We arc exhorted, indeed, not to read this lan^^of e in isolation.
but to remember tbat the ninth chapter must be interpreted in the lipht of the eleventh. Not to ilweil on the equally im- portant coiisidL-raiion that the eleventh chapter must hKcwise be inttrj^i'eted only in the light of the ninth, thcru ^ecnis heie to exhibit itself Bonie forjjetfultiess of the inht-rcut toiaiiiuiiv of St. Paul's thought, and, indeed, some niisconcfplion ot the progress of tiie aritrument through the section, which is n compact wliole and must express u much pumiered line o( thouij'ht, constantly present to tlie apostle's mind. We umst not permit to fall out of sight the fact that the whole extremity of assertion of the ninth chapter is repeated in the eleventh (IH"'); 80 that there is no change of conc-ption or lapse of consecution observable as the argument develops, and we do not escape from the doctrine of predestination of the ninth chapter in fleeing to the eleventh. Tliis is true even if we go at once to the great closing declaration of W-^'^y to which we are often directed as to the key of the whole section — which, indeed, it very nmch is : 'For (iod hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.' On the face of it there could not readily be framed a more explicit assertion of the Divine control anrl tlie Divine initiative than this; it is only another declaration that He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and after the manner and in the order that He will. And it certainly is not possible to read it as a declaration ot universal salvation, and thus reduce the whole preceding exi>08ition to a mere tracing of the varying pathways along which the conunon Father leads each individual ot the race severally to the common goal. Needless to point out that thus the wliole argument would be stultilied, and the apostle convicted of gross exaggeration in tone and language where otherwise we find only ini}>res>i\e solenmiLy, rising at times into natural anguish. It is enough to observe that the verse cannot bear this sense in its context. Nothing is clearerithan that its purpose is not to minimise but to magnify the sense of absolute dependence on the Divine mercy, and to quicken apprehension of the mystery of God's righteously loving ways ; and nothing is clearer tlian that the reference of the double 'all' is exliausted by the two clashes discussed in the immediate context,— so that they are noi to be taken individualistically but, so to speak, racially. The intrusion of the individualistie-universalistic sentiment, so dominant in the modern consciousness, into the interpretation of this section, indeed, is to throw tlie whole into inextriLahle confusion. Nothing could be further from the nationalist ic- universalistic ]»oint of view from which it vvas written, and ti'om which alone St. Paul can be understoocl when he represents that in rejecting the mass of contemporary Jews God has not cast olT His people, but, acting only as He had frequently done in former ages, is fulfllling His ]>romise to the kernel while BhelHiig of! the liusk. Througliout the whole process of pruning and in- grafting which he traces in the dealings of God with the olive- tree which He has once for all planted, St. Paul sees God. in accordance with His promise, saving His people. The continuity of its stream of life he perceives preservea throughout all it« present experience of rejection (llii^); the gracious purpose ol the present confinement of it-s channel, he tract-s with eagei hand (lim^); he predicts with confidence the attainment in the end of the full breadth of the promise (lU^-^s),— all to the praise of the glory of God's grace (1133-^6). There is un- doubtedlj' a univerKalism of salvation proclaimed here ; but it is an eschatological, not an individualistic universalism. The day is certainly to come when the whole world—inclusive of all the Jews and Gentiles alike, then dwellin''- on the globe — shall know and servo the Lord ; and God in all His strange work ol distributing salvation is leading the course of events to that great goal ; but meanwhile the principle of His action is free, sovereign grace, to which alone it is to be attributed that any who are saved in the meantime enter into their inheritaiK-e, and through which alone shall the final goal of the race itself he attained. The central thought of the whole discussion, in a word, is that Israel does not owe the promise to the fact that it is Israel, hut conversely owes the fact that it is Israel to the promise,— that * it is not the children of the fiesh that are the children of God, but the children of the promise that are reckoned for a seed ' (93). In these words we hold the real key to the whole section; and if we approach it with this key in hand we shall have tittle dilKciilty in a]>prehcnding that, from its beginning to its end, St. Paul has no higher object than to make clear that the inclusion of any individual williin the kingdom of God finds its hoIc cause in the sovereign grace of the chuosinn: God, and cannot in any way or degree depend upon his own merit, privilege, or act.