descendant of Abraham must be saved. Known unto God from the beginning are those

who constitute `the seed of promise'.

The fact that the bulk of the nation was in a state of unbelief at the time that Paul

wrote, did not in any way throw doubt upon the accuracy of prophecy and the promises.

Rather the reverse, for there are a number of references in the O.T. to Israel's apostasy

and the preservation of a remnant. Isaiah, in a day of departure, speaks of this remnant in

1: 9; 10: 20-22, and is quoted in Rom. 9: 27:

On the day of Pentecost, Peter omitted the close of Joel 2: 32, because the appeal was

to the nation. Subsequent events, however, proved that what Joel had prophesied was

fulfilled. The omitted words--"and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call"--were

applicable then, and will again be true in the future days of Israel's restoration. When,

therefore, we read in Rom. 11: 26 "And so all Israel shall be saved", we must read the

words `all Israel' in the light of Rom. 9: 6-9. The `all Israel' that shall be saved is not

co-extensive with a total number of Abraham's descendants, but indicates a definite

company--`children of promise', a `reckoned seed'.

The same principle holds good with respect to `all in Adam' and `all in Christ'. These

terms do not extend to every individual descendant of Adam, for some, like the

Canaanites, ought never to have been born. At the creation of Adam, God had already in

view a chosen seed. Although this purpose has been attacked by Satan and imperilled in

many ways, by Cain and others, by the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of

men at the time of the Flood, and by the `tares' in our Lord's own day (John 8: 39-44),

the children of promise are preserved, and will finally reach their true goal. Universal

reconciliation is true if applied to the true seed. It is a serious error when extended to

spiritual Canaanites, to Tares and to those who could be called `Children of the wicked

Had the Apostle, when writing Rom. 9:, intended to discuss the doctrines of

free-will, eternal election and reprobation, he would have been obliged to have

introduced many other arguments. His purpose in this chapter is much simpler. He is

pointing out that the whole history of the people of Israel is the outworking of an elective

purpose, and that if this elective purpose is satisfied for the moment by the salvation of a

remnant, then there can be no truth in the suggestion that the Word of God has failed.

When seen in their true context, the words `hated' and `loved' in verse 13 create no

insuperable difficulty, but if Paul's object in Rom. 9: is misunderstood, then we must

expect confusion and the inevitable evils that flow from a false representation of the

sovereignty of God. Just as the advocates of eternal punishment can only find a basis for

their dreadful creed by ignoring the qualifying statements of Scripture, and applying what

is peculiar and limited (Matt. 25:) to what is universal, so in Rom. 9: we can only

build up the Calvinistic doctrine of eternal reprobation, with the allied error which

regards sin as part of the Divine decree, if we fail to see that Paul is here dealing with the

dispensational question of Israel's rejection and failure.