And here we are ladies and gentlemen. Sorry about that, little bit of delay there. Glad you're with us. Hope you enjoyed the elevator music three or four times there. But here we are live, ready to go and ready to have Bible study tonight as we get into the book of Romans once again. As a matter of fact for the 30th time. Go have yourself 30 M and Ms or something like that to celebrate. And here we come, Romans chapter eleven, verses eleven through twelve. You know, there's only 16 chapters so we're on the back end looking at this. It's been a fascinating journey. I think I have been through Romans, I don't remember now how many times and I don't think I ever got it right before. I think I'm getting closer to getting it right. And who knows, maybe the next time after this I'll get it right. We'll find out. But here we are looking at it and having a good time. There is an outline available for you. Let's see, I believe it's down below on Randywightministries.org. It's there on the broadcast page and on worshipy.com also on the broadcast page. And then YouTube doesn't give us a way to put it on the broadcast page, but we've got a good summary down below anyway on the YouTube page. And then you can always go to the connect page rwm.com Randywhiteministries.com org that go the same place and check out all of that. And tonight, let's see, what do we do here? Get the right spot. Here we go. We'll come into Romans. I didn't have my Romans graphic up here and I still don't. And I just got to reach over here and grab my pin. I found it hard to talk without something to point with. Let's get to the right place here. We've got in Romans chapter nine, one through 36, chapter chapter nine, verse one through 1136. Here is the overview. This is Romans graphically presented, it's a supplemental resource. And this is page 38 and it shows you a little bit of the 30,000 foot view where we are in the entire book. And then we come right here and we see that this is a position of the case fulfilled, the case stated, the case testified and the case fulfilled is what we've got. So the case being fulfilled, the case is that God's got a plan. And here in this section, god's work through Israel fulfilled romans nine through eleven. We looked at Romans nine and ten, god's Paul's prayer and God's plan for Israel in the dispensational, change and beyond. Now we're here in chapter eleven and it is God's current program, an overlap of God's current program that we look into. And that's what we've been checking out. Here is what we looked at last week up to this point right here, god's current program and overlap, or as we often show in our poster right here, by the way, I just printed some more of these in the postcard size. Bob in Austin, Minnesota requested some, so they're going in the mail, but I got more. If you need the postcard, Randy@randywhiteministries.org, I'll be happy to send you some. So we've got this overlap or this transition here. And as we come to Romans chapter eleven, we have God's current program, an overlap. We talk about the remnant in verses one through six last week. Then we talk about Israel being blinded for today during this overlap period, or beginning in the overlap period. Now we're beyond the overlap period. Israel is still blinded. We'll talk about when that comes to a close tonight. And then we see Romans eleven, verses eleven through twelve, which we begin with tonight. And that is the big picture. Verse eleven, israel stumbled in God's temporary plan until her rise. That doesn't make sense, does it? Verse twelve, the world has benefited from Israel's fall, but not nearly as much as it will from Israel's rise is what we will look at. And then we will also take a look at verses 13 through 24. So we'll finish out that today and take a look. But let's get into the scripture here on Biblify. We've got the Young's Literal translation right here. We've got some Greek interlinear here, and we've got mostly what we'll be doing right here, and that is the King James version as we begin in chapter eleven. And as we begin to look at that, what we're going to see is chapter eleven. Verse eleven is that I had been reading this wrong. I'm glad I stopped where I did last week because I think I would have told you the wrong thing last week. I kind of stopped last week at verse ten. One, because I knew I was going to be out of time and indeed I was, but also because verse eleven had me stumped and I didn't want to be stumped, so I thought I'll save it. Well, I began working on it a few days ago and as I continued to work on it, I was stumped. And I actually wrote up a commentary that I was going to put on the notes and I ended up just finally clicking Delete and doing it again. This goes to show that, well, it shows a couple of things. One, if you are befuddled, then you don't have it. If you can't really get it down, you don't have it. That's okay because you work through it. Some things take weeks or months or even years to work through it's okay. You just recognize, I don't have this yet. I'm getting there. I say that about a few things in the Scripture, like the Proverbs, I don't have that one yet. I'm working on that. It's going through the brain a lot of times, but I didn't have it here. I think I've got it now. Also, my failure to get it right, I think shows that the brain the human brain and we've got to remind ourselves of this. The human brain has a hard time moving away from that which it has already accepted. Years ago, I read a book about memory. I think I was in college and I decided, hey, it'd be nice to be able to memorize a lot of things because I'm in college and I need to memorize a lot of things so that I can regurgitate them on the test. And reading that book probably got me through college with good grades anyway. It was called Harry. Lorraine's Page. A minute memory book. I remember one of the things that he said in that book. It was about how the brain learns it is that it builds upon something it already knows. And therefore, if you are trying to remember something with no foundation on it, it's just floating out there on every wind and wave. You can't catch it. You got to build on something you already know. Okay, that's a little example to show how when we already know something, whether that be true or not, when we already know something, it is very hard to ever get that out because it's foundational to us. I was reading this wrong. I was reading it based upon what I already knew, but what I already knew was wrong and therefore I couldn't ever build upon it. I couldn't ever get over it. Now, here's what was conflicting in my mind. I know I haven't even read the verse yet. Here's what was conflicting on my mind. That the King James translators got it right. It's one of my bedrock fundamentals. The King James translators. Got it. Right. I didn't always hold that, but I've come to a position of holding that and that secondly, that the answer to this rhetorical question. Have they stumbled that they should fall? Was no, but I was reading it wrong, which caused me to have to I had to reject one or the other. Either the King James chose the wrong word here or I was reading the question wrong, which is what I finally came to, obviously. Now let's look at it. I say then have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid, but rather through their false salvation has come unto the gentiles for to provoke them to jealousy. Now, here's the issue. Have they stumbled that they should fall? This word? Let's go ahead and look in the Greek right here, peepto right here should fall. They should fall. Peepto. Have they stumbled that they should peep toe they should fall, God forbid, but through their fall here the word is peripoma. Peripoma, I kind of thought in the Greek was my solution. No, they didn't stumble so that they should fall. Rather, they didn't stumble so the show so that they should peep dough. Rather they paraptoma through their peripoma. They didn't fall. But the problem is King James said fall should they stumble that they should fall? No, but through their fall. Wait a minute, I thought they didn't stumble to fall. And so I went through this, and for a while I decided I was going to ignore ignore the fact that King James says fall. I had a little highlight about this peepto versus peripoma, and that my contention was they had not fallen. Why? Because they didn't stumble that they should fall. So they stumbled, but they did not fall was my position. They stumbled, but they did not fall because God forbid that they should stumble so that they should fall. They stumbled, but they didn't fall. And so through their stumbling rather than fall, salvation has come unto the gentiles, for to provoke them unto jealousy. In fact, it goes into the next verse. Now, if the fall, the stumbling what I was saying, don't follow me here because I'm not right. If the stumbling of them be the riches of the world and the diminishing of them the riches of the gentiles, how much more their fullness? Now, to take that point of view, I had to reject this word as being right in the King James. I looked. I thought an easy place to go is to say, oh, I know fall meant something different in 1611. Or maybe they didn't have the word stumble. Let's see what young's literal over here says. Did they stumble that they might fall? Let it not be but by their fall. Okay. They chose also the word fall twice. Let's check Darby over here. Did they stumble in order that they might fall? Far be the thought for by their fall. Okay, he uses that, too. Let's try Webster. Webster says, if they stumbled that they should fall by no means rather through their fall. So all of the ones that I turn to as literalist, they all say fall. I don't know. Probably if we go to this web translation here. Did they stumble that they might fall? May it never be. Okay. They use by their fall. Let's see if we've got I don't know what the BBE is. Let's try that. Were their steps made hard in order that they might fall in no way by their fall? Okay. It uses fall double as well. So that's 100% of the translations that we've got there. Now, I suspect and I hate to bring up this other software here, but if we do and let's pull up the NASB because we don't have those translations in ours, those modern translations there. But, yeah, if we take the NASB right here let me get this back up to size where you can do it, I say then did they stumble so as to fall? Did they? May it never be but by their transgression? Not by their fall. By their transgression, by their stumbling. They didn't fall. By their transgression, salvation has come to the gentiles to make them jealous. Now, if their transgression is the riches of the world, rather than if their fall is the riches of the world. Now, so I think my thinking was influenced by my formerly NASB stained fingers. Have they stumbled that they should fall? I was saying, God forbid, no, they didn't fall. But then what do I do? But rather through their fall, I had to take the position, at least in my mind, they did fall. They absolutely did fall. Why did I take that position? Because the King James said fall. And now we know the Young's Literal said fall. Darby said fall. Lot of them said fall, even though it's a different Greek word. And when I looked up those Greek words, by the way, we won't do it. But when I went and looked up the Greek words, I found out that both of them mean fall. Both of them mean fall. So what you've got here? I noticed some of you chatting about the NIV, which makes me curious. And let me see if I can get over back over here to the evangelical version and pull up let me try where's NIV? Right here. Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all, rather because their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now, let me say that well, let's talk about the NIV here a moment. Fall beyond recovery, trying to highlight that. Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Peepto. The word peepto does not mean fall beyond recovery, it just means fall. So they made that up, is the problem. They made it up because they were stuck with the same thinking that I was, which is wrong, which means they're wrong. It says, did they stumble so as to fall? Not at all, God forbid. Rather because of their paraptima, it could be transgression or misstep, but the way it's used is fall. So all these modern versions, NIV, NASB, they change the fall here is what they do and make the fall not happen. Whereas the King James says, did they stumble that they should fall? No, but they did fall. And through their false salvation has come to the Gentiles, and the fall of them be the riches of the world. Now, here's how to fix it. I finally did go to the Greek, and the Greek certainly did help. And that's the key word right there. Have they stumbled? Absolutely. Did they fall? Absolutely. Israel stumbled and Israel fell. But that it's a purpose word right here. And I got that as I looked over here again, verse eleven. It's the word right here. The word is hina. Hina. And the word hina is a purpose statement. And very often the best way to understand it when you come across that particular, that word hina, the best way to understand it is in order that this being the purpose of now let's come at it. Has Israel stumbled? Absolutely. What was the purpose of their stumble? Was the purpose that they should fall? God forbid. There is another purpose at work. Rather, through the fall that they did have, they did stumble, they did fall. But the purpose was not their fall, as if that was an end in itself. The purpose was that through their fall, salvation is come unto the Gentiles. You could take out the word is come, if you would like, inserted. The purpose of their stumbling was not just to fall. They stumbled and fell. But the purpose was that through their fall, salvation unto the Gentiles, god allowed them to fall. He allowed them to stumble. He allowed them to fall just so that they would fall. No, he allowed them to stumble. He allowed them to fall to bring salvation unto the Gentiles. He had a purpose involved. Now, this does tell us that though the mystery under which we live, which is basically salvation under the Gentiles by grace of faith, that this mystery, though it was unrevealed and it was a mystery, it was not a plan B. God knew all along. In fact, even even Paul says in the Book of Ephesians, chapter three, he says that this mystery was hid in God. Okay? That means it wasn't just invented along the way. It was hid in God. He kept it hid, and he allowed Israel to stumble and fall. The purpose was not just because he was mad at Israel and he wanted to trip them. He just wanted them to stumble and fall so that he could bring salvation to the Gentiles and pull out his plan, reveal his secret plan. And indeed he has done so, and he did so through Paul. So they stumbled not just so that they could fall, but that through their fall, salvation has come to the Gentiles. And then another little confusing phrase right here for to provoke them to jealousy. Now, I would put this together a little bit like this. Was the purpose of their stumbling that they would fall? No, the purpose of their stumbling was to provoke them to jealousy. It was to provoke them to jealousy because in their fall, they would become, to use the Hebrew phrase, lo AMI, not my people. It is not the salvation of the Gentiles that was going to provoke them to jealousy. Rather, it was being not a people. Romans 1019. You can go back to Romans 1019. It has this same phrase right here which comes out of the Old Testament to provoke them to jealousy. They are going to be jealous by falling. They stumble, they fall. They are low on me. They are not my people. And that provokes them to jealousy. And in the meantime, the Gentiles have salvation through their false, salvation has come to the Gentiles. And that puts it all together there. And so we have a truth here that's going to be seen down later in verses 25 and 26, where Paul's going to say, hey, I want you to know about the mysteries so that you would know that Israel has a hardening. In part, they fell in order that salvation might come to the Gentiles, in order that they might be a time of lo AMI as a fulfillment of prophecy. And low AMI was a fulfillment of prophecy. That's not part of the mystery. And lo AMI was going to provoke them unto jealousy. That's not part of the prophecy. And you get in trouble if you make salvation to the Gentiles being what provokes them to jealousy, because what provoked them to jealousy was being low on me. If salvation to the Gentiles provoked them to jealousy, then you can find it in the Old Testament, because that's all in the Old Testament, and you run into that challenge there. Now, if the fall of them, again, it's very clear they fell. And I just think that you've got a really weak argument. This is why I wasn't happy with it, because I like a robust argument. If the fall of them, if all I had to go by and earlier, all I had to go by was peep doe versus paraptoma. Oh, this one's not quite. Not quite. I've fallen and I can't get up. It's just I've fallen. But the linguistic argument there was so weak that as an attorney, I would not take it before the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. That one's not going to cut it. We don't have enough evidence. Truth is, they fell. 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? Couple of things here. Can we start from the end? I do that a lot of times, it seems like right here. How much more their fullness. So you've got fall and fullness. Those two words right there. Fall and fullness. Fall today, fullness in the future ought to make you a dispensationalist. If you're not a dispensationalist, you ought to become a dispensationalist. Now, you cannot say, oh, God's work has always been the same throughout time, throughout eternity, throughout all people, wherever you are, whenever you are, god's work has always been the same. No, there was a time when there were low amy, and there are time when they're AMI, my people, there are a time when they fall. There is a time in the fullness. There are these various dispensations and God's dealing with Israel specifically, it's talking about right here. And there are some fringe benefits that come to the Gentiles in the midst of all that. So there was the time before their fall. Obviously, you can't fall unless you're standing. So there was Israel standing. There was Israel fallen. There is Israel standing up again in its fullness. And if Israel stands, falls, rises again, then you can't say, I'm not a dispensationalist. If you really think God does the same yesterday, today, and forever, I'm not a dispensationalist. If you put that aside, what do you do with this verse. This verse is dispensational in its very core. The only thing I could suggest, if you're not a dispensationalist, is get to pin and scratch out verse twelve. Get some scissors, as a matter of fact, because you wouldn't want any of it showing through. This is a dispensational verse. Fall fullness in the fall now, going to be in the fullness later. So you've got fall and fullness a dispensational verse. But then let's go into one of the principles of dispensationalism is to take Scripture literally. If you can take it literally, do so. So here, if the fall of them be the riches of the world now the riches of the world, the riches of the Gentiles I think riches of the world and riches of the Gentiles are the same thing. It's just a parallel statement. And I don't think that this word used twice right here, riches, has anything to do with finances. I think this is a spiritual riches. But that's kind of spiritualizing it because the core of that word is financial. My rule is if you can take it literally, do it well. Can you take it literally? If the fall of them be the financial riches of the world and the diminishing of them be the financial riches of the Gentiles, how much more are their fullness? You could take that. The problem is you have nothing scripturally to support it, nor anything really by evidence to support it. Most of the Christian world is poor, by the way, so you can't really take that and take that in a literal way. You just run into way too many problems taking it literally. So then you begin to look and say, okay, do I have permission from the text to take it figuratively, spiritual riches of the world? And I think that the answer is absolutely yes. Let's just look, for example, at Ephesians chapter, chapter three, verse eight. Excuse me, gotta spell it right there. Ephesians, chapter three, verse eight. Unto me whom less than the least of all the saints is this grace. Given that I should preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ, I think you'd be hard pressed to say this is talking about the big bucks that Jesus has. This is spiritual riches. If that doesn't convince you, we could try another one. We could go to Colossians, chapter one, verse 27. To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles? Now that little phrase right there, riches of the glory of the mystery among the Gentiles. Really, I think you probably would agree with me parallels with Romans, chapter eleven, verse twelve, the riches of the Gentiles, the riches of the mystery. So you've got two passages of Scripture which use riches in the context of Gentiles, in the context with the mystery. I'm very comfortable saying this is spiritual riches. You probably are comfortable with that as well. So the fall. They did fall. King James didn't get it wrong here. They fell. And the other translations that don't want to use fall have to explain why periptoma doesn't mean fall when I think it does. And they know it means fall. So they did fall. The fall of them is not permanent. There's going to be a fullness again. They're going to stand up again. If the fall of them be the riches of the world once again, that's very dispensational, right? And the diminishing of them. Okay, you've got two parallel statements. The fall of them, the diminishing of them, the riches of the world, the riches of the Gentiles, just stating it in a slightly different way. Two parallel statements. How much more their fullness? There is a time coming, I think this remember, what is the passage? Is it Ezekiel or Isaiah or I should know that says, I have not seen nor ear heard the things that God has prepared for them who love him. That's a little bit of a paraphrase. That's right here. It's a kingdom kind of thing. It's not talking about the mystery. I have not seen. There's a reference to the mystery. No, it's not talking about the mystery. It's talking about when we get to the fullness out here, this is where, man, you ain't seen nothing yet. Right here, the riches of the world that has come to us, you and I, who are believers, we're the Gentiles that have been blessed spiritually. This is nothing compared to the fullness. How much more? And I look at it and I say, wow, we've got it good. I know that sometimes when you first learn dispensationalism and right division, you kind of get bummed out a little bit because all the name it and claim it promises were taken away from you. And so you get discouraged a little bit. What another promise is gone. And yet what we've got right now is riches, and it even gets better. How much more their fullness? Something out there, something to look into, if you will. And this fullness right here, I think this fullness is speaking about the millennium. That's when they're going to rise again, and we'll lay that down a little further. But how much more their fullness? How much more the millennial day? And I've given you a couple of passages in the outline to kind of support that build it up. We won't go into it just because of time right now. If today, right here, if you got this fall, during this period of this fall, this times of the Gentiles, if you will, if that is the riches of the world and the riches of the Gentiles, just wait till you get to the dispensation of the fullness of times, as Paul calls it. In Ephesians, chapter one, I think, verse seven, you get something just spectacular and wonderful yet to come in the dispensation of the fullness of times. Okay, let's move on. To verse 13, he says, For I speak to you, Gentiles, and as much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I'm magnifying my office. Now, here he does make a change. We talked about this a little bit and asked theologian this morning, roger and Sierra Vista had a question. I speak to you, Gentiles in this we've got this change that is coming as he does come, and he says, okay, I want to talk to you, Gentiles. And we are in this overlap in this program. And so being in this overlap, it makes sense that we would find in chapter eleven that he says, I've been talking about Jews. Now, let me talk to you, Gentiles. Let me speak directly to you Gentiles here just a little bit. And so when we get to verse 13, I think is that the first? No, actually, I had eleven and twelve. I put this in blue, blue letters in the right dividing color coding to say, hey, yeah, this is our stuff. Because he's talking about the riches of the Gentiles. He's talking about the time period of the fall of Israel. This is us he's talking about. And so he comes here clearer and says, yeah, I speak to you, Gentiles. I looked at this and tried to make this just in my mind. I said, okay, could this be I speak to you Roman Jews who happen to be living in the nations. I don't think it works, especially you. Get down here. I want them that are of my flesh. That's Israel. I think you've got the uncircumcised, the circumcised, the Jew, the non Jew. Other way around. So here it is. I speak to you, gentiles. Okay, we'll listen, right? He says, I speak to you inasmuch as I am the apostles of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office. Now put that phrase together. I speak to you, Gentiles, inasmuch as I'm the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my office, and I speak to you if by any means I may provoke emulation of them which are of my flesh. Here's my purpose of speaking to you. So, hey, Gentiles, I happen to be the apostle of the Gentiles, and I magnify mine office. The word magnify here comes from DOXA. We get doxology? It's the word for praise or glory, you could say, I glorify mine office. What did Young's Literal say over here? Let's just check it out. I speak to you, Gentiles, as much as I'm the apostle, okay, said magnify my office. There also. So magnify glorify doxify. I get it bigger. I magnify mine office. That little phrase right there. I magnify mine office is something that non right dividers don't understand standard Christianity, standard evangelicalism, does not understand the office of the Apostle Paul. I think as a right divider, one of the fundamentals of being a right divider, which is what our theological position is, is right division. One of the fundamental issues of being. A right divider is we magnify along with Paul, the office of Paul, the purpose and role of Paul. Now, standard Christianity out there, and I would even say standard dispensationalism, which basically is just standard evangelicalism on the conservative side, standard dispensationalism, standard evangelicalism, standard Christianity doesn't magnify Paul's office. It doesn't even know why you would magnify Paul's office. It for the most part, doesn't even know that Paul has an office. And this I magnify my office is evangelicalism is befuddled by it. Because when you look at evangelicalism, they might say, oh, well, he's the apostle to the Gentiles. But if you think about this just a little bit with Paul being the office of being the apostle to the Gentiles, is he merely just going with to a different audience? That's what evangelicalism would have us to believe. Paul says the same thing. They would tell us paul, Peter, they say the exact same thing. Paul, Peter, James, say the exact same thing. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, they all say the same thing. That's what they want us to believe. That's what they keep telling us over and over and over, ad nauseam. They keep telling us it's all the same thing. And therefore there is no office of Paul to magnify other than some crazed conceit here. What do you mean you magnify your office? Peter is the guy with the keys to the kingdom. Put yourself under some subordination, have some degree of humility, Paul. Well, I just do this better than anybody else. That's the approach you have to take. I see no other way. You've got to say Paul was just arrogant because he had the same message. Okay, so he went to a different group of people. But let me tell you, you can't even say he went to a different group of people. Why, if you put all these together here's the twelve here's Paul, what are the last words that God said to the twelve? Go ye therefore, and make disciples of make disciples of all the Jews. Later on I'll bring someone for the Gentiles. No. Make disciples of all nations. Last words recorded of Jesus. You shall receive power while he was on earth anyway. You shall receive power and after the Holy Ghost has come upon you and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and unto Judea and Samaria, and to the remotest parts of the earth you can't just oh, they've got a different audience. The apostles, the twelve apostles just went to the Jews. Why'd they go to the Jews when Jesus explicitly said all nations to the remotest parts of the earth? You can't just tell me god didn't realize how inept those twelve are going to be, and so he had to bring along Paul. It is not just a different audience, it is a different message. This is why evangelicalism doesn't like to accept it. But if you take the message of Paul and lay it aside the message of Peter, they will not agree. You could put Peter with Matthew, Mark and Luke. Even John. You could put Peter with James. But you better not put Paul in there, because linguistically it's a disagreement, plain and simple. It's been said before, you take Paul out of the New Testament and you've got Judaism. That's all you've got. Judaism believing Messianic Judaism. But it's Judaism. Obedience to the law. James, Jude, first and second, peter, the portion of Acts that has to do with the Twelve, it's Judaism. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, judaism, you only get by grace through faith, not of yourselves. In Paul, he magnifies his office because it's the office for this time in which Israel has fallen. Israel is not in its fullness, and therefore his office is a completely different message. I would trying to decide if I want to have a debate or an arm wrestle. I'm not sure. Cage fight, maybe the one who says Paul's office was the same as Peter's office. I'll debate you. Let's bring it on. Maybe we'll have a cage fight afterwards. Right. Okay, there we go. I'm magnifying my office if by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh and might save some of them. Now, provoke to emulation right here. That's exactly it's. The very same Greek word as you've got in a previous verse, I think it's verse ten or eleven last week, where it is provoked to jealousy. And all it was is the King James translators not wanting to repeat the word jealousy. Emulation is a synonym of jealousy if you look it up. So if I by any means provoke them to jealousy, provoke them to emulation them, which are my flesh and might save some of them. Paul, really. I mean, he said right from the beginning, brethren, my heart's desire is for my people Israel, that some might be saved. I'll magnify my office in order to see some of them saved. This is what I want. This is my desire. And then he goes beginning in verse 15 and talks about the casting away of them. The casting away of them. Well, first of all, it requires you to be a dispensationalist. There was a time they were not cast away and then there was the casting away of them. And he gives here a little let's see if I can pull up the outline. I should have brought that all into order. There we go. Bring that up big. There we go. That's the wrong one. Here we go. Session 30. Okay, this is the outline for tonight. And what I want to try to do is bring up this little chart that I've given you that has to do with verse 15, the dispensational event, the result and the timing. Because I think verse 15 really does give a clear yet profound timeline of events. And here's what we've got. The dispensational event was the casting away of them. The result of that was the reconciliation of the world. The timing starting from acts nine. We could argue, we could deal with this, but when was Israel cast away? I would say starting from acts nine. Now, that being the case, what then? See if I can get us here. If the casting away be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be? Okay, that gets us here into the next dispensational event. The receiving of them. The receiving of them results in life from the dead. Well, when do you get life from the dead? At the second coming of Jesus Christ, the receiving of them will be life from the dead. So when the Jewish nation is received again and becomes my people, it will coincide with the second coming, the resurrection, life from the dead. And get back to the verse. Here we go. If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be? But life from the dead gives us nice little dispensational timeline. I just love this. It kind of tells us a dispensational format. From here on, we've got the casting away. When they're low amy, the low AMI is the reconciling of the world. The AMI will be life from the dead. Nice little very simple outline. Obviously, we would add more to it. Okay, verse 16. If the first fruit be holy, the lump also is holy. If the root be holy, so are the branches. Now, this one verse in this section, this one verse in this section, I left in black letters. I left it in black letters because I think this is talking about them. Israel. Because it is Israel, that is the lump. It is Israel, that is the branches. So if the first fruit be holy, the lump is holy. This is such Jewish talk, I'm not going to go into it. You can check your outline on more if you want, but this is from first fruits to holy lumps, roots and branches. Such Jewish talk. That what he's saying is let me again back up just a little bit. The receiving of them, someone might say, Wait, I thought they fell. Yeah, but they're going to be received. There's a fall, there's a fullness, there's a dispensational change. You say, well, how in the world could they be received again? Well, if the first fruit is holy, the lump is holy. If the root is holy, the branches are holy, there's hope for Israel. They will come again. And this is just a little theological groundwork for that future hope of Israel, if you will. And then beginning in verse 17, Paul comes along and he writes about the very famous issue of the Gentiles of the body of Christ being grafted in. And he does something here which is very much a I don't know if I want to call it habit because it sounds kind of bad, but it's a writing habit of Paul, and that is that he will mention something almost in passing and then use that jump on that as a I don't know, can you call it a rabbit trail? Let's say verses 17, really, almost all the way down to 24 is is a rabbit trail that he got on because he said branches. So if the rouge is holy, the branches let me chase this little grafted in rabbit here for a moment. And he goes with it. One word spurs his thinking. And he goes and writes about that. I'm glad he kind of did. That makes me feel better. So if some of the branches Israel be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, were graft in among them, and with them partake us of the root and the fatness of the olive tree I want to stop there for just a moment. Okay? So some of the branches be broken off. This is, I think, in the analogies that he's using. He's switching analogies. He had talked about fallen. Now he talks about branches being broken off, pruning, if you will. And another thing that he does here, not only does he switch illustrations, if you will, but he switches remember, he said you gentiles earlier. Now he's down to the individual. I think that's probably just a rhetorical advice. I don't know that there's some specific individual we can look at. But he goes from I speak to you, gentiles, to I speak to thou, thou wild olive tree. So on an individual basis, again, I think it's just a rhetorical advice device to bring it down, make this personal. So thou, thou gentile, being a wild olive tree. Now, again, this is an illustration, if you will. I think we have to be careful at illustrations, because in interpreting illustrations, it's different than interpreting a type. Interpreting a type, every little thing matters in an illustration. It's kind of the point that matters. And here, being a wild olive tree, I'm going to even call it incidental, that he uses wild olive trees that sort of fit the tone and the setting for his Roman audience and his Jewish audience. Let's talk olive trees. But I don't think there's any textual significance to me. You the gentiles, being a wild olive tree. He probably could have said if he were here in northern New Mexico, maybe he would have said, well, we got a wild apricot tree right out here. It grew from seed, and now it's big and we get shade on it, and we love our wild apricot tree all but two weeks of the year, which are about to start. If you need some apricots, make your way down to us, because we have got them. But the problem is they're little tiny apricots because they're wild. They're not hybrid apricots that are like this big. They're little, little tiny apricots with a big ol seed in them. And there's something close to the population of China in terms of apricots that are on that one tree, and we get them every year. It always produces. It's a wild apricot tree. Okay. Maybe if he were writing in Taos, he would have said some of the branches were broken off and thou, a wild apricot tree, were grafted. I don't think the tree matters. I couldn't find any reference that gave some significance to being the wild olive tree rather than the wild apricot tree or pear tree or pine tree, whatever you want. It's just what it is. So thou being a wild tree, were it graft in among them, with them, partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree. Same thing right here. Normally the preacher will tell you olive trees represent Israel. Well, here it represents Israel, but it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's the olive tree. So I wouldn't try to put every little detail together. I think he's got a point he wants. So, hey, Gentile, you are out there outside the covenants, outside of the Commonwealth. You're graft in among them. And now being grafted in, you partakest of the root and the fatness of the olive tree. Good for you. Congratulations. It's an illustration. We, as Gentiles, now are able to partake. We were once without God, without hope in the world. Now we're on the inside. We're able to partake the root and fatness. Now, incidentally, the word graft right there, this is the archaic spelling. There is no difference between graft and grafted. Either one is correct. You're a little more attuned with your Middle English if you go with graft. So you now partake of the root and fatness. So boast not against the branches. If thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Just a bit of a reminder here of what is taking place. You're not the one holding the root up. The roots holding you up. Have some humility about it. I wonder I didn't put this on the notes, but I wonder if we could switch this around just a little bit and say, hey, if you're just let's let's pretend like we switched the illustration. You weren't part of the household, but God brought you in. But just remember bringing you into the household, you're not the owner. Have some humility. You're a guest. Could you use that illustration? Yeah. And I wonder if you would break it in our household. Illustration you think you're the owner in the branches illustration, you think you're the root. What has the church done? I am the bride of Christ. I'm the apple of God's eye. Wait a minute. You're the wild branch graft in. We ought not forget this. So if thou boast, thou boastest not of the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then the branches were broken off that I might be graft in again. This is the arrogance, the haughtiness that could easily come. Let me stop right here. Beginning in verse 17, 1819, this little section here is almost always used and taken as we, the Gentiles, have been grafted into Israel. I think that's wrong. I do not teach that we've been graft into Israel. I know what this says. I know what all the websites out there say, know what all the evangelical garbage is. But the problem is that is that this is some degree of replacement theology. Either the Gentiles have kind of moved in and are now part of Israel, and therefore inherit Israel's promises. If we're graft into Israel, only makes sense. Abrahamic promises become ours because we're with them, or it even just becomes replacement theology. They were cut off, we were brought in, we are now Israel. So different degrees to it, but no doubt about it, it has a replacement theology tone to it. But nowhere here does it say that we've been graft into Israel. Rather, we've been graft into the root. Well, what is the root? Does the root have to be Israel? Actually, Israel is the branches that were cut off. What is the root? I would put it as the root is God, the plan and purpose of God. Israel came about naturally out of that work of God. But then God came cut off that which came out naturally and put us on for a time. It's not permanent. We know that, we've seen that. We're going to see that. But the root here, we've been grafted in not to Israel, but we've been grafted into the plan and purpose of God. Everybody just assumes, yeah, we've been grafted into Israel. Even though it doesn't say that thou thou Gentile, you're sort of our stand in for all that will say then the branches were broken off, that I might be grafted well because of unbelief. They were broken off. Thou standest by faith, be not high minded, but fear. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed, lest he spare not thee. This becomes a problem if we, and we have we in a broad sense, we develop this idea that the body of Christ has been graphed into Israel and now we are secure. We are Israel now and forevermore. But he says, wait a minute, if he cut them off, why not cut you off? That has a problem for grafted into Israel anything that relates to salvation. You got a problem here, you're going to lose your salvation. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell. Severity betoard thee goodness if thou continue in this goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. We better not put this in salvation sense. We better put it in the sense of the plan and purpose of God. Let's jump back over here to the outline here. I've got down little ways. Let's see, where are we right here. The online resource bibleref.com of subsidiary of Got questions, both of which propagate standard evangelical interpretations provides the following commentary on verse 21 the only difference between the Jewish people who have been pruned by God and the Gentile Christians who have been added is faith in Christ. The Jewish branches that were pruned were taken off because of their refusal to believe. The Gentile Christians were added because they believed faith in Christ is the only difference. Now, Paul writes that if God was willing to break off the natural branches, those Jewish people who were genetic descendants of Abraham, he certainly won't spare Gentiles who refuse to believe in Christ. Faith in Christ is their only hope of remaining connected to the tree. Now, I want you to notice what they do here is he certainly won't spare Gentiles who refuse to believe in Christ. But I said on the outline, it is crucial to note that this interpretation, which asserts that God won't spare Gentiles who refuse to believe in Christ, overlooks the critical point that the warning is explicitly addressed to those who already believe in Christ. Verse 20 emphasizes Thou standest by faith. Verse 21 advises, take heed, lest he not spare thee. What's the difference? How is thou standest by faith different than he will not spare thee? bibleref.com got questions. The purveyor of evangelical garbage wants to say, thou believer, standest by faith, but take heed lest thou non believer, he'll not spare thee. It's an interpretation of convenience. Let me continue reading. The attempt to apply verse 21 to an imagined unbeliever while verse 20 Spirit clearly speaks to a believer seems incongruent. This inconsistent interpretation may stem from a theological bias skewing the interpretation rather than allowing the text to articulate its own message. I probably should drop the word may. There may stem from a theological it's a theological bias that's the problem. And theological bias is hard to get over, isn't it? Take this, what it is. It says again let me back up to verse 20 thou standest by faith, he will not spare thee. There is nothing in between the two pronouns there that switch the person. There's coming a day when God will cut off the Gentile. The fullness of the Gentiles will come in. We'll see that later in this chapter. Behold, therefore the goodness and severity of God. Otherwise thou shalt also be cut off. We know that someday it will be cut off. Verse 23 and they also they Israel, if they abide not still and unbelief, shall be graft in for God's able to graft them in again. If thou were cut out of the olive tree which were wild by nature and were graft in contrary to nature, into a good olive tree, how much more shall these which be in natural banches be graft into their own olive tree, says, hey, if God grafted you in, it's easy, easy peasy for him to graft them back in. Again, a very dispensational passage. AMI lo AMI, AMI. Again, very clear. Standing, fallen, standing again, very clear or if you want to switch that to the gentiles. Fallen, standing, fallen. Dispensational change all through this passage. I think we have to take the passage and we have to say that indeed, it's a dispensational passage and it talks about Israel today beginning in that time of overlap and now we're outside of that time of overlap and just dealing with the work of God today through this message. Well, thank you, each one of you for joining us. I'd love to say hello, give some greetings to you tonight. If you haven't already given a hello greeting, why don't you do it right now? Just put it in. Like Deb says, I love verse by verse study. It's just my thing. Preaching doesn't prove anything, but verse by verse is proof. I like that. Amen. Good to see that. Thanks for that. Now let me jump up here and say hi to Jim in Piedmont, South Carolina. Good to see you tonight. Auburn, Kentucky. The halls welcome. We've got Scott down the Texas hill country. Hey, we had Josh this morning from the Texas hill country. Got a partner there. The Benners in Inkerman, Pennsylvania. Roger in Maryland. In Wabashaw, Minnesota. We got the Sholo, Arizona branch of the Taos theological Seminary with us tonight. Vulcan, Alberta says love these 50 degree sleeping weather nights. Isn't it nice? I can one up you. We got 40 degree sleeping weather nights where I live. Even yesterday it got hot. It got up to 90 at my house. That's maybe the hottest day of the summer. But I woke up this morning, it was 40. So it's nice. Sleep with the windows open the house, cools off again. Darryl and Lisa Moundridge, Kansas. Glad you're here. Southwest Georgia. Jerry, welcome. Good to see you. Crystal Springs, Mississippi. Debbie and Darryl, glad you're here. The buffalo river portion of the Ozarks. Deb, thanks for being here. Jack and Teresa in hot Houston. Heat warnings. Heat warnings in hot Houston. Lynn, Elizabeth, good to see you. Coming in from London tonight. Thank you. Roger, I meant to ask you earlier, are you in Oregon? Are you in California? I'm not sure, but Roger, we're glad you're here. Jody and Rich, I think they are in Pensacola. Good to see you. Oh, someone, I don't know the name, but someone from Clinton, Iowa, right along the Mississippi river. So what's that on the east side? Is that right? Trying to make sure. Yeah, iowa goes up to Nebraska. On the West Side. Clinton, Iowa. I went to Iowa, I think was it last fall or a year ago? I was really impressed with how beautiful Iowa was. It's not a place you just immediately say, oh, the beauty of Iowa. But it was pretty. I didn't get that far east, but thanks for joining us from Clinton, Iowa. West Plains, Missouri is also here. Edith, always good to see you. We got western Oklahoma here. Chuck and the dog are there. Thanks for joining us. Bev up in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. I don't know if that's beautiful or not, but it sure does sound nice. Ohio. Eric, good to see you. Herb and Sherry. The Vickers are here with us tonight from Alabama. Dropped in to say hello. They had lunch today with Debbie and Darryl who are here. Must been traveling on their way there. Let's see. I might be able to show you all a picture, except I can't. Oh, there we go. Can I do that? I think I can. Yeah. They won't mind. I mean, they had lunch here. I think I gotta switch to this camera. Yeah, there we go. There's Herb, Sherry, Debbie and Darryl. Mississippi one, Mississippi two at the I don't know, the Brando buffet or something like that. Looks good. They just had lunch, so that was today. They sent me a picture. I was nice. I like to get your pictures, by the way, see what you look like. I already knew what they look like because they all go to Branson. I hope you to see you all in Branson as well. Okay. It's Rogers back in Fresno. Glad you're there. And John in West Virginia. Welcome. Good to see you. Thanks for being here. Linda in Lexington. Thanks for being here. Jacob, I'm not sure where you're from. Jacob. Emmanuel. Good to see you. Or as he says, SUP brethren. I like that. I'm going to try that. SUP brethren. Where are you from, Jacob? I would love to know. That was all. Wisconsin. Good to see Kurt and Brenda tonight. God bless you. Phil and Dreama in Lexington. Always good to see you. We've got the Kingdom of the Netherlands here today with Gerard. Thank you. And cliff up there in Ontario. Kitchener, Ontario. I've been learning a little bit about Winston Churchill and there was someone in his cabinet or right before that named Kitchener. And I just wondered, hey, is that named after the same guy? Probably goes back farther than that. Annie P. Good to see you tonight, as always. We've got Mr. KJB. Believer. Good to see you. God bless you. Coming in tonight from Texas. I'm with you on that one, by the way. Our Taos Prophecy Conference last week of September. It's a beautiful time to be in Taos. And we're going to talk about the King James Bible and the underlying textual issues. I think it'll be more interesting than you think. Tara, good see you. Big sky country in Montana. Always a blessing to have you. And Carbondale, Colorado. Lisa, good to see you. Are your mom and dad here tonight? I hadn't seen. There Sharon and Russ. Ellendale, Minnesota. Thanks. Oh, there comes Pueblo West. The Trasks. They're here and accounted for. Lisa, we've got oh, Doran, if I pronounce that right. New Brunswick, Canada. Good to see you. Have you been with us before? We've had New Brunswick before, but I'm not sure. No. Maybe that was Nova Scotia. We had I'm glad you're here, Doran. That is Hebrew for gift, I think. Valerie, good to see you tonight. Kitchener was called New Berlin before World War II. Needless to say, names change right quick. You didn't want to be New Berlin. I wonder why. So I wonder if maybe it is then named after that Winston Churchill era Kitchener. I'm listening to an audiobook on Winston Churchill. It is long, long, long, and I'm learning some things. It's just now, just today, Winston Churchill was elected Prime Minister. And I have suffered through because I don't know any of the names, so it's hard to just listen and not know anything that he's saying, what he was talking about. Churchill is the only name I know anyway. Oh, yeah, Cliff, thanks for that word. Shorewwood Bible Church is having their conference this week. And that reminds me, if you're at the Shorewood Conference, one of our newest books is going to be right here. Where is God's word today? By Stephen tyndale reed. You know, one of the most impressive things about this book is that Stephen is 18 years old and this is a mature book. I mean, maturely written, it's well written. It's a lot of scripture. I doubt you can see that there's little charts that have scripture. It compares modern versions with the King James version. Really. The format of the book is to lay forth a claim and then give some scriptural backing and show many of the other translations in there as well. It's 1295, I think. Available@dispensationalpublishing.com. Or if you happen to be at the Shorewwood Bible Church this week, I know they've got some copies up there. But that's our newest book. It's available@dispensationalpublishing.com. Thank you. Dorian. Been here many years. I'm just quiet. There's a lot of you out there like that and I appreciate the quiet ones, but every now and then you should drop in and drop your name. It's always nice. And thank you all. As Chuck says, thank you for another great evening. I'll pass that word on, too. Looks like I'm chopping my head off. I got to back up a little bit. There we go. Now my head's not chopped off. Why don't we have a word of prayer before we dismiss? I kept you overtime tonight. Let me leave this in prayer. Heavenly Father, thank you for the glories of Scripture. The revelations of Scripture, not always easy. We have to struggle through sometimes and try to figure it out, and yet you enable us to do it. And for this we're most grateful. And we pray that you would help us to grasp hold of that which has been understood correctly and forget all about that which we may have misunderstood. And each time we come back to these verses to add to our understanding and to be blessed and all that, thank you for these around. Our great big electronic table have joined tonight and we're most grateful. And we pray this in Jesus name. Amen. Sunday at 945. Got a new series starting on Samsung. Hope to see you Sunday, 945. And we'll have our 1045 study then as well on Unlearn. It's been great to have you. This is Vacation Bible School Week down in Towson, New Mexico. And we're having a good vacation Bible school and thrilled with all that. Well, till tomorrow morning. Ask the theologian or Sunday for our new study. Or our old study. We'll see you then.