Yet Israel has clearly fallen at the time of the Roman writing. Paul then continues his thought that the 'silver lining' in this tragedy is the fact that the door was opened to the Gentiles "to provoke them to jealousy." This is a reference to Deuteronomy where God is furious at Israel because "they have provoked me�.I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger." (Deut 21:21).

It's important to see there is nothing in this passage (or any other for that matter) claiming the tactic will result in backsliding Israel responding favorably. In fact, the LORD goes on to say "a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lower hell�.They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat and with bitter destructions�.The sword without, and terror within�" (Deut 21:22, 24,25). If "all Israel" is prophetically scheduled to repent and be saved, the prediction of that theoretical event is certainly not in the text in conjunction with the LORD's effort to arouse them to jealousy. 

12. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?

Paul begins to justify why it would be desirable for natural Israel to be accepted again if they change course. He poetically states how the world became richer through their fall, and since the "diminishing" of natural Israel's standing benefited the Gentiles, how much more beneficial it would be IF they were to achieve a "fullness" in Christ. Note also how, in the first part of the verse, he acknowledges Israel has fallen ("their fall") whereas he seemingly denied their stumbling meant they had fallen earlier.

This demonstrates that back in verse 11, his use of the word "fall" connoted being abandoned or cast away. It could be paraphrased as 'Did they stumble so they could be cast away? God forbid.' God did not cast them away, God reached down to offer them salvation and they rejected it.

13. For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Here he specifies that the reasoning he is utilizing is directed to the Gentiles, and seeks to "magnify" his Apostolic standing in the hope that they will receive his perspective. This is very revealing for it means he is addressing the very subject of natural or "stumbled" Israel because years earlier, Paul has already told these same "Gentiles" in Christ that there is "neither Jew nor Greek (Gentile)�in Christ Jesus."

Thus, he is now addressing those Christians in the Roman church that were Gentiles. This further demonstrates he was qualifying his statements as not applying to Christians that were formerly Jews - yet another indicator he expected Christians that were formerly Jews might also be reading this letter.

14. If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

A hugely important verse. He again alludes to the Deuteronomic statement where God seeks to "provoke" Israel to jealousy. Paul uses "provoke," but substitutes "emulation" (instead of jealousy) - a similar, but not identical concept. In this verse, he is reminding the former Gentiles that are now Christians that natural Israel may yet respond to the Gospel.

Notice the crucial terms used when Paul addresses the results of this provocation to jealousy. He says "If by any means," the tactic would work, it's worth a try - hardly a foreordained conclusion that it will work. When he said if the tactic of jealousy is used, he "may" be able to provoke the Jews to emulate the Christians - again not a set outcome - in effect, it may work, and it may not. He then goes on to say the tactic of jealousy "might" save "some" of them.

We can ask ourselves, if Paul has a special prophetic knowledge that ALL natural "Israel" will be saved, why is he so tentative here?

15. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

A poetic vehicle similar to verse 12. "If the casting away of them" means something good comes of it, wouldn't their restoration mean something even better? Note also how he again concedes that, at least in the short term, the term "casting away" is applicable to Israel - even though he has denied they've been cast away back in verse one! Paul is definitely in an internal conflict over this issue.

Remember, he has already anguished over the loss of his people's fate two chapters earlier when he had "great heaviness and continual sorrow.:" There he said he would almost be willing to be "accursed from Christ" in exchange for his "kinsmen according to the flesh" (9:2,3). Note also that by saying he would just about trade places, his offer to be "accursed" is to take their place - a clear indicator he knows deep down inside that Israel is accursed - and that is why he is so sad.

16. For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Continuing the earlier thought that restoration would be wonderful because their fall coincided with the redemption of those that were not a people, he is reasoning that each part of the tree of saved Israel - regardless of when it arrives, or which position it holds, is still part of the tree --  and that tree is holy.

This verse cannot be applied to Israel as a whole as that would include the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes, and others that not only refused to enter in themselves, they aggressively sought to keep others out of the salvation wrought in Christ (Matt 23:13).

He utilizes the vehicle of analogy in this statement by mentioning the "first fruit" of the tree, as well as the "lump" (he likely is referring to the trunk here), followed by the "root" and the "branches." This entire package, the first fruit, the lump, the root, and the branches references saved Israel in what is about to be articulated as a "good olive tree."

Since Christ is "risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits" the entire entity under discussion is clearly in Him. With this analogy, it's almost as though Paul is seeking to pre-empt an anticipated resentment among the Gentiles if the Jews were to resume their original position. 

17. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

The well-known passage about how "some" of the branches have been broken off the olive tree. A clear reference to Israel, it is self evident the branches broken off were those that refused the salvation of Jesus Christ. He furthers the simile with a reference to the Gentiles that came from the "wild olive tree" that have been "grafted" in to the good olive tree.

This wonderful verse plainly illustrates much. First of all, there is only one saved "tree" - not two. Obviously, branches that break off will die, or are already dead. The "wild" tree has no role in the kingdom of God, so there is only one entity that embodies salvation - the "tree" of Israel.  

18. Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Paul cautions against Gentile boasting, or propagating a superior attitude against the natural branches that were broken off.

19.  Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

He narrows the description of the apparent Gentile boast that God broke off the natural branches so they could be grafted in - inferring the false idea that God somehow needed the Gentiles. This 'puffed up' attitude is the epitome of sin. 

20. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

With the word "Well," Paul notes that it is true that the removal of "some" (verse 17) of the natural branches made possible the grafting in of the Gentiles. He specifies those that were "broken off" were removed because of "unbelief," and those that were grafted in, were attached because of "faith." He cautions against being "highminded" or arrogant, but that they should have fear or awe because of the enormous implications of this epic event.

21. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Paul continues the prior thought that the Gentile believer should be cautious against pride as "God spared not the natural branches" -- thus if the Gentiles fall in a similar fashion, they could find themselves in the same position as the natural branches that were broken off.

22. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

A verse the 'once saved, always saved' crowd would rather not think about. Paul notes we should be acutely aware of ("behold") the "severity" of the situation - an event that brought about a tragic judgment on those that "fell" (there's that word again), and the spiritually opposite yield of "goodness." He then notes that the result to "thee" was the "goodness" - something that will only exist "if thou continue in his goodness�."

It is more than inferred that "if" the good branches don't continue in "his goodness" they will be "cut off" - it is explicitly stated.  Also note that there is still only one construct that is saved - the "good olive tree" --  in the analogy that Paul began numerous verses back.

23. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

We see that it's 'a 2 way street.' Not only can the "wild" branches still find themselves broken off if they fail to "continue in his goodness," the natural branches that were broken off are able to be grafted back in again "if" they change course and "abide not" in "unbelief."

24. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

Another bit of rationale similar to verse 15 still utilizing the picture of a good olive tree. His 'reverse grafting' statement from the previous verse is elaborated on by saying that in such a situation, those natural branches would fit the tree very well, because it's the same tree they were broken off from. With statements like these, it's difficult to see how anyone can conclude that the believers are not a part of Israel.

Since he reaffirms the identity of the branches that were "broken off" as still being from the original "olive tree," and points out that "God is able to graft them in again" (verse 23), it is self evident that the "tree" in question is Israel. He even notes that the "tree" in the analogy is "their own olive tree."

25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Paul refers to this breaking off and grafting in event as a "mystery" the believers should not be ignorant of. By adding the comment "brethren," he may have now broadened his address from the earlier narrative that was more narrowly focused on the believers that were among the Gentiles (verse 13). They should not have ignorance of this matter to avoid becoming "wise in [their] own conceits" - yet another caution against the sin of pride creeping into their hearts.

The balance of the verse articulates the well known phrase "that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." By breaking down the thought, this complex statement can be clarified considerably. If we place the "wise in your own conceits" phrase as a parenthesis, and read it as one thought, it becomes clearer. For example 'I would not, brethren that ye should be ignorant�of the fact that blindness, in part, has happened to Israel�'

This address to the "brethren" continues the idea that Israel has not been "cast away" developed from the very beginning of the chapter. Israel has undergone a metamorphosis in which a "part" of natural Israel has experienced a deadly "blindness" even as "Gentiles" have "come in" to join those that remain.

The last phrase indicates that this "blindness" will continue "until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." This would seem to indicate that at the time of this "fullness," the blindness experienced by those that have been abiding "in unbelief" (verses 20, 23) will cease. Dispensationalism posits that this means the cycle then shifts back to the Jews in terms of God's primary dealing --- a position this text doesn't even hint at.

This Rapture Cult view further tries to make the removal of the "blindness" an event that has no scriptural support at all - i.e. the pre-tribulation rapture. There is absolutely nothing in this text indicating that there is still a demonstrable period of time left for fallen Israel to change course once the "blindness" has been removed.

Clearly, some event is in view that will bring about the end of Israel's blindness, but the flow of the passage speaks of a finishing - not another transition. The "fullness" of the Gentiles would infer that the entity spoken of throughout the chapter - true Israel - is now full as the last component said to be scheduled to "come in" (the Gentiles) has now reached its "fullness."

Furthermore, 3 times in this very book, Paul has written that the collision of good and evil is manifested "to the Jews first, and also to the Gentile" (Romans 1:16, 2:9,10) He never proposes that God's plan is 'to the Jews first, then the Gentiles, then back to the Jews for one last chance.' The pattern of salvation is plainly said to conclude with the calling of the Gentiles.

26. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

This phrase concludes the thought that Paul has been developing from the very first verse of this chapter - Israel has not been "cast away," Israel has been born-again and magnified through the appending of the Gentiles to the one saved entity that God has created. Thus, it is consistent for Paul to conclude "And so�." as he pronounces that "all Israel shall be saved."

Because he has repeatedly established that there are two Israels, it is entirely logical for Paul to utilize the phrase "all Israel" to emphasize that this is the finished result of the LORD's "strange work" (Isaiah 28:21). He has repeatedly prophesied that "this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear" (Isaiah 28:12). He has repeatedly stated He will "lay in Zion for a foundation stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation" (Isaiah 28:16) but they would not believe. 

Thus the idea that God will miraculously cause "all Israel" (awkwardly forcing the the phrase to refer to physical Israel) to suddenly believe in Jesus Christ after the 'last Gentile' converts, is completely without merit. There is no explicit statement to that effect anywhere in the Bible. It runs counter to everything said in the entire chapter, and it is contrary to the total body of statements in the entire book of Romans.

Indeed, the few Rapture Cultists that have an ounce of honesty left will confess that when they first read the statement "all Israel shall be saved," they were taken aback by the odd statement. It's abrupt insertion represents a sudden shift in the flow of the chapter as it seemingly jumps to a conclusion that is not consistent with the prior verses. The truth is, the verse is right where It's supposed to be - it is the false perspective of Dispensationalism that causes the narrative to seem disjointed.

Without the assumption that the Christians, utilizing the shell of the "church," are a separate group from Israel, the entire system of dispensationalism collapses under the weight of its own preposterous suppositions. The total body of New Testament teaching, particularly Paul's writings in this very book and this very chapter, categorically testify that the Old Testament order of salvation based upon one's physical lineage is now forever done away with in Christ.

It is through "faith" that salvation is based (verse 20), not a reliance upon physical heritage - e.g. "They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God" (Romans 9:8).

The true understanding of the conclusion that Paul has reached may also be seen by reversing the components of the statement. Speaking of the "good olive tree," Paul has stated that this new, engrafted version of Israel will reach its apex - its "all" or its "fullness - at the point when the last of the Gentiles that are scheduled to be saved has "come in." In the concluding statement of the verse, he again asserts that this "fullness" is a fulfillment of the prophecies that God will remember Israel.

Paul quotes Isaiah 59:20 which reads "And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord." Once again, the idea that salvation is for the "part" of natural Israel that turns "from transgression" to the "deliverer" is in view.

27. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Paul reaffirms this is a fulfillment of the salvation promised to Israel, and quotes yet another portion of the prior citation in Isaiah 59 with verse 21 "this is my covenant with them�." He then concludes that covenant is "when I take away their sins" (Romans 11:27). This is one of dozens of verses that show the promises to Israel are fulfilled in Jesus Christ as he redeems "Israel."

28. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Paul now shifts emphasis from the concept of "remnant" (11:5) Israel to "fallen" (11:22) Israel. He notes how the unbelieving Jews are enemies of the Gospel, "but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sake." Because Paul has already stated 3 times that the term "election" corresponds to those that are saved in this very same book of Romans (9:11, 11:5, 11:7; see also I Thess 1:4 & II Peter 1:10), the phrase "as touching the election" would refer to the continuing fact that the option of embracing "the election of grace" (11:5) is still available to fallen Israel.

As Paul has already stated, the possibility of Jewish conversion still exists "if they abide not still in unbelief" (verse 23). Jews (the branches that were "broken off") have been sporadically coming to Christ for two thousand years, and finding themselves "grafted [back] into their own olive tree" (verse 24) There is no question this pleases God, as that was His original desire for "Israel" when He sent His son.

That son, Jesus Christ, said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24) so it is clear "they are [still] beloved for the fathers' sake." Another way of looking at this latter phrase is to see that natural Israel is still beloved for the sake of the fathers of Israel - those that God had fellowship with in times past. In either event, the door to entry back into the grace of God is still open to "Israel," and so Paul is stressing that, even though they are enemies because they have rejected the Gospel, we must recognize they still have the option of coming back in to the fullness of the LORD's great plan.

29. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

This remarkable verse has been grossly distorted by many that try to use it to say that GOD cannot change course once He provides his calling to a people. This is, of course, an absurd proposition as the LORD is Sovereign and He can do whatever He pleases. Some would try to use God's supposed inability to break a covenant to justify the false doctrine that physical Israel remains the LORD's chosen vessel regardless of their behaviour - thus making a mockery of Jesus Christ's own statements that "the kingdom of God shall be taken from you�." (Matthew 21:43).

Such false doctrine makes the Word of God of "none effect by your tradition" (Matthew 15:6). A good verse for such liars is Numbers 14:34 where the LORD indeed changes course and says to Israel "forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise."

30. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

Paul uses yet another analogy to demonstrate how those that are now saved were at one time in unbelief, but were saved when salvation opened to them when Israel rejected their Messiah.

31. Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

He continues the analogy in a hopeful tone that even though these are now in unbelief, through the mercy of the believers they also may obtain mercy. Once again, not unlike verse 14, there is no definitive prophetic statement that this is what will happen - only that this may be the case.

32. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

This somewhat difficult statement is a bit obscured by the usage of "concluded." The attempt to make the "all in unbelief" Israel as a way of setting up a justification for saving "all" natural Israel is faulty as a remnant of Israel embraced the Messiah as soon as they encountered Him. Indeed, the LORD reserved the remnant to salvation. This verse is simply telling us that God has allocated, or appointed circumstances where all men are in disbelief, in order that His merciful grace may be magnified.

33. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Paul's praise of God is abundant in this verse.

34. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counseller?

His ways are higher than our ways, and we may not presume to know the wisdom that is implicit in His being.

35. Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

We could never give God enough to justify a reward of the magnificence that is found in His grace.

36. For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

In Him we live and breathe.

In summary, the 11^th chapter of Romans is a favorite of the Rapture Cult. They regularly demonstrate their cultic tendencies insomuch as they love to take one verse out of context, attach a superficial rendering of that verse, then attempt to militate against 20 other verses that disagree with the first verse. This is the case with the "all Israel shall be saved" constituency.

Solid spiritual wisdom requires that any seemingly contradictory statements must be harmonized among the totality of the Scriptures - something the Cult teaches, but rarely executes.

The "strong delusion" that has overtaken the church in terms of the great deception of Dispensationalism has brought some to the point of saying that Christians that claim their birthright as the "chosen generation" and the "peculiar people" that Peter told us about (I Peter 2:9), have somehow become anti-Semitic! This lie is so monstrous that it manifests the profound nature of the verse in I John that bluntly informs us that "who is a liar but Antichrist?" (I John 2:22).

The Jewish leaders of the generation that saw Jesus walk among them also claimed an irrevocable birthright when they claimed they were of their father Abraham. Jesus set them straight as to who their real father was. So too, those of this "evil and adulterous generation" that have constructed "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6). The Rapture Cult shall find themselves "accursed" because "they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved" (II Thessalonians 2:10). Soon, the false prophets of pre-tribulationism "shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames" (Isaiah 13:8). 

But ye brethren, are not in darkness that that day should overtake you as a thief (I Thessalonians 5:4).

October 27, 2003 - James Lloyd

Copyright © 2004 Christian Media Network

See Also

The Remnant In Romans

The Remnant Of Israel