A General Introduction and Summaries of the Doctrine of Election
The goal of this chapter is to allow the biblical narrative to inform us as to the definition and nature of the theological concepts of election and predestination. Regarding these two concepts, although the Calvinists define them similarly, the Bible makes clear distinctions between them. Election refers to the theological and historical continuity between what it meant for Israel to be God’s “elect” or “chosen” people, which, in the New Testament, applies to believers in Jesus. Paul uses the term election in reference to all the theological and practical blessings that God had graced the Israelites with in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, and today, these terms are applied to those who have put their trust in Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Old Testament history and prophecy. The designation “elect” establishes the continuity between what it meant for Israel to be the “elect people of God” in the Old Testament and the New Testament believer in Jesus Christ. The terms have nothing to do with “unconditional election” to salvation. Predestination does not refer to God deciding beforehand who would be saved, but what God has planned for those who believe in Jesus for salvation. At appropriate times, I will discuss these differences. Since these are the meanings of the terms “elect,” “election,” “chosen,” and “predestined,” this Old Testament historical and theological overview is essential for a correct understanding of the biblical definitions and usages of the terms in both the Old and New Testaments.
Election and Predestination in Calvinism
Those who have been reading on this website will be familiar with the content of this section and the next on ‘Election, Calvinism, and the Gospel.’ For those not familiar with the Calvinist views on election and predestination, I provide this short review.
For my purposes in examining the Calvinists’ understanding of these terms with respect to soteriology, they can be considered practically synonymous, because this is how Calvinists understand them. For instance, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the standard statement of faith for most Calvinists, links these terms. A specific definition of election, or predestination, is central to Calvinist theology. Calvinists understand election as an unconditional election to salvation. What they mean by this is expressed in two sections of the Westminster Confession. Those sections are 1) God’s Eternal Decree, and 2) Predestination or Election.
Regarding God’s Eternal Decree, the Confession states,
“1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass…”[1]
Hence, God, by his will alone, has ordained “whatsoever comes to pass,” which includes everyone’s eternal destiny, that is, their salvation or damnation. The Confession then makes clear the implications of its universal divine causal determinism[2] in points 3 through 6. Here, predestination and election are discussed and used interchangeably, for all practical purposes.
“3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.”
4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and for ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.”
5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.”
This is the meaning of election and predestination for the Calvinist. It refers to the fact that God, of his own will and action alone, has predetermined, or predestined, the eternal destiny of specific individuals to salvation. These, and only these people, will be saved. God has chosen or elected to save only them. They are limited in number. Note that this election is unconditional, that is, it has nothing to do with any other factor than God’s will. These elect, or chosen people, have nothing to do with their eternal destiny. One’s salvation or damnation has nothing to do with the sinner. Moreover, all the people who have not been chosen by God for salvation cannot and will not be saved. The eternal destiny of every person, past, present, and future, has already been fixed by God from before the creation of the world. The salvation of any individual is a result of God having chosen them to be saved. God alone decides who will receive salvation. This divine decision to save these elect individuals and not save any other individuals is not based on any conditions other than God’s own will. Again, the sinner has nothing to do with their eternal destiny. God alone has predetermined everyone’s eternal destiny. This is the Calvinist doctrine of predestination or unconditional election. (See “Chapter 3 – The Calvinist Theological and Soteriological Doctrines”). Whether this understanding of election and predestination is what the major biblical passages used to support this view actually teach is what we will examine in this chapter on election.
Election, Calvinism, and The Gospel
I submit to you that I have given overwhelming evidence in previous chapters on this website that the Calvinists’ understanding of election and predestination is unbiblical and therefore should not be accepted or believed. Indeed, Calvinism is not biblical because it amounts to a universal divine causal determinism, or theistic determinism. As such, it is incoherent with the overwhelming witness of the scriptures, which clearly testify to a contingent reality along with genuine, meaningful human freedom and responsibility. But most importantly, Calvinism is also incoherent with the definition and content of the gospel message as “good news.” This gospel is at the very heart of the biblical revelation. Calvinism, or the TULIP doctrines, removes the “good news” of God’s saving love and the assurance of salvation for every hearer from the gospel message. Calvinism has no “good news” message to proclaim. I have argued that for the gospel to be truly “good news,” which is its biblical definition, it must apply to all sinners and that God, in Christ, genuinely loves all persons and therefore offers them salvation by faith, which is the content of the gospel. The Bible supports this universal scope of God’s saving work in Jesus Christ. It is because this Calvinist universal divine causal determinism is rationally incoherent and antithetical to the truth of the gospel as clearly presented in Scripture, and because it also impugns the character of God, that I am compelled to deem it, not merely unbiblical, but also heretical as it pertains to these matters.
What I want to do in this chapter is elucidate a more biblical understanding of election and predestination. I want to show, from Scripture, that a correct understanding of the doctrine of election enhances the depth and glory of the gospel message and God’s character in that it gives us insight into the magnitude of God’s universal salvific love and grace. Election and predestination, although not the same thing, are both linked to the gospel as “good news” for sinners. Karl Barth aptly grasps the essence of the biblical doctrine when he said,
“The doctrine of election is the sum of the Gospel because of all words that can be said or heard it is the best…”[3]
When one interprets Scripture correctly on these matters, one sees that Calvinism is destructive of the gospel and logically and morally untenable. In the original preface of his Church Dogmatics, Barth writes,
“The work has this peculiarity, that in it I have had to leave the framework of theological tradition…I would have preferred to follow Calvin’s doctrine of predestination much more closely, instead of departing from it so radically. I would have preferred to keep to the beaten tracks when considering the basis of ethics. But I could not and cannot do so. As I let the Bible itself speak to me on these matters, as I meditated upon what I seemed to hear, I was driven irresistibly to reconstruction.”[4]
In the editor’s preface to Barth’s Church Dogmatics, we read,
“The election is God’s gracious decision in Jesus Christ to bestow his love on man (ch. 7), and thus to take man into a responsible relation to His own will (ch.8).
… In his doctrine of election Barth emphasises the freedom, mystery and righteousness of God’s predestinating will, but he refuses to find its ultimate ground in a dark and unknown area of the divine will. The election is essentially God’s gracious will to choose us for Himself as revealed and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. His eternal decree and His eternal Word are one and the same, and therefore the ultimate ground of election is identical with the reality of Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ, electing and elect, God has eternally willed to lay hold of man, and fulfilled His will, reconciling man to Himself. Thus election includes the atoning work of Christ as the Elect who bore our rejection, and the doctrine of election is regarded not merely as part but as the very sum of the Gospel.”[5]
God’s love and grace are exhibited in his purpose that salvation would encompass all sinners who come to Christ in faith. The doctrine of election reveals to us the past eternal purpose of God to love and bless those who love and believe in him. God’s “purpose according to election” (Rom. 9:11, CSB) was to point us to the fact that mankind’s redemption would come about by God’s own mercy, means, and promises. Rather than being a dark, depressing, doubt-producing doctrine, election provides further profound insight into the eternal nature of God’s mercy and love in his plan to save all sinners in the work of Christ. That salvation that God accomplished in Jesus is appropriated by the sinner to themselves simply by believing. Salvation is by God’s grace, which is an inner disposition of God, demonstrated in the plan and purpose of our salvation in Jesus. And that salvation is applied to the sinner through their response of faith in God and Jesus. The theological terms of ‘election,’ ‘the elect,’ along with individuals being referred to as ‘chosen,’ reflect the purposeful decision of God to establish salvation apart from human designs, religious works, social status, political movements, gender, culture, race, and especially Jewish privilege, that is, being an Israelite, who are the elect people of God. Election, therefore, although an historical term used for God’s relationship to Israel, is taken to apply to all that the believer now has in Jesus and what we are given “in him” (see Eph. 1).
So the Calvinist mistakenly does what the Bible does not do. The Calvinist divorces the doctrine from all that God gives to us in Christ and relegates it to a static decision of his will made in eternity past, that is, his unconditional election of who should and should not receive salvation. Being unconditional, Calvinists must alter the biblical witness to the nature of faith. They must force faith through their deterministic grid. Therefore, faith must be given by God to the sinner. The Calvinist contends that sinners, due to their total depravity or total inability, cannot believe upon hearing the “good news” of their salvation unless God grants them the ability to believe, that is, regenerates them first, which he does only for those he has unconditionally elected, or predestined, to salvation. This assertion is neither coherent with, nor reflective of, the biblical testimony regarding the content of the gospel message which proclaims God’s love for us, Jesus’ death on our behalf, and the genuine offer of salvation from sin simply by believing this message of “good news.” The Bible defines the term gospel as “good news.” Therefore, it is for all individual sinners and is applied to them by the Spirit when they believe. The Bible tells us that salvation is by faith, and as such, it is appropriated by “whosoever believes” (Jn. 3:16). Again, because salvation is by faith, that indicates that it is for all sinners, for all may believe. As such, by both definition and content, salvation is for all sinners. (See “Chapter 15 – The Nature of Faith in Scripture”)
The Old Testament Context as Essential for Understanding Election
In this chapter on election, we will first examine the Old Testament history. We will see how God established the nation of Israel through which He would reveal Himself and bring to pass his work of salvation. It is God who brought Israel into existence. They are his “chosen” or “elect” people (Deut. 7:6; 14:2; Isa. 42:1; 43:1, 4, 7, 10, 15; 44:1, 7; 45:3-4, 11; 46:3). They are “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:4-6). They are “the people of God;” “a people of his own inheritance” (Deut. 4:20). As such, they had the privilege of bringing to the world the knowledge of God (Deut. 4:35, 39) and his salvation (Isa. 42:6; 43:10, 12; 44:8; 45:22; 49:6; 52:10; 56:3, 6-8). That was God’s intention for Israel. But they came to misunderstand and reject their God-given role while also believing that they were the exclusive inheritors of God’s blessings and salvation, primarily defined as political freedom from Roman domination. Hence, all the non-Jews (i.e., Gentiles or “nations”) were considered by these Jews to be “sinners” and “outsiders.” The Gentiles were not recipients of God’s blessings and salvation unless they became converts to Judaism, followed the Law, and were circumcised (Acts 15:1). Thus, for the Jew, God became Israel’s “god” instead of being the God of Israel. The prophets brought God’s word and warnings to stiff-necked and recalcitrant Israel (Deut. 9:6, 13; 2 Kgs. 17:14; Jer. 19:15; Ezk. 3:7; Matt. 23, esp. 29-31; Lu. 11:50,51). Sadly, they also came to reject God’s salvific purpose in Jesus Christ, their Messiah (Acts 7:51, 18:6, 28:25-28; Jn. 19:15; Matt. 27:22, 23, 25). This historical context and its theological and personal dynamics are often ignored in Bible study and preaching. So, God had to deal with the Jews by hardening them, which the apostle Paul explains in Romans 9-11. He argues that this was God’s prerogative, even regarding his elect people, Israel. But the Jews’ special relationship with God could not and would not hold God hostage to their mistaken perspectives about their religious privilege as descendants of Abraham and their exclusive claim to God’s salvation, either in the past or the present. Paul expounds on God’s dealings with Israel and how He was breaking down the false boundaries erected by the Jews, who were excluding the Gentiles. It was God’s plan all along to include the Gentiles in salvation (Eph. 2:11-22, 3:6). It is in this context and within these divine purposes that God’s sovereignty and the meaning of election can be coherently and rightly understood. More on this when I deal with the interpretation of the most important relevant texts.
Moreover, Paul made it clear that because salvation is by faith, there are no more distinctions or divisions between Jew and Gentile (Rom. 3:21-31; Gal. 3:7-14; Eph. 2:5 and 2:11-3:12). Rather than establishing limitations and exclusivity upon the saving work of Jesus, Paul understood that precisely because salvation is by faith, it has universal applicability. Faith removes all demands of righteousness by personal religious good works, human effort, race, class, economic status, and social conventions. What is crucial to grasp is that Paul would now use the terminology that God used of his elect people, Israel, in the Old Testament, to refer to those who now believe in Jesus. That is why we must first survey the Old Testament history concerning these matters. Commenting on 1 Peter 1:2, biblical scholar Alan M. Stibbs makes this point.
“In the Greek the word elect opens Peter’s description of his readers, and indicates their relation to God, before their position in the world as ‘sojourners’ is described (see RV). What in the Old Testament is a characteristic of Israel (see Dt. xiv. 2; Is. xlv. 4) is here transferred to the Christian community as the new Israel (cf. ii. 9, 10).”[6]
It is important to keep this historical connection and continuity in mind when reading the New Testament. It is difficult to read the election or predestination texts without presupposing Calvinism’s definitions. This is because those definitions have been so effectively propounded through various mediums, not because they are biblical, but because of reasons that span from Calvinism being one’s accepted tradition to other reasons, like personal pressure, the tidiness of the “doctrines of grace,” and even perhaps a close-minded pride in presuming one is among the elect.
The biblical doctrine of election informs us that from eternity past God had an “electing” love, akin to that love he has for Israel and revealed to us in the Old Testament, for those who would now believe in God’s “chosen One” – Jesus (Isa. 42:1; Lu. 9:35; Jn. 1:34; 1 Pet. 2:4, 6). Because Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s salvific purpose that came by election, that is, God having chosen Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and creating the nation of Israel, therefore, all who put their trust in him are saved. God established salvation by way of promise to Israel (and indeed it was God himself who came among us), that all those who put their trust “in him” (Jesus) God designates as his “elect” ones or “chosen” people according to the terminology applied originally to Israel. Israel was God’s special, chosen, or elect people, to whom he revealed himself and whom he loved, protected, and blessed. Yet, this election did not refer to, nor did it save, any individual Israelites. God elected individuals, but to service, not to salvation. And God elected Israel as a nation. So now, in that same way, God has revealed Himself to us all in Christ. Similarly, therefore, election in the New Testament does not refer to the unconditional salvation of any individual. What election refers to is that very special status and designation Israel obtained with all its divine love, privileges, and blessings, now being applied to all who put their trust in Jesus, the Elect One, for salvation. The key concept here by which God considers a person “chosen” (Eph. 1:4) is to be “in Christ,” “in him,” “through Jesus Christ,” and “in the Beloved.” (Eph. 1:1-14, ESV) It is a term that speaks of the special love, privileges, and intimate relationship God had with Israel, which is now applied to believers in Jesus. “He chose us in him to be holy and blameless” is a designation in continuity with God’s choosing of Israel who was to be holy and blameless because God is holy (Ex. 19:6, 31:13; Lev. 11:45). The phrase, “even as he chose us in him,” as used by Paul in the New Testament, is to make a distinction between those who are “in Christ” as opposed to all others who are not “in Christ.” It recalls the creation and election of Israel as the people of God from among all other peoples and nations. And just as the foreigner or stranger could join with Israel, so too can anyone join with these New Testament ‘elect’ ones by believing in the “chosen One.” (Isa. 42:1; Lu. 9:35; Jn. 1:34; 1 Pet. 2:4, 6) So the testimony of Israel’s history and the prophets was the history of an exclusive beginning, for the purpose of teaching and witnessing to the historical fulfillment of the inclusion of the Gentiles and nations. Since the coming of Christ, all people, that is, the Israelites and the Gentiles, as individuals, can be saved, but if they are not, that is what they have chosen. Indeed, the prophet Isaiah spoke the following about Jesus. Note the mention of the “Gentiles” in these verses.
“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased; I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will declare justice to the Gentiles. He will not quarrel nor cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and smoking flax he will not quench, till he sends forth justice to victory. And in his name Gentiles will trust” (Matt. 12:18-21, Phillips. Isa. 42:1-4 and other versions have “nations” for “Gentiles”).
Therefore, in Ephesians and elsewhere, Paul emphasizes the heavenly, spiritual blessings that come to those who believe in Jesus. If Israel was the elect of God, meaning that they had God’s special attention, blessings, presence, love, and protection, then all this now applies to whoever believes in Jesus. So biblical election does not refer to the unconditional salvation of individuals but the continuity in what it meant for Israel to be the people of God and the nature of God’s relationship to Israel, now being applied to believers in Jesus (Isa. 42:1, 6-7, 43:1-7, 10, 12, 15, 44:1, 7, 8).
Election is a profound and encouraging doctrine, especially in that Paul tells us that it was on the mind and in the purposes of God from before the creation or ‘foundation’ of the world. (Eph. 1:4) God chose that those who are “in him” by faith would be holy and blameless in God’s sight. (Eph. 1:4) The full meaning of what it meant for Israel to be “elect” or “chosen” is reassigned to those who now trust in Jesus for their salvation, which Paul refers to collectively as the church. More on the interpretation of Ephesians later.
Suffice it to say here that this salvation was purposed from the beginning and began to unfold in earnest with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the nation of Israel. But the way it unfolded is highly significant. The way it unfolds is what God, through the biblical authors, has called election. It is God making selections of one person and not another, not with respect to their salvation, but the unfolding of salvation ultimately in Jesus Christ. Why God proceeded in this manner and what it means theologically and soteriologically are what we need to investigate. From the patriarchal history and the history of the nation of Israel, we are given the living pattern of the meaning of election. A special and unique relationship between God and Israel, a covenant relationship, has been established. In Romans 9-11, the question Paul must explain, given God’s covenant with and word to Israel about the ‘promises’ made and the Messiah to come, and now, given Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, is whether God’s word to Israel has failed? Also, if Israel is God’s chosen people, how can God harden them and then hold them responsible or blame them for resisting his will? Paul must untangle all these issues through a brief review of Israel’s history interpreted according to God’s intentions, not Israel’s misapprehensions. Paul ultimately concludes, “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may have mercy on all” (Rom. 11:32, CSB). “All” refers to both the Jews and Gentiles, which is to say, everybody. Therefore, even though this collective reference to everyone also implies a reference to each individual, election is not about God choosing, as in unilaterally predestining certain individuals to eternal life and all others to eternal death. Election is not about which individuals would and would not be saved. As Israel was chosen and was referred to as a people or nation, that is, a group or community, so now the church, which is made up of believers, is considered the elect of God.
So, election can be understood to refer to individuals, as long as we are not imposing upon it the Calvinist definition of an unconditional divine choice of who will be saved. I have already demonstrated that we can know for sure what ‘election’ cannot mean. It cannot mean the Calvinist’s unconditional election for the many reasons given throughout this site. Rather, integral with God’s progressive revelation of salvation was his selection of certain individuals, especially for service. A. Phillip Brown, II, in a paper on “Election in the Old Testament,” lists the following: Abram (Neh. 9:7), Isaac (Gen. 17:19), Moses (Ex. 3:4-10; Psa. 106:23), Aaron (1 Sam. 12:6, Psa. 105:26, Paul (Acts 9:15). He writes, “Of particular theological significance is Yahweh’s choice of the Messiah or Servant of Yahweh (Isa. 28:16; 42:1, 6; 49:1, 5, 6).” Brown also mentions four purposes for which God elects individuals or groups: service, salvation, blessing, and reflection of God’s character. It is interesting to note that judges, kings, prophets, and other national leaders were also referred to as chosen by God with no reference to their ‘salvation’ or eternal destiny. God’s promises, selections, and choices, along with the necessity of a response of faith, run through the patriarchal history and the history of Israel. This extends into the New Testament with the creation of the church as the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27; Rom. 12:5; Eph. 4:4, 12, 5:23, 30; Col. 1:24) composed of those who believe the “good news” of their salvation “in Christ” (Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:12; Titus 1:1).
Divine Sovereignty, Predestination, and Faith
Both the design and the means of salvation were predetermined or chosen by God to be “in Christ” and by faith. These cannot be altered. Divine sovereignty is at work in this regard, not as to who will be saved, but how one can be saved, for the elements of the proclamation of “good news” and the individual’s response of faith must always be kept in view. Who will be saved can only be rationally spoken about in relation to how one is saved. How is one saved? By believing in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:30-31). Why is this the way of salvation? Why did God predetermine that salvation would be appropriated by faith? So that it could be realized by all individuals. So that anyone could be saved. And the faith that is required is always spoken of throughout the Bible as one’s own faith. No ‘total inability’ is taught with respect to believing. There is no regeneration necessary so that you may believe. That is to get things backwards. Faith comes before regeneration. Moreover, faith is the opposite of meritorious works. As such, believing the gospel is possible for anyone. By faith, we appropriate the salvation offered to us in the message of the “good news” of our salvation in Jesus.
God established the grounds upon which salvation would come about, as well as how it is to be received. Simply put, it is the unique plan God established and revealed by his grace to remedy the problem of human sin through the death of Jesus, the Son of God, on the cross. Since God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit had this salvation plan as their purpose from before the world began, whoever places their faith in Jesus steps into that eternal plan. Therefore, they are predestined to receive the blessings the Trinity has intended for them. What are these blessings? They are those revealed by God throughout Israel’s history and relationship with God; chosen (Deut. 7:6-8; 10:15; Isa. 41:8-9), called (Isa. 43:1, 7; 48:12), beloved (Deut. 33:12), kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6), holy nation (Ex. 19:6), light to the nations (Isa. 42:6; 49:6), treasured possession (Ex. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18), holy people (Deut. 7:6; 14:21; 26:19), sons or children of the Lord (Deut. 14:1; Hos. 11:1), covenant people (Ex. 24; Deut. 29). Now, throughout the New Testament, all these terms of God’s blessings, love, affection, and care, are spoken of believers, but only because they are by faith “in Christ Jesus.” Indeed, Paul writes, “He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” (Eph. 1:5-6, NRSVUE) Note, it was “the good pleasure of his will” to adopt those who believe in Jesus. (Eph. 1:6) And grace is bestowed on us freely in “the Beloved,” that is, in Jesus Christ. Before, during, and after that historical work of redemption was accomplished, the means for appropriating it for oneself remained the same – by faith (Rom. 3:21-31, 4:1-5:2). Therefore, predestination is a concept that applies to those who already believe. It is not an expression of God’s will regarding whom He unconditionally chose and irresistibly caused to believe and be saved.
Note that faith is not mentioned at the very beginning of Ephesians because Paul is focused in on God’s perspective concerning what He has done in Jesus, what Jesus has provided, and how that affects we who believe, that is, being chosen “in him” to be holy and blameless, destined for adoption as his children, redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, the riches of his grace lavished upon on us, knowing the mystery of his will, and destined for an inheritance. All this is “in him. Therefore, it comes to all those who are “in him” through faith. Faith is first mentioned in Eph. 1:12 and 13. That a person can be saved and what they will receive upon believing involves God’s sovereign work of accomplishing our salvation in Jesus. Again, predestination concerns what God has in store for those who believe in Jesus. Who will be saved has not been predestined by God, except to say, “God predestined that those who believe in Jesus will be saved.” God responds to those who are humble in heart, who respond to him in faith (Isa. 6:2). Trusting in God and Jesus, leading to obedience, pleases God (Heb. 11:6), and therefore, he has all these blessings in store for believers.
Whether in the Old or New Testaments, people are saved only by the work of Christ, but that work, whether before or after the event of the cross, is applied to, that is, appropriated by, those who have faith in Jesus. For people living in Old Testament times, the work of Christ that would be accomplished in the future was reckoned as righteousness to those who believed in the one true God and put their trust in him (Gen. 15:6; cf. Heb. 11:4). This translates into the New Testament in the same way. It is those who believe who are now placed into all that Israel was to God. This is not to say that believers in Jesus are either considered to be Jews or need to become Jews by keeping the Law of Moses and being circumcised. The ‘Jerusalem Council’ in Acts 15 rejected such demands. Yet it was the nature of the relationship God had with Israel that is now established “in Christ” for those who believe. Therefore, people are among the elect as they believe “in Christ.” People are predestined to adoption by virtue of being “in Christ.” (Eph. 1:5) Peter makes this association perfectly clear when he writes,
“Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight… For it stands in scripture:
“See, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
This honor, then, is for you who believe…
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the excellence of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
Once you were not a people,
but now you are God’s people;
once you had not received mercy,
but now you have received mercy.” (1 Pet. 2:4, 6-7a, 9-10, NRSVUE)
The language and terminology here originally referred to Old Testament Israel. As God moved the gospel forward into New Testament times through the original apostles chosen by Jesus, and Paul, whom God called a “chosen instrument of mine” (Acts 9:15), they preached the gospel, understanding that those who believe in Jesus stand in continuity with the Old Testament elect people of God. Therefore, Paul applies this Old Testament terminology to these New Testament believers. Paul identifies those who believe as “chosen” or “elect” by God. These believers are, after all, the recipients of the fulfillment of the covenant promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the nation of Israel, who were all among the “elect.” As God promised Abraham that “all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen. 12:1-3), those who believe, by virtue of their accepting the promises fulfilled in Christ Jesus, are now part of the true Israel of God (Rom. 9:6-8). As such, they can accurately be called ‘the elect.’
God and His Friend Abraham
Later, I examine the role of Abraham, who “believed the Lord, and he [the Lord] credited it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6, CSB, NIV). An important point to note in the interaction between God and Abraham is that the act of God electing or selecting a person does not negate the need for a response of genuine, personal faith, nor does the selection cause such faith. The response of faith comes from the individual. It is their faith. As we shall see, the texts of Gen. 12:4 and 15:6, as well as Rom. 4, esp. verse 21ff., make this very clear.
Without God’s sovereign work in history, there would be no salvation. But divine sovereignty is not in conflict with a free will response of faith. The way God predetermined to do this work, as patterned in the Old Testament, is critical to a proper understanding of the nature of salvation and especially Paul’s use of the terms “chosen,” “elect,” and “election” in his epistles. God determined to do this saving work by verbally initiating a relationship with Abraham and making promises to him (Gen 12:1:3). Indeed, in James 2:22 we read,
“Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,”and he was called the friend of God.” (NRSVUE)
Hence, contrary to Calvinist teaching, it is the person who is responsible for their belief or unbelief. Moreover, faith is never considered meritorious, which is a serious error in Calvinist thinking driven by their erroneous doctrine of total depravity or total inability. Hence, God does not predestinate people to faith or unbelief. Therefore, there is no such thing as unconditional election. Whether a person is saved or remains in condemnation is conditioned on the sinner’s belief or unbelief. This is made clear in John’s gospel (Jn. 1:9-13, 3:14-18). Moreover, in the book of Hebrews, faith is something to be commended. There we read in the “hall of fame of faith” (ch. 11) that “…by it [faith] the people of old received their commendation” (Heb. 11:2, ESV). And the writer takes us through a long list of those Old Testament individuals who were faithful, making clear to the reader that it was their faith that they were commended for (Heb. 11:2, 4, 5, 39). It was not a “faith” caused or bestowed upon them by God in accord with his having predestined those individuals to salvation, as is taught in Calvinism. If that were so, why the commendation for their faith? That would make no sense. And why the warnings throughout to remain faithful? These are not hypothetical ‘warnings.’ That would make no sense either. Indeed, the book of Hebrews is written to encourage believers to continue to believe and not forsake their faith in Christ in the face of their difficulties and persecutions.
Therefore, it is important to note throughout this history the interplay among God’s initiative, purposes, and promises as they relate to his choosing Abraham and selecting Isaac, not Ishmael, and Jacob, not Esau. It is through Isaac and Jacob that God would create a people – the nation of Israel. There was a purpose to God’s election (Rom. 9-11, esp. 9:11). That purpose was to establish the nature of salvation as promise, not merely human lineage or racial privilege (i.e., being a Jew) or behavior according to the law (Rom. 9:11). Election was to identify “children of the promise” as opposed to “children of the flesh” (Rom. 9:6-8), not with respect to their salvation but the salvation to come in Jesus. Granted, the “children of the promise” (i.e., Isaac and Jacob in the Genesis history) are those who trusted in God in the Old Testament. But there would also be “children of the promise” coming into the New Testament. They are those who responded in trust in God and Jesus, who were to be understood as one in purpose (cf. John’s gospel). These believers belong to the true Israel and are true “children of Abraham.” The Israelites were to be witnesses to the only true God and ultimately his work of universal salvation by faith in Christ Jesus. The freewill faith response of the people involved is an integral part of God’s sovereign plan in salvation. That is, God has sovereignly predetermined that Jesus would come, die, and be raised. That is why so many of the “deterministic” verses refer specifically to this salvation plan. God made sure it would happen. Salvation is found only in Jesus Christ. And God has also sovereignly predetermined that simple faith would be what he requires and seeks as the only appropriate human response that saves the individual sinner. So we have God electing individuals in the Old Testament, but their election does not primarily refer to their eternal destiny. It refers to their role in God’s plans and purposes for salvation.
God’s promises would be moved forward in history by God making selections, that is, electing certain of Abraham’s sons to carry on the covenant promises made to Abraham. God chose Isaac, not Ishmael, and Jacob, not Esau. Through Isaac and Jacob, the covenant promises would be fulfilled. This does not entail that Ishmael and Esau were rejected by God as far as his care over them and their salvation that would one day be realized in Jesus’ death on the cross. Again, in Genesis, we are not involved in expounding how individuals become saved. Election does not refer to the means of salvation of any of these individuals. It simply refers to God’s selecting the ones through whom his promises would be fulfilled. Salvation is, of course, the final goal, along with the consummation of all things. Jesus would die on the cross and be raised again to bring hope of salvation and new life to the world. All this ultimately applied to Ishmael and Esau, too. From Jacob came twelve sons, who became the nation of Israel when God delivered the Hebrew people from their bondage in Egypt through Moses. Without Israel, there would be no salvation (Jn. 4:22; cf. Rom. 1:16; 3:1-2, 9:4-5). Hence, salvation is all of God, yet again, God predetermined that salvation, as far as every individual is concerned, would be appropriated by faith, but he did not predetermine who would believe.
Election: A Synopsis of the Old Testament Primeval History
The Primeval History: Genesis 1-11
Before we begin to look at God’s electing work in patriarchal history with the call of Abram in Genesis 12 and the promises God made to him, along with the covenant God established with him and his descendants, we need to point out an important purpose for the prehistory, or primeval history, of Genesis 1-11. Why doesn’t the Pentateuch begin with the call of Abraham and the establishment of the nation of Israel? It is because this prehistory gives us theological insights into the universal nature of God’s saving purposes. William Lane Craig explains,
“…the purpose of the primaeval narratives of Genesis 1-11 is to portray God’s universal plan for and dealings with humankind. Scholars have often asked why the Pentateuch does not begin with the call of Abraham and founding of Israel in Genesis 12. Commentators seem widely agreed that the reason the author prefixes the prehistory to the patriarchal narratives is his universalizing interest. He wants to show that God’s original plan was to bless all mankind and that this aim still remains ultimately in mind through the election of Israel, which is now God’s means of fulfilling his original intent. God was not therefore preoccupied with just the offspring of one specially created human couple to the neglect of everyone else, a sort of pre-Israelite election, but with all mankind: “Remove these elements, and the coherence of the book as a whole disappears.”[7]
So, as much as the patriarchal narratives and the establishment of Israel are the main subject matter of the first five books of the Bible, we need to see in the early events of Genesis the essential theological truths communicated there, along with the divine intentions for the salvation of all humankind. We need to see the subsequent patriarchal narratives in this context.
Genesis 1-3
In Genesis chapters 1-3, we have a record of the creation events, the fall of mankind into sin, and Adam and Eve’s banishment from the Garden of Eden. Now, much can be said about these early chapters, and they are crucial to understanding our investigation into the doctrine of election, including God’s sovereignty and human freedom. We must stress that both of these themes are prominent in these chapters. God’s sovereign activity is obvious in the events. But equally obvious is that human free will is real and substantial, yet it is subject to God’s sovereign activity. Therefore, according to these chapters, sovereignty cannot be defined as a universal divine causal determinism. That Calvinist definition stands in contradiction with the events recorded in these three crucial chapters. So, right from the start, Calvinism is shown not to be a viable theology. These primeval biblical events render Calvinism’s theological determinism as nonsense.
The following section from Terence E. Fretheim’s commentary on Genesis is a helpful summary of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as related to our topic. He writes,
“God is God and freely brings into being that which is not God. The creatures depend on the Creator for their existence and continuing life. Chapter 1 stresses divine initiative, imagination, transcendence, and power in a way that chap. 2 does not. The position of chap. 1 implies that these divine characteristics should stand at the beginning and in the foreground in any discussion. Yet, no simple or static hierarchy emerges, since some features of chap. 1 already lean toward chap. 2.
On the other hand, the realm of the divine and the realm of the creature are not two radically unrelated spheres; there are overlapping powers, roles, and responsibilities, to which image language testifies. God is not powerful and creatures powerless, as if the Godness of God could be bought at the expense of creaturely diminishment. In the very act of creating, God gives to others a certain independence and freedom. God moves over, as it were, and makes room for others. Creation involves an ordered freedom, a degree of openness and unpredictability wherein God leaves room for genuine decisions on the part of human beings as they exercise their God-given power. Even more, God gives them powers and responsibilities in a way that commits God to a certain kind of relationship with them. Divine constraint and restraint operate in the exercise of power within the creation (e.g., God will not singlehandedly be involved in procreation), still further restrained by the promise at the end of the flood story.
Human beings have been given freedom enough to destroy themselves, though God does not will such destruction. God does not have a final and solitary will in place from the beginning regarding every aspect of the created order. Things may develop, divine and human creativity may continue (see Ps 104:30), in view of which God will make adjustments in the divine will for the world. Yet, these acts will always be in tune with God’s absolute will regarding the life and salvation of all.
These chapters imply that the divine sovereignty in creation is understood, not in terms of absolute divine control, but as a sovereignty that gives power over to the created order for the sake of a relationship of integrity. Such a view involves risk, since it entails the possibility that the creatures will misuse the power they have been given, which does occur. A reclamation of creation will be needed.”[8]
I believe Fretheim’s description is biblically accurate. It properly balances sovereignty and human freedom. It should be noted that this human freedom is not something the creature has independently, as if he bestowed it upon himself. Neither does this freedom create in God the anxiety that his purposes may be thwarted, and his sovereignty taken from him. This is often how the Calvinist depicts the potential of human freedom. This error in thinking, in turn, drives the idea that God’s sovereignty, to remain God’s sovereignty, must be defined as a universal divine causal determinism. This Calvinist fear is, of course, not worthy of God nor a coherent interpretation of the text.
Divine sovereignty is not divine determinism because, from the very beginning, Adam and Eve misuse their freedom by refusing to trust and obey God, who desired to continue to provide for their good in Eden. Their free decisions to distrust and disobey God’s word brought sin into the world and God’s curse upon them (3:14-19). Then follow some of the saddest verses in Scripture.
“So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden… After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.” (Gen. 3:23-24, NIV)
Genesis 4-11
In chapter 4, the offerings of Cain and Abel occasioned the use of their freedom. One in a humble attitude towards God (Abel), and the other in a misuse of freedom in an attitude of rebellion against God (Cain). Ultimately, Cain murders his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). Yet examples of faith stand out. “Enoch walked with God; then he was not there because God took him. (Gen. 5:24, CSB) Noah was obedient to God as evidence of his faith. Old Testament scholar John H. Sailhamer writes,
“The picture of Noah that emerges from the Flood story thus becomes a model of the kind of life that finds grace in the sight of God. It is a picture of simple obedience to God’s commands and trust in his provision. In light of the predominance of the concept of “faith” elsewhere in the Pentateuch…it is appropriate to say that the author has in mind a picture of Noah very much like that of the writer of Hebrews, one who “by his faith…condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith” (Heb. 11:7).[9]
When God saw that human sin, wickedness, corruption, and violence had become all-pervasive and continuous (Gen. 6:5, 11, 12), the biblical text clearly states that, “the Lord was sorry that he made man on earth, and it grieved him to his heart” (Gen 6:6, ESV). Then the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I created, off the face of the earth…” (6:7, CSB) and “put an end to every creature…” (6:13, CSB) by a flood (6:17). But we also read that “Noah, however, found favor with the Lord” (6:8, CSB). So, God saved Noah and his family from the flood that “wiped out every living thing on the face of the earth” (7:23, CSB). God then made “a permanent covenant” with Noah, his descendants, and “all future generations,” and every living creature, “that never again will every creature be wiped out by floodwaters; there will never again be a flood to destroy the earth” (9:11, 12, 16, CSB). Then God said, “I have placed my bow in the clouds, and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth” (9:13, CSB). Old Testament scholar Terrence Fretheim writes,
“The flood story focuses on God as well as God’s decisions and commitments regarding the creation. “The beginning and goal of the event lie with God.”[10] the images of God developed in the story are striking: a God who expresses sorrow and regret; a God who judges, but doesn’t want to, and then not in arbitrary or annihilative ways; a God who goes beyond justice and determines to save some creatures, including every animal and bird; a God who commits to the future of a less than perfect world; a God open to change and doing things in new ways; a God who promises never to do this again. The story reveals and resolves a fundamental tension within God, emphasizing finally, not a God who decides to destroy, but a God who wills to save, who is committed to change based on experience with the world, and who promises to stand by the creation.”[11]
Fretheim continues,
“God decides to go with the world, come what may in the way of human wickedness. God makes this promise, not simply in spite of human failure, but because human beings are sinful (8:21). The way into the future cannot depend upon human loyalty; sinfulness so defined humanity that, if human beings are to live, they must be undergirded by the divine promise. Hence, because of human sinfulness, God promises to stay with the creation (see 34:9 for an identical understanding of God’s future with Israel in the wake of the golden calf debacle).[12]
We find an admixture of realism and promise here. On the one hand, human beings remain sinful creatures through and through. The flood cuts them off from any Edenic paradise; access to that world cannot be bridged or developed by gradual improvement. For the sake of creation, God must formulate laws to restrain negative human tendencies and behavior. On the other hand, human beings remain in the image of God (9:6); they are so highly valued that commands must be put in place to conserve their life, and they retain fundamental responsibility for the larger created order. But humans do not possess sufficient resources for the task; only God can assure creation’s future. To this end, God ameliorates the workings of divine judgment and promises and orderly cosmos for the continuation of human and nonhuman life. Humans may, by virtue of their own behaviors, put themselves out of business, but not because God has so determined it or because the created order has failed.”[13]
We are seeing here, at the very beginning of salvation history, that it is the choices and promises God makes that will bring about a good future for mankind, even though humans are sinful. Indeed, because humans are sinful, God, by his promises and faithfulness, is presently saving Noah and his family and will bring to pass the way of salvation for all in Jesus. God has the salvation of mankind on his mind.
Now, Calvinism raises the issue of whether biblical history teaches us that God has predetermined all things and whether salvation is exclusive, that is, only for those God has predestined to receive it, or whether God’s love and way of salvation is inclusive, that is, genuinely offered to and made possible for all sinners who will humbly receive it by faith. In keeping with our purpose to evaluate Calvinism from a biblical perspective, we are compelled to conclude, at the start, that the events in Genesis, especially chapters 1-3, contradict Calvinism’s theistic determinism. Given the reality and exercise of human freewill, which was by God’s design and is pervasive throughout these chapters, the Calvinist doctrine of a universal divine causal determinism (i.e., “God’s Eternal Decree”) is rendered unbiblical. Therefore, such an interpretation of the scriptures is invalid right from the beginning. It should also be noted that these chapters also establish the nature of God’s sovereignty. It is a sovereignty that does not preclude human freedom. Rather, it establishes this freedom without threat to divine sovereignty. We should, therefore, formulate our doctrine of divine sovereignty from the primeval events in Genesis 1-3 as well as the subsequent history of the book. We see in the early stages of salvation history, as Fretheim put it,
“These chapters imply that the divine sovereignty in creation is understood, not in terms of absolute divine control, but as a sovereignty that gives power over to the created order for the sake of a relationship of integrity.” They testify to “…a God who judges, but doesn’t want to, and then not in arbitrary or annihilative ways;…not a God who decides to destroy, but a God who wills to save.”
David J. A. Clines writes about predestination in the primeval history of Genesis 1-11.
“It is, in fact, a history in which predestination in general is conspicuous by its absence… The movement of the primeval history is largely initiated by men: God’s action is positive or negative response to the decisions of men. If Adam decides to become an independent being, determining for himself what is good and evil, God’s response is to turn him loose from the garden and make him independent. If Cain defiles the tilled ground with spilled blood, God responds by driving him away from the tilled ground that will no longer yield its strength to him. If man’s wickedness spreads so drastically that the earth is “filled with violence” (6:11), God responds by being sorry that he has made man, and by determining to destroy mankind. If the men of Babel say, “Come, let us build a tower with its top in the heavens,” God responds, even to the extent of imitating their speech with “Come, let us go down and destroy their tower” (11:4, 7). Yet, also, when Adam and Eve sense their nakedness before God and prepare makeshift clothes, God responds to this appropriate sense of shame and provides proper clothes for them. When Cain shouts that his punishment, to be driven from the society of men and from the presence of Yahweh, is greater than he can bear, God responds even to the murderer and sets his mark on him to protect him from his fellows.
And where is predestination in all of this? To suppose that any of this catches God by surprise, or even that all of these human decisions are merely human decisions which God has to make the best of now that they have happened would doubtless be contrary to the spirit of the Old Testament. But the story does not stop to point to decrees established in the dark counsels of eternity. What is important in the story of mankind, Genesis 1-11 might well be saying, is not what God has already decided to do, but with what freedom he can respond, in mercy or judgment, to man’s decisions, creating good from evil and swallowing up wrath with mercy.”[14]
Such an interpretation more accurately reflects the nature of the events recorded in the text. Clines continues,
“The creation story of Genesis 1 plainly envisages God creating everything with a purpose. The sun is created in order to rule the day, to distinguish day from night, to act as a marker of time. Man is created in order to rule on the earth as God’s vice regent. All living things are created according to their kinds, that is, what they are and can be is a determinate part of the created order. God has not created an aimless, formless, indeterminate world, but a world of beautiful order where everything has a destiny: to be what God made it to be. Predestination in this sense, then, is an aspect of the doctrine of creation. Needless to say, this is not a predestination to salvation or damnation, but an affirmation of God’s purposiveness in creation.”[15]
Note that Clines defines predestination as the divine purpose for the different elements of creation. Predestination is “an affirmation of God’s purposiveness in creation.” Clines summarizes predestination in the primeval history as follows.
“…from the perspective of Genesis 12, it becomes clear that a predestined goal was shaping the course of the primeval history. What would otherwise be a collection of unconnected episodes in Genesis 1-11 is seen from the standpoint of Genesis 12, to be a sequence that leads to Abraham. The primeval history itself has had no interest in stressing God’s control of history, for its interest has been God’s freedom to respond to human decision. But in its setting in the book of Genesis the primeval history takes on a new significance: the primeval history is but the prelude to the story of the promise.”[16]
Note Clines’ observation that God is free to respond to human decisions. In other words, thus far, the Bible does not allow us to define God’s sovereignty in terms of Calvinism’s theistic determinism. Rather, divine sovereignty involves God ruling and reigning over all his creation, including human beings, in his freedom to respond to their free decisions, which implies he has not predetermined all things. Given the universal divine causal determinism of Calvinism, there would be no genuine, meaningful personal relationship and interaction between God and man as testified to in the primeval history. In other words, when we insist that Calvinism remain coherent, we must deny this divine freedom and genuine human decision, which is integral to this historical account. For the Calvinist, God’s sovereignty must be defined in terms of God’s comprehensive predetermination and causation of whatever comes to pass, both good and evil. As such, it fails to account for the personal dynamic and free interactions between God and man in these accounts. It would render the accounts static, meaningless, and nonsensical (see Chapter 4). I submit to you, therefore, that Calvinism is an unbiblical theology. Indeed, in this regard, and especially as to the gospel message and ministry, it is a false, heretical teaching.
Speaking of the gospel, before we go any further, we must take a step back to Genesis 3 and take a closer look at verse 15. Theologians have designated this verse the protoevangelium (or protoevangelion), which means “first gospel.” Indeed, early on at the fall of mankind into sin, God foreshadows his plan of redemption. He gives us the promise of the “good news” of our salvation. Here again, we see the nature of God’s sovereignty defined as his freedom to accomplish his plans and purposes, even amid free human decisions and actions. This will be evident in the patriarchal history, as also testified to here in Genesis 3:15.
The Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15
In Genesis 3:15, we read about the curse God laid upon the serpent. Within the curse, God makes a promise. The text reads,
“…I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (RSV)
About the nature and definition of this curse, Old Testament scholar C. F. Keil comments that one interpretation has “her seed” referring to the human race. The human race would triumph over the serpent due to “the original subjection of the animals to man.” But there is more to the nature of this serpent and this curse that such an interpretation cannot fulfill or accomplish. “Hence the idea of the “seed” is modified by the nature of the foe.” Ultimately, it must be Christ that is referred to in the “seed,” and only he can conquer such a foe (i.e., Satan). The word “enmity” or “hostility” (CSB) does contain a connotation of a battle that God will bring about with One who conquers. Therefore, perhaps the sense of the verse is as follows. “I will make it so that you and your fallen ‘angels’ will go to battle with the human race, but there will be One coming, who, although you will cause him pain and temporary physical death, will deal a final death blow to you.”
In the following extensive quote, Keil explains the necessity for an interpretation that involves a spiritual victory of Christ over Satan. He writes,
“When, therefore, God not merely confines the serpent within the limits assigned to the animals, but puts enmity between it and the woman, this in itself points to a higher spiritual power, which may oppose and attack the human race through the serpent, but will eventually be overcome. Observe, too, that although in the first clause the seed of the serpent is opposed to the seed of the woman, in the second it is not over the seed of the serpent but over the serpent itself that the victory is said to be gained. It, i.e., the seed of the woman will crush thy head, and thou (not the seed) wilt crush its heel. Thus the seed of the serpent is hidden behind the unity of the serpent, or rather of the foe who, through the serpent, has done such injury to man. This foe is Satan, who incessantly opposes the seed of the woman and bruises its heel, but is eventually to be trodden under its feet. It does not follow from this, however, apart from other considerations, that by the seed of the woman we are to understand one solitary person, one individual only. As the woman is the mother of all living (v. 20), her seed, to which the victory over the serpent and its seed is promised, must be the human race. But if a direct and exclusive reference to Christ appears to be exegetically untenable, the allusion in the word to Christ is by no means precluded in consequence. In itself the idea of the seed, is an indefinite one, since the posterity of a man may consist of a whole tribe or of one son only (4:25; 21:12,13), and on the other hand, an entire tribe may be reduced to one single descendant and become extinct in him. The question, therefore, who is to be understood by the “seed” which is to crush the serpent’s head, can only be answered from the history of the human race. But a point of much greater importance comes into consideration here. Against the natural serpent the conflict may be carried on by the whole human race, by all who are born of woman, but not against Satan. As he is a foe that can only be met with spiritual weapons, none can encounter him successfully but such as possess and make use of spiritual arms. Hence the idea of the “seed” is modified by the nature of the foe. If we look at the natural development of the human race, Eve bore three sons, but only one of them, viz., Seth, was really the seed by whom the human family was preserved through the flood and perpetuated in Noah: so, again, of the three sons of Noah, Shem, the blessed of Jehovah, from whom Abraham descended, was the only one in whose seed all nations were to be blessed, and that not through Ishmael, but through Isaac alone. Through these constantly repeated acts of divine selection, which were not arbitrary exclusions, but were rendered necessary by differences in the spiritual condition of the individuals concerned, the “seed,” to which the victory over Satan was promised, was spiritually or ethically determined, and ceased to be co-extensive with physical descent. This spiritual seed culminated in Christ, in whom the Adamitic family terminated, henceforth to be renewed by Christ as the second Adam, and restored by him to its original exaltation and likeness to God. In this sense Christ is the seed of the woman, who tramples Satan under his feet, not as an individual, but as the head both of the posterity of the woman which kept the promise and maintained the conflict with the old serpent before his advent, and also of all those who are gathered out of all nations, are united to him by faith, and formed into one body of which he is the head (Rom. 16:20). On the onther had, all who have not regarded and preserved the promise, have fallen into the power of the old serpent, and are to be regarded as the seed of the serpent, who head will be trodden under foot (Matt. 23:33; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). If then the promise culminates in Christ, the fact that the victory over the serpent is promised to the posterity of the woman, not of the man, acquires the deeper significance, that as it was through the woman that the craft of the devil brought sin and death into the world, so it is through the woman that the grace of God will give to the fallen human race the conqueror of sin, of death, and of the devil.”[17]
What is noteworthy here is that God has taken the initiative to remedy the fall of man into sin; to put “enmity” between Satan and his “seed” and the woman and her “seed.” As such, it shows us that God loves, protects, and will provide for his human creatures. These, too, are the functions in God’s sovereignty. The word for “seed” can be used as a collective noun (9:9, 12:7) or it can refer to a particular immediate offspring (4:25).[18] Interpreted as a collective noun, the whole of humanity is in view. Now, even if some commentators do not see Christ in this verse, Keil has argued that not to do so is to fail to see the logical conclusion given that Satan must be inferred, and therefore Jesus is the only one who could conquer him. Also, we know, from our vantage point now, that God was speaking of the salvation he would bring to pass in Christ by faith. Here, at the very beginning of human history, God was telling us that he cares for the future salvation of all persons. The fact that he made us in his image (1:26-27) means that he has destined us for a special relationship with him, the relationship he originally intended but was lost due to sin. This promise or prophetic statement shows his love for us as his creatures and that he will unfailingly accomplish our redemption in Christ Jesus.
So here we have the prophetic word about what God will do in history as he establishes his covenants and promises, especially the initial and foundational promise to Abraham that “…in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3).
This passage in Gen. 3:15 truly is the protoevangelium, or the “first gospel.” Hence, it can truly be said that the gospel or “good news” is the major theme running through the whole of Scripture. Whether or not the Calvinists’ soteriology is coherent with how God, in the Scripture, defines the term and its contents is our concern. Does God, as sovereign, function based on a universal divine causal determinism that entails a doctrine of unconditional election to salvation, or does the Bible present a view of divine sovereignty and salvation that is antithetical to this Calvinist theology and soteriology? I submit to you that a careful examination of the full scope of Scripture reveals that the Calvinist view of election as a deterministic and unconditional decision of God to save a limited number of specially chosen individuals is unbiblical. This is because of what we saw in Genesis 1-3 and will see throughout Old Testament history – the misuse of human freedom in unbelief and disobedience, and the proper use of human freedom in belief and obedience. Indeed, both responses are found in those God calls for his purposes in salvation history. Nevertheless, he will work his will in and through these imperfect, sinful human beings, whether they believe or reject him in unbelief. This is the biblical portrayal of what it means for God to be sovereign.
God’s plans and purposes to save mankind involve the choices, promises, and covenants he made with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The scope and nature of these choices, promises, and covenants inform the definition, purpose, and scope of a doctrine of election. But again, we must also acknowledge that faith, which will be the foundation for obedience and being counted as righteous (Gen. 15:6), was what God sought in those through whom he chose (i.e., elected) to participate in the working out of his plan of salvation.
Election: A Synopsis of the Old Testament Patriarchal Histories
David J. A. Clines’s Hermeneutical Strategy for Interpreting the Patriarchal Narratives
To set the hermeneutical stage for reading the patriarchal history and provide a synopsis for those who are not inclined to read the subsequent lengthy examination of that history below, I will quote the biblical scholar David J. A. Clines, who wrote chapter 6, “Predestination in the Old Testament,” in the seminal book on these topics, Grace Unlimited.[19] First Clines instructs us on the hermeneutical principles for reading this Old Testament history and then examines the patriarchal accounts in Genesis. He writes,
“When we turn to the Bible with our questions about predestination, we are running the risk of committing two errors. First, we may fail to see the whole range of the biblical revelation on the subject because we have chosen the categories and terms that are going to count as answers to our questions. Secondly, we may mistake the relative importance of the biblical teaching on the subject because we are focusing on that subject. Perhaps the Bible does not focus on that subject, but only sees it in relationship to something else. But we may give the doctrine, biblical though it is, not its truly biblical significance, but the significance it has come to have for us in our particular stream of theological tradition.
The errors that can be made are, then, errors about the form and the role of predestinarian thought in the Bible. The best way to minimize such errors is to look at the biblical teaching as a whole. But since that not only is difficult but also affords plentiful opportunities for our own conceptions of what is important to enter in, perhaps the most practical method is to consider the parts of the Bible individually – as least to begin with. Certainly the method to be avoided is to build isolated verses from all parts of the Bible into a logical system, without regard for the larger contexts in which they occur or the overall thrust of the major parts of the Bible.
The method adopted in this essay, therefore, is to examine some books of the Old Testament, from the historical, wisdom, and prophetic literature, with a view to discovering the form and role of predestinarian ideas in them.”[20]
Clines’ advice here is very important. Note that it pertains to hermeneutics. Clines warns against constructing a “logical system” from isolated parts of the Bible “without regard for the larger contexts in which they occur or the overall thrust of the major parts of the Bible.” The “logical system” he is referring to is the Calvinist system (i.e., TULIP). Clines is not disparaging the use of reason, the laws of logic, and moral intuition in interpretation. What he is speaking about is a lack of consideration for context, which leads to the construction of a “logical system” that produces interpretations that are inconsistent and contradictory, yet for the sake of “the system,” these problems are ignored or explained away. As I have demonstrated, this ignorance of context, which fundamentally is a concern for coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction in interpretation, is characteristic of the Calvinists’ hermeneutic.
David J. A. Clines’s Synopsis of Predestination or Election in Patriarchal Histories
Here is Clines’ synopsis of the form and role predestination takes in the patriarchal histories in the book of Genesis.
“Let us begin with the patriarchal histories (Gen. 12-50). The theme of these narratives, most simply stated, is the survival and growth of the family of Abraham. The dramatic unity of the stories, however, lies in the tension between the threats to the survival of the family and the divine promise that they will live and multiply (Gen. 12:2). The threats to survival follow in rapid succession: famine in the land of promise (12:10); Sarai, the wife through whom the promise is to be fulfilled, is taken into the Pharaoh’s harem (12:11-20); Abraham’s nephew Lot, his male heir, leaves the patriarchal family (ch. 13); Sarai is barren (ch. 16); Sarah falls prey to Abimelech (ch. 20); Ishmael, Abraham’s son, is cast out from the family (ch. 21); Isaac, now his only heir, is offered as a sacrifice (ch. 22); Rebekah is barren (25:21); Rebekah and Isaac run the danger of death in Gerar (ch, 26); Esau plots to kill Jacob (27:42); Rachel is barren (30:1); famine drives Jacob and his family out of the promised and into dangers in Egypt (42:1-4).
Here, the form that predestination takes is the promise. God has long-term intentions for the Abrahamic family, which he alone will bring about – no word is spoken in Gen. 12:1-3 of conditions Abraham must fulfill. That is surely a predestination. But the specific form that predestination takes is a promise of descendants, a land, divine blessing, and blessing to the Gentiles. That is, the predestining does not point Abraham’s attention to immutable decrees established in eternity past, but to a future in which the destiny will progressively be realized. God’s predestination is thus not a possession which Abraham and his descendants can count as their own, but an announcement of what God will make of the patriarchal family. Abraham’s response to the announcement will not be thanksgiving that everything has been settled long ago in the counsels of eternity, but faith in God that he will bring that destiny into being.
The promise (predestination) is for the sake of the Abrahamic family and of the Gentile nations. The text in Gen. 12:1-3 does not enable us to establish where the emphasis lies: Is it first and foremost on the blessing to Abraham, or climactically on the blessing to the nations? It is not important to decide the priority, but the dual direction of the promise is significant. The predestination is not for the sake exclusively of those who are predestined, but for the sake of world blessing; but neither does it relegate them to a secondary role just because they are only part of God’s larger intentions. Many traditional studies of predestination have erred in neglecting God’s wider intentions that reach beyond his chosen people (Jews or Christians), but it is unnecessary to over-react to this misplaced emphasis with a hesitation to speak of God’s predestination of the chosen people.
What now is the role of predestination in the patriarchal stories? It might be thought that since the divine promise precedes all that happens, there can be no real crises that call the promise into question but only an outworking of the divine intentions which is recognized by the actors in the story as inevitable. But that is plainly not the mood of the patriarchal narratives. The story is focused, as we have seen earlier, on the hazards which the promise faces just as much as it is on the promise itself. It is from the tension between the promise and the realities of life that the story gains its momentum. So the predestination is not the absolutely determinative factor in what happens. The story is as much about what happens against the promise as about how the promise is fulfilled.
That is not to deny that in one way or another everything that happens advances the fulfillment of the promise, or even, perhaps, that in retrospect God’s predestination can be seen also in some happenings that were apparently against the promise. Thus Joseph can say that his bondage in Egypt, though plotted by the brothers, was equally intended by God (45:5; 50:20); and perhaps the same thing could be said truly enough of other reverses in the patriarchal fortunes. But that is precisely what these narratives do not keep saying, and it would be wrong to insist that the narrator intends us to extrapolate Joseph’s remarks to every detail of the histories. Whether or not it is true that God has planned everything in advance, all that the patriarchal stories show is the promise beset by hazards but moving towards fulfillment nevertheless. That is what Genesis 12-50 means by predestination.”[21]
And this is what divine sovereignty looks like. It is not a universal divine causal determinism as in Calvinism. Rather, it is a divine relationship established with flawed yet free persons with whom God will work out his purposes through the promises he makes. It is only theirs to respond in faith to what God reveals to them and asks of them.
What follows is a more detailed examination of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis. But first, we need to set the stage from the early chapters of Genesis, where crucial events and theological themes necessary for understanding the whole of Genesis and God’s larger salvific purposes are revealed.
Election and Progressive Revelation in the Old Testament Patriarchal Histories
Now, as biblical history unfolds, God’s plans and purposes involve particular people, namely Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This more detailed involvement of God in history is an aspect of divine election. It contains the idea of selection. Hence, God’s salvation is being progressively revealed through the people he chooses. He does not reveal everything at once to these people; rather, God involves them and other individuals in the unfolding of his plans over time. This requires God to make specific decisions in time to direct and guide the process. God’s method of electing is at work. In hindsight, we know through God’s revelation that this divine purpose operating via the method of election or God making choices, ultimately concerns the work of salvation. This salvation will involve not only the choice of Abram (i.e., Abraham), Isaac, and Jacob (i.e., Israel) et al., but the making of a covenant with them and others (e.g., Moses, David). God commits himself to these people that he chooses. Through them, he establishes the nation of Israel. As such, they are God’s chosen people. By God’s initiative, selection, or election of certain individuals, He will bring about a nation from which the Messiah or Savior will come.
Therefore, Israel, as a nation, is a chosen people. Having been chosen, they are “the elect people of God.” The term “elect” refers to “a people” that is in a special relationship with God.
“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.” (Deut. 7:6, NIV, cf. 14:2)
“Happy is the nation whose God is the Lord— the people he has chosen to be his own possession!” (Ps. 33:12, CSB)
“Remember me, Lord, when you show favor to your people, come to my aid when you save them, that I may enjoy the prosperity of your chosen ones, that I may share in the joy of your nation and join your inheritance in giving praise.” (Ps. 106:4-5, NIV)
“But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, ‘You are my servant’; I have chosen you and have not rejected you.” (Isa. 41:8-9, NIV, cf. 44:1; 49:7)
“You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.” (Amos 3:2, NIV)
Over time, how Israel came to misunderstand the nature of their election, their special relationship with God, and God’s purposes for them in relation to their Messiah, Jesus Christ, takes up much of Jesus’ teaching and interactions in the gospels and of Paul’s writing in his epistles. The New Testament speaks of the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Jesus. But the Jews’ stubborn rejection of Jesus, and their misconceptions about their status as the elect or chosen people of God, will need nuanced explanation by Paul, given the history of Israel, God’s faithfulness to his covenant with them, and the radical nature of the gospel of salvation by faith for both Jew and Gentile.
Therefore, in light of the coming of Christ, to whom do the terms “elect” and “chosen” apply? How are these Old Testament concepts applied to New Testament believers? Do they reflect the teaching that God has chosen or elected certain people to be saved and therefore causes only those people to be regenerated, receive salvation, and exhibit faith in Jesus? By the terms “elect,” election,” “chosen,” and “predestined,” does the New Testament mean to teach that God has predetermined that only certain people can and will inevitably be saved, while a multitude of others cannot and will never be regenerated, receive salvation, and believe, because that is not God’s will for them? This is the issue we must reckon with. We must do so because the truth of the gospel is at stake.
So, to better understand what election means in Scripture, we must begin by surveying Genesis. Within that broader Old Testament context, we may better perceive how it is used in the New Testament. The Old Testament provides a contextual check upon our interpretations of the controversial New Testament passages. We have already advanced certain themes in previous chapters that are contrary to Calvinist teachings. Those concerning soteriology include, a) the fact that the gospel is defined as “good news,” b) that due to the veracity of God, all who hear the gospel content are hearing “good news” that genuinely applies to them, c) that salvation is described as a “gift,” d) that faith is spoken of as necessary to receive “the gift” of salvation, e) that faith precedes regeneration, and f) faith is everywhere spoken of as the responsibility of the sinner. These are critical New Testament truths that make the Calvinist soteriological doctrines of unconditional election or predestination untenable.
The point is that a doctrine of election must reflect the unique historical context of God’s work in the Old Testament and the establishment of the nation of Israel. Therefore, let’s start with the call of Abram.
Genesis 12:1-3 – The Call of Abram
In the call of Abram, we have the beginning of God’s choices, the making of selections, or his activity of electing persons for the continued accomplishment of his purposes in human history. God involves people in the accomplishment of his purposes. In that God decided to embark upon the work of salvation for mankind in history, that required him to make choices or selections of persons to accomplish that salvation. God is not a God of the arbitrary, the random, disorder, or the chaotic. He has a plan. And that is why he makes choices regarding people that will move his plan forward. Over time, the only true God will not only accomplish his plan of salvation but will also reveal himself to these chosen individuals. But remember, the initial exclusivity of choosing certain people to serve in the progressive plan of salvation is for the ultimate purpose of the universal inclusivity of all others in the salvation to come in Jesus.
At first, God chose to reveal Himself to a man named Abram, whom God later changed to Abraham.
“For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” (Gen. 18:19, NIV)
Abram most likely worshipped several false gods when he lived in the city of Ur (Joshua 24:2). Abram’s father, Terah, was a descendant of Shem, one of the sons of Noah (i.e., Japheth, Ham, and Shem; Gen 11:10-26) Terah decided to leave Ur of the Chaldeans and travel to “the land of Canaan.” (Gen 11:31). Terah brought Abram, Abram’s wife Sarai, and his nephew Lot (Terah’s grandson), with him. They stopped and settled in Haran in northern Mesopotamia, which today would be just inside the border of Turkey from Syria on the Balikh River. Terah died in Haran at the age of 205. It was after this that the Lord said to Abram,
“Go from your land,
your relatives,
and your father’s house
to the land that I will show you.
2 I will make you into a great nation,
I will bless you,
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
I will curse anyone who treats you with contempt,
and all the peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.” (Gen. 12:1-3, CSB)
This is the first of God’s historical acts of election. It’s quite amazing when you think about it. The God of all creation chooses to audibly reveal Himself to a specific man. God elects or chooses Abram, and Abram becomes the one chosen or elected.
Due to God’s initiative, Abram is to be the recipient of the knowledge of the only true God and his plans for mankind’s redemption. We know this from hindsight, but Abram did not know this when God came to him. God speaks to Abram, makes promises to him, and gives him a command to “Go…to the land that I will show you.” (v. 1) He obeys. In addition to the promise of giving Abram “the land” that God was going to show him (i.e., “the land of Canaan” in v. 5), the Lord makes Abram several other promises. The emphasis on “the land” is integral to bringing to pass these other promises. The second promise is to make him into “a great nation” (v. 2). So, in 17:5, God changes Abram’s name to Abraham which means ‘father of a multitude.” Hence, the necessity of the land as a distinct place for that nation to live and thrive. Thirdly, the Lord would “bless” Abram. (v. 2) Fourth, he would “make his name great.” (v. 2) Fifthly, Abram would “be a blessing.” (v. 2) Sixthly, the Lord would bless those who bless Abram. (v. 3) Seventh, the Lord would curse anyone who “treats you with contempt.” (v. 3) And finally, and most importantly, the Lord told Abram that “all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” (v. 3) Although these promises are not yet clearly defined historically for Abram, what is clear is the assurance of the divine presence on God’s part and the response of faith on Abram’s part. As such, Abram’s faith is already on display in his obedience, which is the response God desired from him. We see it exemplified in Abram’s obedience to God’s command in verse 1. In verse 4, we read, “So Abram went, as the Lord had told him…” (ESV). The response of faith that leads to obedience is being revealed as an integral element of God’s electing activity. Although God makes choices about his purposes and even the people to whom he will reveal them, he seeks those who will believe in him, people who are characterized by faith. This faith, albeit given the opportunity to be exercised by God coming to them, is not a guaranteed response, as we will see in Genesis chapter 15. Neither is it something God gives only to certain people as if they were the only ones God could reveal himself to, or loves and desires to save.
Note that Abram was, of course, a ‘Gentile.’ There was no such identity as a ‘Jew’ at this time. What we see unfold at the beginning of the relationship between God and Abram is that Abram is a man of faith in God. Abram was living in the prosperous city of Ur of the Chaldeans in southern Mesopotamia. And the predecessors of these Babylonians were polytheists. So, Abram, in faith, left the life he knew to respond in faith and obedience to a God he did not know, and his prospects, although promised, were not yet clarified.
Therefore, we learn, even at this early stage, that faith will be the response that God looks for in his relationship with those he has chosen for a special task (the Jews) and also from everyone else (the Gentiles) as his saving work progresses to encompass “all the peoples on earth.”
More particularly, regarding our topic in this chapter, at the beginning, we learn something very important about the doctrine of election. We learn that divine election has a universal purpose. God’s selection, election, or choosing of certain persons (e.g., Abram) has the purpose of bringing blessing to “all the peoples on earth.” God tells Abram that “all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (v. 3). So God’s election or choosing of Abram was not to bless Abram exclusively or because of anything he had done. God did not choose or bless Abram based on his merit or for Abram’s sake alone. God chose Abram because God had broader purposes that would encompass “all the peoples on earth.” Gen. 12:1-3 can be seen as progressive in the sense that each promise builds upon the ones before it. Each is necessary to establish before the next can be realized. It is a summary statement of God’s ‘game plan’, so to speak, that culminates in all the peoples on earth being blessed.
Note also that this divine election or choice of Abram has nothing directly to do with Abram’s eternal destiny. The promises made to Abram were not construed in terms of what will progressively be revealed about the nature, means, and scope of one’s eternal destiny or salvation, especially salvation in Jesus Christ. Abram knows none of this, even from the promise that through him all the peoples of the earth will be blessed. All that progressively unfolds in due time, but what God is about early on in revealing himself and his intentions to bless is the establishment of a people to whom he can reveal himself and who would also respond in faith to participate in God’s plans and purposes.
Hence, choice, promise, and faith come together at the beginning of God’s saving work in the world; a work, the purpose of which is to bless the whole world. What unfolds from Abram will play a role in Paul’s argument when he uses the phrase “God’s purpose according to election” in Rom. 9:11 (CSB).
The Famine Incident and Abram’s Developing Trust in God
After this, there was “a famine in the land” (12:10). So, Abram and Sarai journeyed to Egypt to find relief. Fearful of Pharaoh, Abram lies to him, saying Sarai is his sister. But God protects Abram according to the promise he made to him. (Gen. 12:10-20)
Now Abram and Lot returned to the area of Bethel and Ai, where they had previously settled before the famine. But being successful herdsmen with substantial wealth, they could not stay in the same area due to strife among their herdsmen, and because the land could not support them both. Therefore, they agreed to separate. Abram gives Lot the choice of which direction he would go (Gen. 13:8-9). He chose to go east to the well-watered Jordan Valley (12:10-13). But interestingly, the writer notes parenthetically that (“This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah”) (13:10), and further elaborates that “Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.” (13:13, NIV) The text continues. “Abram lived in the land of Canaan, but Lot lived in the cities on the plain and set up his tent near Sodom.” (13:12, CSB) In another parenthetic note, the writer tells us, “(At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites were living in the land.)” (13:7)
After these events, Lot is kidnapped by the kings from the east and rescued by Abram (14:1-16). Therefore, once again God comes to Abram, who was near Bethel, and reiterates the promise of the land and offspring. God says,
“Look from the place where you are. Look north and south, east and west, for I will give you and your offspring forever all the land that you see. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust of the earth, then your offspring could be counted. Get up and walk around the land, through its length and width, for I will give it to you.” So Abram moved his tent and went to live near the oaks of Mamre at Hebron, where he built an altar to the Lord.” (13:14-18, CSB)
Here, we should elaborate more regarding “the land” that God gave to Abram and his descendants.
“The Land That I Will Show You”
Recall the promise of God to Abram. “Go from your land…to the land I will show you.” (Gen 12:1, CSB) The story of this “promised land” begins after the utter destruction the flood caused upon the earth (Gen. 6:1-9:17). Noah had three sons – Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It is important to note that “from them the whole earth was populated.” (9:19, CSB) But after the flood, something serious occurred between Noah and Ham. Ham found his father intoxicated and naked in his tent. This account in Gen. 9:18-29 is obscure and therefore a difficult passage to understand. Ham was involved in an incident regarding Noah when Noah was drunk. Whatever occurred was not a trivial matter, for Noah cursed Canaan, Ham’s son (9:25). But why curse Canaan? We read in The Knowledge Bible Commentary,
“…Noah was not punishing Ham’s son for something Ham did. Instead, Noah’s words referred to the nation of the Canaanites that would come from Ham through Canaan. Ham’s act of hubris could not be left without repercussions. A humiliation in like measure was needed, according to the principle of retributive justice. Ham had made an irreparable breach in his father’s family; thus a curse would be put on his son’s family.”[22]
John H. Sailhamer offers this explanation in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary.
“Whatever the details of the actual act might have been, taken at face value the son’s actions suit the author’s purpose quite well. What he apparently wants to show is simply the contrast between the deeds of Ham and those of Shem and Japheth. That contrast becomes the basis for the curse and the blessing that follow (vv. 25-26).
…The sons of Noah are here shown to belong to two groups of mankind, those who like Adam and Eve hide the shame of their nakedness, and those who like Ham, or rather the Canaanites, have no sense of their shame before God. To the one group, the line of Shem, there will be blessing (v. 26); but to the other, the Canaanites (not the Hamites), there can only be curse (v. 25).
It is important to see how the author uses these narratives to teach a larger lesson, that of the importance of acknowledging the guilt of one’s sin. His point is not simply that all Canaanites are cursed. That would certainly not fit what he later writes about Abraham as the one through whom “all the peoples on earth [including the Canaanites] will be blessed” (12:3). Rather his point is simply that these three sons, as later the “seed of Abraham” and the “nations,” represent two responses to human guilt and disobedience. Ultimately the author will show that it is simply because one is born into a certain family line that he is blessed or cursed. In the figure of Abraham, the author will set forth his final case for the way of blessing: “Abraham believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness” (15:6).[23]
This is important with respect to understanding the doctrine of election. As Sailhamer observes, “…it is not simply because one is born into a certain family line that he is blessed or cursed.” The claim that a person is blessed by virtue of their birth into a certain family heritage is not how God views the one who is to be blessed or cursed. Rather, God will establish the means and method by which a person will be blessed or cursed. And here we are told that right from the start, the patriarch Abraham exercised faith in God, and that faith was credited to him as righteousness. This will become relevant in Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11. We will examine this later. But here we see the foundations being laid for the doctrine of election. The Knowledge Bible Commentary adds this interpretive insight.
“This passage has several interpretive problems that have always plagued Bible scholars. It is important to remember the purpose of the book, for this passage has direct reference to the nature and destiny of the Canaanites, Israel’s antagonists…
Noah’s oracle predicted that the Canaanites would be in servitude to the Shemites and Japhethites (vv. 26-27). But this was because the Canaanites lived degrading lives like Ham, not because of what Ham did. The point is that nationally, at least, drunken debauchery enslaves a people. This is why, in God’s program to bless Israel, the Canaanites were condemned. They were to be judged by God through the Conquest because their activities were in the same pattern and mold as the ancestor Ham.”[24]
What needs to be emphasized here is that the author can refer to nations or groups of people as being affected by the sin of their ancestor (e.g., Ham). The Canaanites lived like Ham, and therefore, they were cursed. Shem and Japheth acted righteously and were blessed. As it says in Proverbs 14:34, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” (CSB) The author of Genesis includes this story because it is essential to understanding the subsequent events and their rationale. In the distant future, after a time of captivity for the people of God in Egypt, God would judge the Canaanites by Israel’s conquest of “the land.” It was to be a divine judgment that was just, for we are told in Gen. 15:16 that the Israelites would conquer the land after their captivity in Egypt because “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” (ESV)
Who are the Amorites? In the lists of the people of Canaan in Gen. 10:15-18, the Amorites are also mentioned. According to those verses, the Amorites are described as a clan of the Canaanites (v. 18). Thus, they are descendants of Canaan along with other peoples that occupied areas of the land promised to Abram. The verses read,
“Canaan fathered Sidon his firstborn and Heth, as well as the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterward the Canaanite clans scattered.” (Gen. 10:15-18, CSB)
We read in the New Bible Dictionary that the Amorites were “A people of Canaan (Gn. 10:16)” and that “The name [Amorite] was also used as a general term for the inhabitants of Canaan (Gn. 48:22; Jos, 24:15).”[25] We also read,
“When the term “Amorite” is used alone, it refers to western Semitic peoples living in Transjordanian kingdoms and the hill country of Palestine. These Amorites were a small ethnic group, not the large wave of Amorites who poured into both ancient Sumer and the West.”[26]
Therefore, according to the biblical text, the “promised land” (Ex. 12:25, 32:13; Deut. 9:8, 19:8, 27:3; Joshua 23:5) was called “the land of Canaan.” (Gen. 11:31, 12:5, 13:12, 16:3, 17:8, 23:2, 23:19, 24:37, 31:18, 35:6, 36:5-6, 37:1, et al.) In the promise as quoted in Gen. 17:8, God calls it “all the land of Canaan.” There we read, “And to you and your future offspring I will give the land where you are residing—all the land of Canaan—as a permanent possession, and I will be their God.”
Now, the broadest description of the boundaries of “the land” is given in Gen. 15:18. There we read,
“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “I give this land to your offspring, from the Brook of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River…” (Gen. 15:18, CSB)
What about the use of the term “Palestine” to describe “the land of Canaan”? We find the word “Palestine” used in the Amplified and other Bibles that expand the wording of the text, but it is placed in brackets. It is not found in the Old or New Testaments, except in the KJV where it should read “Philistia” following the more accurate texts (e.g., RSV, ESV, CSB, NIV, NASB). The NKJV makes the change to “Philistia.”
Regardless, “Palestine” is essentially a geographical term referring to the southern portion of the Levant. The Levant is the western strip of the “Fertile Crescent” bordered by the Mediterranean Sea and the Syro-Arabian Desert in the east. “Palestine” refers to the section of the Levant below the northern Syrian section. The Canaanites, among others (Gen 15:19-20), were a people living in the geographical area of Palestine. The Holman Bible Atlas describes Palestine as “the geographical epicenter of our faith,”[27] consisting of areas like Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. The biblical description of Palestine is found in Deut. 8:7-10.
“For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land, a land with streams, springs, and deep water sources, flowing in both valleys and hills; a land of wheat, barley, vines, figs, and pomegranates; a land of olive oil and honey; a land where you will eat food without shortage, where you will lack nothing; a land whose rocks are iron and from whose hills you will mine copper. When you eat and are full, you will bless the Lord your God for the good land he has given you.” (CSB, See also Deut. 11:8-12)
But who was living in Palestine at that time? Just after God’s initial promises to Abram, in Gen.12:6, we read,
“Abram passed through the land to the site of Shechem, at the oak of Moreh. (At that time the Canaanites were in the land.)” (CSB)
When Abram separates from Lot, we read in Gen. 13:7 that,
“(At that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites were living in the land.)” (CSB)
In Gen.15:18-20, we also read about other groups of people who occupied the land.
“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “I give this land to your offspring, from the Brook of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River: 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, 20 Hethites, Perizzites, Rephaim, 21 Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, and Jebusites.”
Note that the “Brook of Egypt” (CSB) or “River of Egypt” (ESV) or “Wadi of Egypt” (NIV) is the Wadi el-Arish which is about 50 miles south of Gaza. It does not refer to the Nile River.
Interestingly, more detailed geographical areas where some of the above people groups resided, is given in the book of Numbers. When the spies returned from scouting out the land, they reported that,
“…the people living in the land are strong, and the cities are large and fortified. We also saw the descendants of Anak there. The Amalekites are living in the land of the Negev; the Hethites, Jebusites, and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live by the sea and along the Jordan.” (Num. 13:28-29, CSB)
Granted, this was more than four hundred years later than Abram’s time, but it is noteworthy that the Canaanites were still in the land and resided “by the sea and along the Jordan.” I suspect that they were those that Abram would have had the most contact with, as he went through the land, for when Abraham’s servant seeks out a wife for Isaac, he states,
“My master put me under this oath: ‘You will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites in whose land I live.” (Gen, 24:37, CSB)
The Canaanites occupied the most fertile area of Palestine and were the people that Joshua conquered in entering the land, which again was called “the land of Canaan” (Gen. 12:6, 24:37, 34:30).
Canaanite and Amorite Religion
A word needs to be said here about the Canaanite and Amorite religion. The depravity of the Canaanite peoples provides the ethical rationale undergirding the divine promise and the later conquering of the land. The New Bible Dictionary tells us that,
“The Canaanites had an extensive pantheon, headed by El. More prominent in practice were Baal (lord’), i.e. Hadad the storm-god, and Dagon, with temples in Ugarit and elsewhere. The goddesses of Asherah, Astarte (Ashtaroth) and Anath – like Baal – had multicolored personalities and violent characters; they were goddesses of sex and war…The Ugaritic texts mention a variety of animals sacrificed to the gods: cattle, sheep (rams and lambs) and birds (including doves) …”[28]
There are also indications of the practice of cult prostitution and human sacrifice.
“That Canaanite religion appealed to the bestial and material in human nature is clearly evidenced by the Ugaritic texts and in Egyptian texts of Semitic origin or inspiration…”[29]
In 1 Kings 21:26, the author points out the evil of King Ahab’s reign by recalling and associating it with the evil practices of the Amorites. The text states,
“He [Ahab] committed the most detestable acts by following idols as the Amorites had, whom the Lord had dispossessed before the Israelites.” (CSB)
And again in 2 Kings 21:11, the same is said about King Manasseh.
“…King Manasseh of Judah has committed all these detestable acts—worse evil than the Amorites who preceded him had done…” (CSB)
This is why British Egyptologist and biblical scholar K. A. Kitchen’s observation is correct. He concludes,
“When the full import of this is realized it will be the more evident that physically and spiritually the sophisticated crudities of decaying Canaanite culture and emergent Israel with a unique mission could not coexist.”[30]
Through Abram, God was bringing into existence a distinct people with whom he would be in direct relationship and who would have a unique purpose, culture, and mission. God would be their God, and they would be his people (Jer. 31:33, 32:38, et al.). God cares about truth, and as a God of truth, he would want his people to worship the only true God. God is also holy and cares to protect his people from unholy practices and destructive alliances. The Lord wanted a people that would reflect his holiness. God is also just, and the judge of the whole earth (Gen. 18:5, Ps. 110:6), and as such must judge the sin of the Canaanites in due time by having determined to give the land to the descendants of Abram. Yet, neither would God’s people (i.e., Israel) be immune from God’s judgments. Recall the prophet Amos saying, “You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.” (Amos 3:2, NIV) We will see how this relates to their election as we continue our study of Israel’s history.
Genesis 15:4-6 – God’s Covenant Promise Clarified and Abram’s Faith Acknowledged
In Gen. 15:1-2, the Lord comes again to Abram in a vision, saying,
“Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” (ESV)
Abram then raises the issue of the promised offspring (Gen. 12:2, 7; 13:15-16) and the fact that he has none. Abram’s suggestion that his household servant, Eliezer, be his heir is strongly rejected by God. God says,
“This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” (15:4, ESV)
This is an important point. Note that God was making further electing or selecting decisions here, albeit negatively regarding Eliezer. God is deciding and guiding Abram. Eliezer was not the person to fulfill the promises God made to Abram; rather, “your very own son shall be your heir.” That is, it is according to God’s promise that the child was to be of Abram’s own body. What will happen will be according to divine promise. Therefore, the true heir is to be the child promised by God. He would be the child of promise. So, we see God directing Abram to understand God’s promise, which also required faith on Abram’s part.
Here, our story reveals fuller insight into the nature of faith and its relation to righteousness. When God assures Abram that his offspring would be as the number of the stars in the sky (15:5), Abram responds to the Lord by believing what God has said. Here, in chapter 15, we have another example of Abram’s faith that began in chapter 12. In The Bible Knowledge Commentary, we read,
“Genesis 15:6 provides an important note, but it does not pinpoint Abram’s conversion. That occurred years earlier when he left Ur. (The form of the Heb. word for “believed” shows that his faith did not begin after the events recorded in vv. 1-5.) Abram’s faith is recorded here because it is foundational for making the covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant did not give Abram redemption; it was a covenant made with Abram who had already believed and to whom righteousness had already been imputed. The Bible clearly teaches that in all ages imputed righteousness (i.e., salvation) comes by faith.”[31]
Note that the text does not indicate that Abram’s faith has its source in anything or anyone other than Abram. Counter to Calvinist teaching, Abram’s faith was not given to him by God due to his being ‘unconditionally elected’ by God to salvation. Abram’s faith was his own. This is confirmed in the text. It clearly states that this faith is Abram’s faith. “And he believed the Lord…” or literally, “He believed in the Lord” (v. 6). Nothing here leads us to think that God created this faith in Abram even though he was chosen by God, that is, one of God’s elect individuals (cf. Neh. 9:7-8; Ps. 105; Isa, 41:8-10; Rom. 4). That Abram was the one who was responsible for his faith is also affirmed in that it was God who “counted it to him as righteousness.” This makes no sense if God predetermined Abram to have faith, as is taught in Calvinism. It was Abram’s faith that God credited to him as righteousness. And it would be a serious mistake to think Abram earned his righteousness by believing, and therefore conclude it must be God who causes people to believe. Believing cannot be defined as a meritorious work. Such an erroneous idea is refuted here and will continue to be refuted as salvation history unfolds. Moreover, the view that Abram exercises faith will be confirmed later when God tests Abraham’s faith in Genesis 22. This test makes no sense if faith is given by God, as Calvinism teaches. John Sailhamer writes,
“Verse 6 opens the scene by setting the record straight: Abraham had believed in Yahweh and had been accounted righteous. The “covenant” did not make him “righteous”; rather it was through his “faith” that he was reckoned righteous. Only after he had been counted righteous through his faith could Abraham enter into God’s covenant.”[32]
So here in Gen 15, the pattern of faith being prior to righteousness (or salvation) is established. This will hold true throughout Scripture. Abraham is paradigmatic in this regard (cf. Rom 4). Furthermore, the Lord assures Abram of his promise by making a covenant with him.
“On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “I give this land to your offspring, from the Brook of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River: the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hethites, Perizzites, Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, and Jebusites.” (15:18-21, CSB)
God, by virtue of his foreknowledge, also tells him about the servanthood and affliction of his offspring for four hundred years “in a land that is not theirs,” (i.e., Egypt) and gives at least one reason why this will be so. It is because “the iniquity of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.” (15:16, CSB)
Here, we have insight into how the sovereignty of God is to be understood. First, note that God is in a genuine, active relationship with individuals and nations. He responds to the actions of men (cf. Jonah). God acts justly regarding the Amorites (i.e., Canaanites) who occupy the land that God promised to give Abram and his offspring. He will not judge them prematurely. Note also that it is the Amorites, or Canaanites, who are sinning. God did not predetermine and cause them to sin as in Calvinism. Their sin is their own. God is just. He acts patiently and thereby justly in not judging the Amorites for their sin, which “has not yet reached its full measure” (15:16, CSB). Secondly, God’s sovereignty is integral with his foreknowledge. He knows when the sin of the Amorites will reach “its full measure.” But of course, he does not and cannot cause this sin, as in Calvinism, because he is righteous and holy. God also knows what the future holds for the descendants of Abram, and under what circumstances their numbers will increase. As such, he can employ those circumstances for his purposes (Gen. 50:15-21). This is precisely what he does with Joseph in Egypt (Gen. 47:27; Ex. 1:7) and the Pharaoh of their captivity after him. Through the deliverance or salvation of the Israelites, God exposes this Pharaoh’s proud and stubborn heart and makes himself ripe for hardening and judgment by God, while God instructs Abram’s offspring (i.e., the Israelites) in God’s character, actions, and salvation.
Genesis 16 – The Divine Repudiation of a Legitimate Social Custom
Here we have the next account that contributes to a doctrine of election informed by the broader biblical context. In Gen. 16:1, we read, “Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children.” Note that up until now, the divine promise, though persistent and assured, was imprecise as to how it was to come about. In 12:2 the Lord said, “I will make you a great nation…” In 12:7, 13:15, and 15:5, the Lord speaks about the multitude of his offspring. And in 15:4 the Lord says, “…your very own son shall be your heir.” But in all this, it is never said how Abram would have a son. The assumption is that it would be by Sarai. But can we expect that Abram should have known and always believed unwaveringly that Sarai would give birth to Abram’s son and heir? In contrast to this expectation, the words of 16:1 ring persistently and sadly true – “Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children.” It therefore seems that they honestly could not reckon the nature of the divine promise that God would make barren Sarai give birth to Abram’s son. Hence, they took advantage of a legal custom of their day in which a barren wife could give her maidservant to her husband as his wife, and the son to be born could be designated the adopted son and heir. So, Sarai gave Hagar to Abram. And even though this makes sense according to their social customs, what is important to note is that “God often repudiates social customs.”[33]
And here we have another facet of the doctrine of election. God’s promises are not bound to be brought to fruition by human customs, conventions, expectations, or established traditions, however legitimate. That is, it is God who chooses how he will bring to pass his purposes. God accomplishes his purposes in ways that are not beholden to human design, effort, achievement, or privilege, as Paul will argue in Romans 9-11. His promises do not necessarily conform to our expectations, human traditions, and cultural conventions (cf. John 1:13). So, when Abram and Sarai planned that the birth of a son should happen in the manner of giving Hagar to Abram to accomplish God’s promise to them (15:4), although it gave Abram a son, this son was not the fulfillment of the promise. The plan of their own making did not accomplish bringing into the world the son of promise.
Now while Hagar was pregnant, “the angel of the Lord” came to her to comfort her in her separation from Abram and the contempt Sarai had for her (16:4) that caused Hagar to flee into the wilderness (16:7). The angel told her to name her son Ishmael, which means “God hears.” He also told her to return to Sarai and submit to her, and that her offspring would be multiplied such that they could not be numbered (16:10). In The Bible Knowledge Commentary we read,
“There is no problem seeing what went wrong… When the way of faith (which involves patient waiting) was abandoned, and the way of human calculation was taken, Abram was caught up in a chain of causes and effects that would trouble him for years to come. (Ishmael became the ancestor of the Arabs, who are still hostile to the Jews.)
…The lesson was clear for Sarai, Abram, Hagar, Israel, and for Christians: God’s servants are to trust his Word and to wait for its fulfillment, enduring patiently till the end. It becomes increasingly clear in Genesis that any person or any nation that owes its existence to divine election should live by faith. Human efforts will not help. But the good news for God’s people is that the living God sees and hears.”[34]
Note that the writer of the commentary used the term “election” to refer to God’s relationship with Abram. Abram was chosen by God. But it has become obvious that the nature of this elect relationship is not unconditional, at least as far as Abram is concerned. Neither are all the circumstances divinely predetermined as Calvinists claim when they state that God has ordained “whatsoever comes to pass.” What we do learn is that the corollary to divine election is human faith. That is the one condition upon which the relationship to God stands with respect to the person or persons involved. God is pleased with the free response of faith from people because that is the ground upon which he has ordained to establish that relationship. Nothing can please God more than faith in him (Heb. 11:6). The nature of the interaction between God and man has this genius at its core, that God has ordained that his relationship with his human creatures, even those who may be called his “elect,” be a relationship of free will. It is a relationship characterized by human freedom and responsibility. And whatever degree one wants to assign to God, the interaction between God and man is not predetermined. Certainly, God has the prerogative to employ or even harden persons for his purposes, but that is very different than claiming the Bible teaches a universal divine causal determinism. The Calvinist doctrine of the eternal decree requires that all things are predetermined and therefore caused by God. Even one’s faith is predetermined and caused by God. Therefore, the biblical account gives no credence to Calvinist theistic determinism along with a definition of election as unconditional and referring to salvation, as though God has predestined who will believe and be saved and who will not.
Paul, when chiding the Galatian believers for considering a return to relying on “the works of the law,” uses this Genesis account we are studying to teach the importance and sufficiency of faith in relation to justification (i.e., salvation). Paul writes the following to the Galatians.
“You foolish Galatians! Who has cast a spell on you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? I only want to learn this from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by the Spirit, are you now finishing by the flesh? Did you experience so much for nothing — if in fact it was for nothing? So then, does God give you the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law? Or is it by believing what you heard — just like Abraham who believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness?
You know, then, that those who have faith, these are Abraham’s sons. Now the Scripture saw in advance that God would justify the Gentiles by faith and proclaimed the gospel ahead of time to Abraham, saying, All the nations will be blessed through you. Consequently, those who have faith are blessed with Abraham, who had faith.” (Gal. 3:1-9, CSB)
Throughout his epistles, Paul presupposes genuine human freedom and responsibility, not theistic determinism. Faith is the sinner’s free will response to the “good news” contained in the gospel message, which is for all individuals.
Genesis 17:7-8 – The Covenant Confirmed, Names Changed, and the Promise Clarified
A brief review of Abram’s age at the events we have discussed so far will set the stage for chapter 17. Abram was 75 when he departed from Haran (12:4). Abram lived 10 years in the land of Canaan when Sarai concluded that “the Lord has prevented me from bearing children (16:2) and thought up the Hagar option (16:3). Abram was 86 years old when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael (16:16).
Now, 13 years later (Ishmael was now 13), when Abram was 99, and Sarai was 90, God appears to him again and reiterates the covenant. In Gen. 17:1-8 we have the confirmation and the extension of the covenant of chapter 15. This time, it is “God Almighty” (v. 1) who appears to Abram. This is the first reference to “God Almighty” in Scripture. God assures Abram of his power to bring to pass what he has promised.
“I will confirm my covenant that is between me and you and your future offspring throughout their generations. It is a permanent covenant to be your God and the God of your offspring after you. And to you and your future offspring I will give the land where you are residing – all the land of Canaan – as a permanent possession, and I will be their God.” (17:7-8, CSB)
The covenant centers on God being Abram’s God and the God of his descendants. In other words, God wants to identify with a group of people – “and I will be their God” – and have this group of people identify with God. This group of people was to number more than the stars in the sky (Gen. 15:5) and become “a multitude of nations.” (Gen 17: 4-6)
Note the “everlasting” nature of the covenant and the possession of the land of Canaan. In this regard, Sailhamer writes,
“Thus as God reiterated his role in the covenant, the focus was centered on his everlasting faithfulness: “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant…The whole land of Canaan, …I will give as an everlasting possession (vv. 7-8)”[35]
To memorialize the covenant, Abram’s name is changed to Abraham, which means “father of a multitude.” Sarai’s name is changed to Sarah, which means “princess” (v. 15). Now, Abraham’s part in confirming the covenant was to be obedient as to the circumcision of every male among them (vv. 9-14) which he later carried out (vv. 23-27). Sarah’s part in the covenant was to give birth to the child God promised. Sailhamer observes,
“She, in her old age, was to be the one through whom it would be demonstrated that God alone could fulfill his covenanted promise.”[36]
So, God tells Abraham, “…Sarah will be her name. I will bless her; indeed, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she will produce nations; kings of peoples will come from her” (17:15-16). At this, Abraham laughs. Here’s the account.
“Abraham fell facedown. Then he laughed and said to himself, “Can a child be born to a hundred-year-old man? Can Sarah, a ninety-year-old woman, give birth?” So Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael were acceptable to you!” But God said, “No. Your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will name him Isaac. I will confirm my covenant with him as a permanent covenant for his future offspring. As for Ishmael, I have heard you. I will certainly bless him; I will make him fruitful and will multiply him greatly. He will father twelve tribal leaders, and I will make him into a great nation. But I will confirm my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this time next year.” When he finished talking with him, God withdrew from Abraham.” (17:17-22, CSB)
Here is divine “election” or “selection” at work. It is Sarah who will bear Abraham a son (17:16). God commands Abraham to name him Isaac (17:19). And it is Isaac with whom God will confirm his permanent covenant (17:19). Abraham’s questions and his suggestion to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!” (17:18) all serve to highlight and magnify the “election” theme that runs throughout these accounts. The fact that it is God’s choice as to who would be the son promised to Abraham is coming into view. It will be God’s decisions and actions that bring to pass the covenant promises. The fulfillment of these promises will not be subject either to human invention or human achievement. The basis of a relationship of faith between God and man is being established even before the law is given. And although individual salvation or one’s eternal destiny is not the immediate application here, it is off in the distance as the divine purpose for these events. They define the origin and nature of that salvation, and therefore, they further instruct us as to the divine disposition towards mankind. God has a saving disposition, indeed, an unfailing intent, regarding the salvation of humanity. It is a salvation that is by faith that is the original plan of God, and the work of that salvation will be fulfilled by God alone in Christ Jesus. That is what we are watching unfold in these Genesis accounts.
God speaks several times in this chapter 17. Sailhamer writes about what he labels the third divine speech that begins in verse 19.
“The content of the third divine speech extends the covenant to include Isaac, who is to be born of Sarah, and consequently excludes Ishmael, the son of Hagar. Thus Isaac was not to be one of the anonymous “offspring” who was to receive the benefits of the covenant. He is here brought to the level of a participant in the original covenant: “I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him” (v.19b). Thus the identification of the covenant “offspring” of Abraham is more specific. The descendants of Abraham who are heirs of the covenant are those through Sarah, that is, the “offspring” of Isaac…
The descendants of Hagar, on the other hand, are consequently excluded from the covenant. However, in this final speech the author is careful to show that although Ishmael has been excluded from the covenant with Abraham, Ishmael and his descendants are still to live under the blessing of God (v.20). In fact, in his blessing of Ishmael, God reiterated both his original blessing of all mankind in 1:28 (“I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers,” v.20a) and his blessing of Abraham in 12:2 (“I will make him into a great nation” v.20b). Just as the “offspring of Isaac would form a great nation of twelve tribes (49:1-27), so the “offspring: of Ishmael, under God’s blessing, would form a great nation of twelve rulers (v.20b). The list of these twelve rulers is given in 25:13-15.”[37]
So, it is to whom the promise of the covenant is given (i.e., Isaac) that is most important here. But for our purposes, it is equally important to observe that just because Isaac will be the one through whom the covenant blessing comes to pass and Ishmael was excluded from that role, this does not mean that God has forsaken Ishmael or that the ultimate salvific purposes of the Abrahamic covenant will not be applicable to Ishmael and a blessing to him. For indeed, God includes “he who is born in your house” (17:12,13,23,27, ESV) in his covenant of circumcision. Ishmael, too, was circumcised (17:23-26). We must keep in mind what God is doing in his electing activity. He makes choices between people so that “all the peoples on earth” would be blessed (12:3, CSB).
So what do we learn here about the nature of election as compared to Calvinism? We learn that when we observe exclusivity within God’s particular historical purposes, this does not necessarily mean divine exclusion from the intent of those purposes. The fact that God made an exclusive choice in Abraham, and now in Isaac, does not entail that Ishmael or anyone else is excluded from God’s ultimate spiritual and salvific purposes. Election, thus far, indicates nothing regarding the eternal destiny of the elect (i.e., Abraham and Isaac) or non-elect persons (i.e., Ishmael). It refers to God’s method of bringing to pass what he has revealed to Abraham in chapters 12 and 15. God’s temporal exclusivity for the purpose of progressively revealing himself contains the wisdom of focusing on a people for the purpose of revelation. That revelation need not only refer to those chosen people. Neither should it necessarily remain within those chosen people. We see that God’s revelation, or his plan of salvation, has an ultimate universal inclusivity, that is, it applies to all. Such exclusivity in the choice of Abraham, Isaac, and, later, Jacob, is not incompatible with the divine intent that those choices serve purposes which are universally inclusive in scope.
Genesis 18 and 21 – Is Anything Too Hard for the Lord?
Sometime later, the Lord appeared to Abraham in the representation of three men (18:1-3). The central points in this chapter are the announcement of the birth of a son and Sarah’s laughter, along with a lesson on divine justice. The text stresses in verse 11 that “Abraham and Sarah were old and getting on in years. Sarah had passed the age of childbearing” (CSB). The account continues,
“So she laughed to herself: “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I have delight?” But the Lord asked Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Can I really have a baby when I’m old?’ Is anything impossible for the Lord? At the appointed time I will come back to you, and in about a year she will have a son.” (vv. 12-14, CSB)
Sailhamer writes,
“The point of the above verses is that they bring the promise to the brink of failure, pushing the obstacle to its fulfillment far beyond the previous levels. It was not only that Sarah was barren (11:30; 16:1) or that Abraham was old (since he later had children without any apparent divine intervention, 25-14). These obstacles in themselves are great enough to demonstrate that the promise, when fulfilled, came from God alone. But the author takes the reader one step further. Sarah was even past the physical age of bearing children. For her to have a child was not simply unlikely; it was impossible (v. 14; NIV, “too hard”)!
… the underlying issue at stake in the narrative then is brought to the surface in these questions to Abraham. That is, they demonstrate the physical impossibility of the fulfillment of the promise through Sarah.
Once the obstacle of the physical impossibility of Sarah’s giving birth to a son was firmly established, the Lord repeated his promise to Abraham, “I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son” (v.14b).
… in the course of this brief but important narrative, the reader has come to a new level of understanding regarding the promise of a son and its potential fulfillment. The promise was beyond all physical possibility.”[38]
And here we have the further development of the nature of the doctrine of election or God’s selections as to how his purposes will be carried out. This central theme comes back into view in chapter 21:1-7. Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born, as promised, and in obedience to God’s command, Abraham circumcised him. (See the establishment of the covenant of circumcision in 17:1-14, 22-27.) Sarah was now laughing, but it was from the joy of God’s promise that was to be fulfilled in what they were convinced was the impossible circumstance of their old age. God fulfills his promises. He can do what is impossible for man to do in the flesh (Jn. 1:13). All God expects is faith, because that is all man can give. He can trust in God (cf. Gal. 3:6-9). God does the work, man simply believes. This issue of faith is so crucial that God will test Abraham’s faith and strengthen it in the account in 22:1-14. The pattern is being revealed and taking shape – God’s promise as impossible for man, but requires faith alone from man. Promise implies faith.
We have already seen how God cared for the pregnant Hagar in chapter 16:1-16. Ishmael was now 13 years old (or possibly 16-17, depending upon when Isaac was weaned. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary, OT, 62.) and was in some way “mocking” the birth of Isaac or Isaac himself. This angered Sarah. Her solution was to order Abraham to,
“Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.” (Gen. 21:10, NIV, cf. Gal. 4:30)
This distressed Abraham, but God confirms Sarah’s plan to him. And the reason is given.
“This was very distressing to Abraham because of his son. But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed about the boy and about your slave. Whatever Sarah says to you, listen to her, because your offspring will be traced through Isaac, and I will also make a nation of the slave’s son because he is your offspring.” (21:11-13, CSB)
Again, the emphasis is upon the election or choosing of Isaac over Ishmael. “Your offspring will be traced through Isaac.” (v. 12) And God himself willed this separation and distinction between Isaac and Ishmael. This distinction had to be made clear. Ishmael was not to be coheir with Issac. But it is a distinction or choosing that serves the redemption story or salvation history, for it is not as if Ishmael is forgotten by God. As pointed out previously, it does not follow that God’s election of a person (i.e., Issac) or persons (i.e., Israel) entails a disregard for the well-being of all other individuals and peoples. It does not follow that a doctrine of election requires that they be excluded from God’s loving concern, as in Calvinism. Indeed, the opposite is the case. The purpose of election, as we have seen and will continue to see as the story unfolds, is to be a witness to God’s saving love and grace to all nations and individuals. This point is especially developed in the prophets. We read the following in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
“The unique combination of particularism and universalism in the belief in election, the insight that the God who chose a small national community because he loved it as God in the true sense as the Holy One and the Lord, is developed with increasing clarity in the exilic prophecy to the point where the nations who do not yet know Him will learn to do so. If election had for Amos a particular purpose (→ 162), this is now the purpose. The elect people and its heralds are witnesses. “Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my servant whom I have chosen, that they may know and believe in me and understand that I am he” (Is. 43:10) … A light to the Gentiles (49:6) is to shine forth from this history. This development of the belief in election into the concept of witness to the truth of God is to be regarded as the consummation of the OT message of salvation.”[39]
Although God affirms sending Hagar and Ishmael away into the desert, we are told that God would also make Ishmael into a great nation because he is Abraham’s offspring (21:18; v. 13). This is in line with the original promise to Abraham that “all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” (Gen. 12:3, CSB) Ishmael is Abraham’s offspring, and therefore God comes to the aid of Hagar and Ishmael in their distress. The passage is emotionally moving as to both Hagar and Ishmael’s plight and God’s care for them.
“Early in the morning Abraham got up, took bread and a waterskin, put them on Hagar’s shoulders, and sent her and the boy away. She left and wandered in the Wilderness of Beer-sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she left the boy under one of the bushes and went and sat at a distance, about a bowshot away, for she said, “I can’t bear to watch the boy die!” While she sat at a distance, she wept loudly.
God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What’s wrong, Hagar? Don’t be afraid, for God has heard the boy crying from the place where he is. Get up, help the boy up, and grasp his hand, for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well. So she went and filled the waterskin and gave the boy a drink. God was with the boy, and he grew; he settled in the wilderness and became an archer. He settled in the Wilderness of Paran, and his mother got a wife for him from the land of Egypt.” (Gen. 21:14-21, CSB)
It is noteworthy not only that God saved their lives, but the text states that “God was with the boy, and he grew…” (v. 20). God took care of Ishmael. God had compassion on Hagar and Ishmael and saved their lives, although Ishmael would never be part of the inheritance with Isaac, and even though Ishmael was entered into the covenant of circumcision (17:23-26).
This is the nature of divine election. It is exclusive to Israel, but that is for the accomplishment of God’s purposes in God’s way, which is through the continuation of the nature of his own promise (i.e., to Abraham and then through Isaac, not Ishmael, then through Jacob, not Esau). Indeed, this account indicates that the ultimate goal of any exclusivity is to serve the inclusivity in God’s ultimate purposes of those not so chosen (i.e., Ishmael). Simply because Isaac was the child of promise through whom God would work his salvific plans did not mean that God did not have a saving concern for Ishmael; it is just that Ishmael would not play Isaac’s role in God’s plans. The author wants us to know that God will work out his saving plans in a way that removes all boasting by men, but that God still cares for those who do not stand in the line of those chosen to bring those plans to pass.
Election in the Old Testament includes, and is indeed defined by, God’s special, covenant love for Israel. The prophets tell us that this included Israel being God’s witnesses to all the nations and a light to the Gentiles. What we will come to know about the purposes of that special, covenant love to Israel is that it is a portion of God’s universal love for all his human creatures expressed in Jesus and his death on the cross (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8). God’s love, although special towards Israel, is not limited to Israel. As God’s love was shown to Hagar and Ishmael, it will be shown to all nations and individuals. Election is not about the Calvinist mystery of why God chose to save one person over another. The only thing mysterious and inexplicable here is the love God has for Israel and those outside Israel, which includes all people.
We read the following conclusion in the TDNT.
“The one thing which remains vital in the Old Testament concept of election is the element of the mysterious and the inexplicable which Deuteronomy expresses in the words: “He has loved you.” The universal power of God was seen in this mystery. Experience of the absolute derived from it. “The nations shall walk in thy light” (Is. 60:3).[40]
The Lesson on Justice
The special place God afforded Abraham is seen once again in the lesson on divine justice in the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 18:16-33. This is truly an astonishing passage in which we witness the personal and mutual relationship of consideration and respect that exists between God and Abraham, God’s friend (2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8; James 2:23). It speaks of the immanence and condescension of God with man in both the reiteration of the Lord’s promised blessings to Abraham and God’s just judgment of sin.
Commentators stress the issue of hospitality here and compare the hospitality of Abraham with that of the men of Sodom. Allen P. Ross writes,
“The moral states of Abraham and Sodom may have been indicated by their different treatment of strangers. Abraham’s peaceful, quite visit contrasted greatly with Sodom’s outbursts of brutality and inhumanity (cf. chaps. 18-19)
But more likely Abraham’s visitors meant to convey intimate fellowship. To eat together was important for fellowship, peace offerings, and treaties. When the Lord was ready to specify their fulfillment of the covenantal promise, He came in person and ate in Abraham’s tent. Nothing could more significantly communicate their close relationship.”[41]
This intimate fellowship and close relationship with God mark that of God’s chosen or elect ones (cf. v. 19). Starting with Abraham, we will see that this comprises an element in “election” terminology throughout the Old Testament as God establishes a special relationship with Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants, the Israelites. Keep in mind that it is here, in the Old Testament, that we are setting the definitions and applications of these designations – “elect” or “chosen.” Old Testament commentator C.F. Keil writes,
“Shall I hide from Abraham what I propose to do? Abraham is destined to be a great nation and a blessing to all nations (12:2,3); for I have known, i.e., acknowledged him (chosen him in anticipative love, as in Amos 3:2; Hosea 13:4), that he may command his whole posterity to keep the way of Jehovah, to practise justice and righteousness, that all the promises may be fulfilled in them.” God then disclosed to Abraham what he was about to do to Sodom and Gomorrah…because Jehovah had chosen him to be the father of the people of God, in order that, by instructing his descendants in the fear of God, he might lead them in the paths of righteousness, so that they may become partakers of the promised salvation, and not be overtaken by judgment. The destruction of Sodom and the surrounding cities was to be a permanent memorial of the punitive righteousness of God, and to keep the fate of the ungodly constantly before the mind of Israel. To this end Jehovah explained to Abraham the cause of their destruction in the clearest manner possible, that he might be convinced of the justice of the divine government, but might learn that when the measure of iniquity was full, no intercession could avert the judgment, – a lesson and a warning to his descendants also.”[42]
We will have to see once we get into the New Testament whether the Calvinist radically departs from the Old Testament usage, context, and definition of “chosen,” that is, whether he assigns to the designation and concept a meaning that it was never intended to have nor could ever have (i.e., the doctrine of unconditional election). We will have to be careful to apply a proper hermeneutic, one that takes coherence and non-contradiction as indispensable, if we are to rightly interpret the relevant texts. What needs to be observed at this point is that to be “chosen” or “elect” means to be in intimate fellowship and close relationship with God to carry out God’s purposes. It is to be “known” and “acknowledged” by God to be blessed and to be a blessing. It is to be chosen for a certain role and task. Abraham was chosen “to be the father of the people of God, in order that, by instructing his descendants in the fear of God, he might lead them in the paths of righteousness, so that they may become partakers of the promised salvation, and not be overtaken by judgment.”
So, here again, we see that both this account and what it means to be “chosen” are not coherent with the theistic determinism of Calvinism. The iniquities of Sodom and Gomorrah were not predetermined and caused by God, but were their own sins. Only this understanding makes sense of God’s judgment, and that being righteous judgment. And with respect to Abraham being “chosen,” that was God’s doing, which brought God into a special relationship with Abraham and his descendants. God will be their God, and they will be his people (Ex. 6:7, 29:45; Lev. 26:12; Jer. 31:33, cf. Heb. 8:10; Rev. 21:3). To be chosen or elect is to be in a special relationship with God. That relationship allows the elect to partake of God’s salvation and avoid his judgment for sin.
This situation in chapter 18 was foreshadowed in Gen. 13:13 where we read, “Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord.” (ESV). Let’s first examine 18:20-21, which reads,
“Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is immense, and their sin is extremely serious. I will go down to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to me. If not, I will find out.” (CSB)
Given the doctrine of God’s omniscience, we must question how we might properly understand them. Do they require the category of anthropological metaphor to properly understand them? How is it that God needs to “go down” to “see” if “the cry” is justified or that he needs to “find out” if this is so? Does God need to “find out” about anything? Does God learn something from the investigation that he did not know before his inquiry?[43] These are interesting and meaningful questions that I believe point to the integral relationship, both in loving concern and necessary justice, that God has with people and his creation.
Nevertheless, Sailhamer helps us understand these verses as being fulfilled in the historical events of the text. He says that verses 20 and 21 are addressed to Abraham.
“The Lord’s words to Abraham were the answer to the question posed by the Lord in v. 17 (“Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?”). Thus in vv. 20-21, the Lord revealed to Abraham what he was about to do: he would go down to investigate the wickedness of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.”[44]
And that is what the Lord did in the three men that appeared to Abraham at the beginning of the chapter (vss. 1-2). Sailhamer writes,
“It should be noted that the narrative first states that the Lord (yhwh) said, “I will go down to see” (v. 21); then the narrative continues by stating that “the men…turned away and went towards Sodom.” Thus once again the Lord and the men are brought into close association so that the actions of the one are identified with the actions of the other. It is important to notice the inherent logic of the narrative at this point since this same logic follows the reader into the next chapter. If “the men”…are the emissaries of the Lord and represent his presence amid everyday affairs, then when they journey to Sodom and Gomorrah, as here, it can rightly be said that the Lord himself was visiting these citied, as in v. 21 (“I will go down and see”)…
Thus when the text says that “the men”…turned away and went toward Sodom” and that the Lord remained with Abraham, and then further that only “two messengers” (19:1) came to Sodom, it seems to follow that one of the men must have stayed behind with Abraham. Since we know that the Lord stayed behind, that the man must have been the Lord. Abraham was then visited by the preincarnate Christ who was accompanied by “two angels” (19:1).”
Although this interpretation has many features of the narrative in its favor, the primary difficulty with such an explanation is that it overlooks the fairly certain fact that although Lot failed to appreciate it, the author of the narrative sees the “two messengers” as representative of the presence of the Lord (e.g., “And Lot said to them, ‘No Lord,’” 19:18 [NIV mg.]), just as the three men in chapter 18. Thus the fact that the men in chapter 18 are referred to as “the Lord” does not mean that one of them is actually the Lord; rather it means that all three represent the Lord’s presence. If the two men in chapter 19 can be addressed as “the Lord” even though they merely represent the Lord, so also can the three men in chapter 18 (e.g., v.3).”[45]
The point is that the language in the text may not require a metaphorical reading with respect to the issues discussed above. Nevertheless, the Calvinist’s universal divine causal determinism is incoherent with this passage. Note what Fretheim says about God’s words of inquiry in verse 21.
“This inquiry is not rhetorical, so God’s words, “and if not, I will know [acknowledge, recognize]” (v. 21). This divine knowing for judicial purposes depends on the inquiry. God admits the possibility of an “if not.” For God to use “if” language means the future remains open (Exod 4:8-9; Jer 7:5; 22:4-5; Ezek 12:3). God holds out the prospect that the inquiry will issue in a verdict other than that preliminarily drawn. Abraham presumes the integrity of this consultation; what he has to say will be taken seriously (cf. Exod 32:9-14; Num 14:11-20).”[46]
So the possibility of an “if” and “if not” is real for God, which, as such, is instructive for Abraham. It teaches him the investigative aspect of doing justice. To ask the questions what is worthy of judgment and whether judgment is truly necessary and therefore just. Regarding our topical inquiry, we can surely conclude that Calvinism’s theistic determinism cannot preserve the integrity of God’s speech and the genuineness of the various personal and judicial dynamics in the account. The theistic determinism that has God as the cause of the perverted sins of Sodom and Gommorah, and then has him judging the people for the sin he predetermined and caused, make nonsense of the passage. It distracts us from letting the passage speak its own message so we might apply that message to analogous situations. Our traditional theological commitments should not be such that when all is said and done, they render the personal dynamics and the meaning of the actual words in the text null and void.
What follows deepens the lesson on divine justice. It teaches us that Abraham’s conception of justice (and ours also) is analogous to God’s justice. Abraham will haggle with God, and God will allow him to do so, showing us that Abraham’s sense of what is just is the same as God’s justice. This is clearly implied in Abraham’s question in verse 25.
“Won’t the Judge of the whole earth do what is just?” (18:25, CSB)
Clearly, the answer is “Yes,” but it can only be “Yes” on the basis that Abraham’s standard of what is just is the same as God’s standard of what is just. Indeed, this is so because we get our conception of what is just and unjust from God himself, because we are created in his image (Gen. 1:26-27).
This has a direct bearing upon the Calvinist doctrine of election. Calvinists claim that God’s unconditional election or choice to save one sinner and not another is just, and yet it is contrary to our understanding and sense of justice. Therefore, the Calvinist asserts it is a mystery or incomprehensible to us. They say that God has his own reasons, which are “taken from within himself” for choosing to save one sinner and not another, but nevertheless, he acts justly in doing so. But this, of course, is just an ad hoc assertion and no defense of their position. The Calvinist view of unconditional election still strikes us as unjust. According to our sense of justice, for God to choose or predetermine to save one sinner and not another sinner, both being in the same predicament that they cannot save themselves and who have nothing to do with their eternal destiny, is contrary to what we mean by justice. It is what we would call arbitrary “justice,” which is no justice at all. Either acting out of justice or mercy, equal offenders should be treated equally. No one is above the law or below it. But God arbitrarily chooses who should have eternal life and arbitrarily chooses who should be eternally condemned. And we cannot just say, as the Calvinist does, that “God’s ways are higher than our ways and that is why we don’t understand his decree of election, but someday we will” and leave it at that. No. According to this text, there is an analogous understanding between God’s justice and human justice. The reason is that we derive our sense and practice of justice from the character and nature of God as made in his image. There are no “reasons taken from within himself” that would place justice as we know it on its head. God’s nature, and therefore his justice, is consistent. It is not in conflict with what we know of justice. This is one of the principles exemplified in this text. Abraham’s pressing God on the matter and God’s willingness to provide answers indicate that the two work from the same concept of what is just. Justice is not arbitrary. Arbitrariness is the antithesis of justice. Yet Calvinists assert that their doctrine of unconditional election is just. But the Calvinist’s claim about the divine justice of unconditional election is not supported in this passage. In fact, it is refuted.
Now we see, in verses 22-33, Abraham, acting as a mediator on behalf of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, pressing the nature of God’s justice. It was God who initiated the discussion.
“Then the Lord said, “Should I hide what I am about to do from Abraham?” (18:17, CSB)
God decides to inform Abraham of what he is about to do as a teachable moment for Abraham. God allows Abraham to know him better and be instructed on the matter of divine justice. God does this because,
“Abraham is to become a great and powerful nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him so that he will command his children and his house after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just. This is how the Lord will fulfill to Abraham what he promised him.” (18:18-19, CSB)
It is important to note that here we have clear election language used for the first time. Abraham is “chosen” by God. As God’s “chosen” one (lit. “known”), Abraham is to pass on to his posterity “the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just.” Abraham needs to know that the God he trusts is just. God will affirm this because Abraham must be a man who does what is right and just. Fretheim writes the following about Abraham’s election.
“Abraham should not be kept in the dark regarding what God is “about to do,” for God has chosen him ([yada, “known”]; cf. Amos 3:2) and made promises to him. God does not intend human ignorance of God’s work (cf. Amos 3:7). Even more, God consults with Abraham because he and his descendants are chosen to a role among the “nations” (“families” in 12:3; cf. 22:18; 26:4). Abraham responds by interceding on behalf of the righteous, none of whom would be among the chosen, not even Lot (as in 20:17).”[47]
Note that this “chosen” status of Abraham is not related to his personal salvation. That ‘salvation,’ if we can even call it that at this point in time, occurred in 15:6 on the basis that “he believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” Abraham’s election does not refer to his eternal destiny; it refers to God’s activity in bringing Abraham into a close relationship with himself for the purpose of having him play a key role in the unfolding of salvation history. Being “chosen” or “elect” describes God’s relationship with a person or persons, and in this case, a relationship that makes Abraham the father of many nations and in whom “all the families of the earth will be blessed.” (12;3, ESV) God works through people who respond in faith to him. Indeed, it is Abraham’s descendants (i.e., the nation of Israel) who will also be considered “elect” or “chosen” as “children of Abraham.” But this status of their special relationship with God does not translate into or guarantee their eternal salvation. It has no bearing upon the issue of salvation. It does refer to their special role in salvation history but not to achieving righteousness by virtue of being an Israelite, that is, a Jew (cf. Rom. 9:1-8; 10:1-4; 11:28).
Since God will fulfill what he has promised to Abraham, and he is to instruct his descendants to “keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just” (v. 19, CSB), God is going to allow Abraham to question him on the matter of justice. Abraham needs to know if his God is truly just. Therefore, Abraham asks God some probing questions.
“Abraham stepped forward and said, “Will you really sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away instead of sparing the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people who are in it? You could not possibly do such a thing: to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. You could not possibly do that! Won’t the Judge of the whole earth do what is just?” (18:23-25, CSB)
C. F. Keil writes that Abraham “described the slaying of the righteous with the wicked as irreconcilable with the justice of God.”[48] Keil also writes,
“…he [Abraham] now thought himself called upon to act as mediator, and to appeal from Jehovah’s judicial wrath to Jehovah’s covenant grace (Kurtz)…on the principle that the Judge of all the earth could not possibly destroy the righteous with the wicked, he founded his entreaty that God would forgive the city if there were but fifty righteous in it, or even if there were only ten. He was led to intercede in this way… by the love which springs from the consciousness that one’s own preservation and rescue are due to compassionate grace alone; love, too, which cannot conceive of the guilt of others as too great for salvation to be possible. This sympathetic love, springing from the faith which was counted for righteousness, impelled him to the intercession… he made bold to appeal still further, and even as low as ten righteous, to pray that for their sake he would spare the city.”[49]
Keil continues and quotes F. Delitzsch, who makes this observation about Abraham’s faith and how God allows such persistence due to the character of God and his relationship with mankind.
“This seemingly commercial kind of entreaty is,” as Delitzsch observes, “the essence of true prayer. It is that holy [persistence], of which our Lord speaks in Luke 11:18, the shamelessness of faith, which bridges over the infinite distance of the creature from the Creator, appeals with importunity to the heart of God, and ceases not till its point is gained. This would indeed be neither permissible nor possible, had not God, by virtue of the mysterious interlacing of necessity and freedom in his nature and operations, granted a power to the prayer of faith, to which he consents to yield; had he not, by virtue of his absoluteness, which is anything but blind necessity, placed himself in such a relation to men, that he not merely works upon them by means of his grace, but allows them to work upon him by means of their faith; had he not interwoven the life of the free creature into His own absolute life, and accorded to a created personality without the right to assert itself in faith, in distinction from his own.”[50]
Note Delitzsch’s references to both necessity and freedom that disallow “blind necessity” (i.e., Calvinist determinism). Also, God has granted “a power to the prayer of faith, to which he consents to yield,” and this, because God “placed himself in such a relation to men, that he not merely works upon them by means of his grace, but it allows them to work upon him by means of their faith.” In contrast to Calvinism, this “power of the prayer of faith” exhibited by Abraham would not be possible unless God had created us as free creatures who, in some substantive measure, reflect his own freedom. It would not be possible unless God allowed us to relate to him person-to-person and participate with him in his plans for the world. As Delitzsch put it, unless God had “interwoven the life of the free creature into his own absolute life.” It would not have been possible “to a created personality without the right to assert itself in faith, in distinction from his [God’s] own.” In other words, against Calvinism, the passage affirms substantial libertarian freedom. And alas, God’s judgment is just. C. F. Keil writes,
“The judgment which fell upon the wicked cities immediately afterwards, proves that there were not ten ‘righteous persons‘ in Sodom; by which we understand, not merely ten sinless or holy men, but ten who through the fear of God and conscientiousness had kept themselves free from the prevailing sin and iniquity in these cities.”[51]
Regarding God’s words in verse 19 about Abraham, “that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice…” Fretheim observes that,
“The author deems the transmission of the faith to subsequent generations an appropriate topic in view of the imminent birth of Isaac. This brings Israel’s life into view and its practice of “justice and righteousness” and the implications thereof (including judgment). Hence, the question of Sodom’s fate could become the fate of Israel (Isa 1:10; Jer 23:14; Ezek 16:49) or any people. …God’s people are to walk in all God’s ways (v. 19; cf. Deut 8:6; 10:12; Jer 5:4-5) and so they should know what justice means for God.”[52]
Genesis Chapter 22 – Abraham’s Test
Recall in Chapter 12 that the Lord said to Abraham, “Go from your land, your relatives, and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.” (Gen. 12:1, CSB) We read of Abraham’s obedience in verse 4, “So Abram went, as the Lord had told him…” True faith is always accompanied by obedience. That is what we see in this chapter.
Abraham’s obedience is an indication of his faith and “conversion” from the worship of the gods of Ur to the worship of “the Lord.” Sailhamer sees Abraham’s call as “God’s gift of salvation…”[53] In Chapter 15, God reiterates his promise of offspring to Abraham, and in verse 6 we read that “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” It was Abraham’s response of faith that pleased God, and as a result God reckoned this faith to Abraham as righteousness (15:6). Abraham exhibited faith in God (cf. Heb. 11:6a; 8-12). And it was Abraham’s own faith. God was in a personal, dynamic relationship with Abraham. It was not a static, causal, deterministic relationship. The very fact that we are told this is a test indicates that God cannot be seen here as the deterministic cause of Abraham’s faith, let alone the deterministic cause of “whatsoever comes to pass.” Again, Calvinism renders this account as nonsense.
Now would Abraham’s faith stand the ultimate test? The test would cut to the heart of all that went before as to God’s promise and its fulfillment, that is, the miraculous birth of an heir, Abraham’s only son, Isaac (cf. Heb. 11:17-19). The first thing we read is,
“Some time later, God tested Abraham…” (Gen. 22:1, NIV)
Sailhamer makes this important observation.
“The first verse of this narrative provides a necessary preliminary understanding of the events of the chapter. Without it God’s request that Abraham offer up Issac as a “burnt offering” would be inexplicable. By stating clearly at the start that “God tested Abraham” (v.1), the writer quickly allays any doubt about God’s real purpose. There is, then, no thought of an actual sacrifice of Isaac in the narrative, though in the mind of Abraham within the narrative that, of course, was the only thought that was entertained.”[54]
The account continues.
“He [God] said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” (22:2, NIV)
The personal and spiritual struggle Abraham experienced from this command of God can hardly be overestimated. Abraham must have been thinking, “How is it that God would want, at my hand, to take the life of the son of promise that he himself gave to me? This does not make sense! Yet it is he who gave him to me, so it is he who can take him away. But this does not accord with the promise of a multitude of offspring and nations that would come through Isaac! But God has been faithful, therefore I will trust him in this.” The details of the passage heighten the struggle. The commentaries outline these details. The account is truly emotionally moving. But for our purposes, we want to focus on Abraham’s obedience as linked with his faith. He dealt with the command by obeying God, which indicated his trust in God. In the most tender and moving parts of the account, this faith is expressed. The text reads,
“Then Isaac spoke to his father Abraham and said, “My father.”
And he replied, “Here I am, my son.”
Isaac said, “The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”
Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” Then the two of them walked on together.” (vv. 7-8, CSB)
Abraham binds Isaac and places him on the altar. And he reached out for the knife to slay his son.
“But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”
He replied, “Here I am.”
Then he said, “Do not lay a hand on the boy or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your only son from me.” (vv. 11-12, CSB)
Abraham passed the test; he believed what he told Isaac, that “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” (v. 8) A ram was provided by God for the sacrifice. The angel of the Lord, who is the Lord himself (as in chp. 18), wanted to know if Abraham feared God. That is what the text says. “For now I know…” The way God was to find this out was only if Abraham was willing to obey and fear God, and give Isaac back to God as a sacrifice. This is affirmed again in 22:15-18.
“Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, “By myself I have sworn,” this is the Lord’s declaration: “Because you have done this thing and have not withheld your only son, I will indeed bless you and make your offspring as numerous as the stars of the sky and the sand on the seashore. Your offspring will possess the city gates of their enemies. And all the nations of the earth will be blessed by your offspring because you have obeyed my command.” (Gen. 22:15-19, CSB)
Note that “the thing” Abraham had done was to not withhold his only son (cf. Rom. 8:32). He obeyed God’s command to present him as a sacrifice to God. As a result, God swears by himself (cf. Heb. 6:13-20) to bless Abraham, give him a multitude of offspring, that they would defeat their enemies, and that all the nations of the earth will be blessed by that offspring. In addition, we can cite Gen. 22:5 where the obedience of Abraham is the reason the promises pass from Abraham to Isaac. About Isaac, the text reads, “And in your offspring all the nations of the world shall be blessed, because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (ESV) It is important to reiterate and stress a point that Fretheim makes in this regard. He writes,
“The initial “because” has been used before in 22:18 (cf. Deut 7:12, 8:20), though there associated only with obeying the “voice” of God. Westermann states that Abraham is “the exemplar of obedience to the law in return for which God bestowed the promises on him.” Similarly, Coats states that obedience “offers the basis for the promise.”[55] This should be stated differently. God gave the promise to Abraham independent of his obedience (12:1-3). Similarly, God repeats the promise twice to Isaac because of the obedience of Abraham (vv. 5. 24). Isaac’s obedience does not enable him to be the recipient of the promise. God announces the promise to him because of someone else’s faithfulness. The community of faith throughout the centuries has also received the promise because of someone’s faithfulness.
The issue involves the transmission of the promise to the next generation. Genes, independent of the faithfulness of the one to whom the promise has been given, do not transmit the promise…”[56]
We have seen how Calvinists insist that every action of every person is predetermined and therefore caused by God (See my “Chapter 3 – The Calvinist Theological and Soteriological Doctrines”). Therefore, we need to see that although God initiates the promise to Abraham before Abraham’s obedience, it is Abraham’s obedience that is recognized by God, and it is this obedience that allows the promise to proceed into the next generations (i.e., to Isaac, then to Jacob, etc.). This confirms that faith is not somehow predetermined as part of an unconditional election and therefore was divinely bestowed on Abraham, that is, that Abraham’s faith was God-given. Indeed, the opposite is the case. The faith exhibited by Abraham is Abraham’s faith. The fact that this was a test of faith makes it so. Abraham’s test would amount to nonsense if this were not the case. That means that the Calvinist view is nonsense. We saw this personal faith affirmed in the pronouncement in 15:6, “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” (CSB). Indeed, Old Testament scholar Terence E. Fretheim comments that,
“God and the reader know this is a test; Abraham does not. God intends not to kill Isaac but to test Abraham’s faithfulness, which is essential if God is to move into the future with him. In responding, Abraham no doubt observes (as do all commentators) the apparent contradictory character of the command: God, having fulfilled the promise of a son, asks Abraham to sacrifice that son and the future that goes with him. The fact that Abraham obeys shows that he trusts God will find a way into the future. God had found a way to fulfill the promise of a son when nothing seemed possible (see 18:14); given that experience, Abraham trusts that this comparably impossible situation will not be beyond God’s ability. Abraham trusts that God’s promise and command are not finally contradictory; whatever conflict there may be, it is up to God to resolve it.
If Abraham had known in advance that it was a test, it would have been no real test…God can test by discerning the human response to a command: Is Abraham’s loyalty undivided? God initiates the test to gain certainty.”[57]
Fretheim also writes,
“God needs to know about Abraham’s faith…God tests precisely the nature of Abraham’s response as unhesitating trust in the deity. As God puts it (v. 12), it involves Abraham’s fear of God, a faithfulness that accords with God’s purposes and works itself out in daily life as truth and justice (see 20:11). Abraham obeys because he trusts God; trust out of which obedience flows remains basic. Disobedience would reveal a lack of trust. At least by v. 8 Abraham’s obedience is informed and undergirded by a trust that God will find a way through this dark moment.”[58]
This account is important because it informs us of the nature of faith and what part faith will play in salvation as God’s plan of redemption is progressively revealed. Once Christ appears and his work is done, the apostle Paul will bring together the relationship of faith to salvation (see my “Chapter 15 – The Nature of Faith in Scripture”). How will he do it? On what basis? In Romans 4, Paul will use this very example of Abraham’s faith to explain that faith is never something caused by God in certain individuals as if they were divinely chosen to salvation before the world was made. Rather, faith is a genuine human response to God that comes from the person themselves. Paul will also explain in Romans 9-11 the problem of Israel’s unbelieving reaction to Jesus, given that Israel is God’s elect or chosen people. How can that be, and what will Israel’s future be like given their rejection of Jesus? So, to properly interpret Paul in Romans 9-11 and elsewhere with respect to the meaning of election, the contexts of progressive revelation and the history of God’s electing or selecting acts in the Old Testament are very important. Here we see that God has chosen Abram by his initial, gracious call in Gen. 12. We saw then, and we see now, that Abram’s faith is a free response to God made evident by his obedience to God’s commands. Faith in God is present from the start, even amidst God’s electing or selecting activity by which he accomplishes his purposes. We could talk about the faith of Abel and Noah (cf. Heb. 11), but the electing nature of God’s activity begins with the call of Abraham. Here is the beginning, not only of our understanding of faith, which has continuity with the New Testament examples and teaching about faith (John’s gospel; Rom. 1:16-17, 3:23-30, chs. 4 and 5; Gal. 3, et al.), but faith’s relationship to the divine instances of election and the way the term will be applied in the New Testament. Now, even though God chose or selected Abraham, his faith still needed to be tested. That means his faith was his own. God’s test of Abraham’s obedience implies the possibility of disobedience. Such a possibility or undetermined event entails human libertarian freedom, which means that Abraham’s decisions and actions are genuinely his own decisions and actions. His obedience to God’s commands revealed that he fears God (22:12), which entails trust or faith.
Therefore, this account makes no sense given a Calvinist understanding of the ‘sovereignty’ of God as theistic determinism, which includes a divine bestowal of faith upon certain individuals. Faith is not something God gives to those persons he has elected for salvation. Faith is a characteristic of a person’s response to God, who is active in human affairs. The faith is genuinely theirs, and as such, God can test and develop it. Therefore, faith in God can be exercised and strengthened, or people can reject God and, by their continuous unbelief, forfeit the salvation Jesus has accomplished for them. That is why Abraham’s example is so integral to the gospel message that we read about in Rom. 4, for instance. (See also John’s gospel on faith and Abraham, especially 8:31-59. For the connection of faith and works, see James 2:14-26. And for faith, obedience, and “the promise,” see the book of Hebrews, especially chapter 11.)
But now, if the account itself will not allow for the Calvinist interpretation of divine determinism, and if this test is real for Abraham, that is, his response is free and not divinely determined and could have been different, that is, it could have either been the obedience of faith or the disobedience of unbelief, what then does this test imply regarding God’s knowledge of how Abraham would respond? This is a legitimate and pertinent question that arises from the text itself concerning God’s omniscience or foreknowledge. In verse 12, we read that “the angel of the Lord” [Jehovah himself] is speaking and says, “for now I know that you fear God…” Here is the complete verse.
“He [the angel of the Lord] said, “Do not lay a hand on the boy or do anything to him for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” (ESV)
Did God not already know the degree of Abraham’s faith and that he would respond obediently? Did God not know that Abraham feared God? If he did, that is, if God knows all things and therefore knew that Abraham’s faith would not fail, then why the test, and what is the meaning of verse 12? That verse indicates that the test is about God wanting to know whether Abraham fears God.
A typical understanding of the test is that it proved and strengthened Abraham’s faith and also established Isaac’s faith for his future role in God’s promises. Yet Abraham had already exhibited his confident faith when, in verse 8, he tells Isaac that God will provide the lamb. As Sailhamer states, these words are to be read “as a confident expression of his trust in God.”[59] C. F. Keil writes that this test was “a proof and attestation of his [Abraham’s] faith.” God never intended that Isaac be sacrificed, but only desired Abraham’s
“…complete surrender, and a willingness to offer him up to God even by death. Nevertheless, the divine command was given in such a form, that Abraham could not understand it in any other way than as requiring an outward burnt offering, because there was no other way in which Abraham could accomplish the complete surrender of Isaac, than by an actual preparation for really offering the desired sacrifice. This constituted the trial…”[60]
The account also affirms God’s faithfulness to Abraham by providing the ram for a sacrifice. But whatever the purpose of the test, we still must deal with verse 12. Many commentators just give it a cursory treatment. Others attempt an explanation. Old Testament scholar Gordon J. Wenham writes, “…the mention of God knowing is used more in the sense of confirming his knowledge.”[61] But why would an omniscient God need confirmation of what he knows? Since the verse itself implies that God needed to know and God came to know that Abraham feared God (“now I know that…”), it is legitimate to ask how this verse is to be understood given God’s omniscience. Although this was certainly a test of Abraham’s obedience, why the divine comment “…now I know…?”
Now, Fretheim makes some further observations which challenge the standard understandings of this test and the interpretation of verse 12. And even though Fretheim’s interpretation may strike us as controversial, it seems to me worthy of consideration given the precise words in the text and the nature of Abraham’s calling and personal relationship with God. Fretheim writes,
“God can test by discerning the human response to a command: Is Abraham’s loyalty divided? God initiates the test to gain certainty.
…Brueggemann notes correctly that this test is not a game with God; God genuinely does not know…. The flow of the narrative accomplishes something in the awareness of God. He did not know. Now he knows.”[62] The test is as real for God as it is for Abraham.
The test is not designed to teach Abraham something – that he is too attached to Isaac, or that Isaac is “pure gift,” or that he must learn to cling to God rather than to the content of the promise. Experience always teaches, of course, and Abraham certainly learns. But nowhere does the text say that he now trusts more in God or has learned a lesson of some sort. Rather, the text confirms a fact: Abraham trusts deeply that God has his best interests at heart so that he will follow where God’s command leads (a point repeated in vv. 12 and 16). The only one said to learn anything from the test is God: “Now I know (v. 12; on the angel, see commentary on 16:7). God does not teach; rather, God learns. For the sake of the future, God needs to know about Abraham’s trust.
While God knew what was likely to happen, God does not have absolute certainty as to how Abraham would respond. God has in view the larger divine purpose, not just divine curiosity or internal divine need. The story addresses a future that encompasses all the families of the earth: Is Abraham the faithful one who can carry that purpose along? Or does God need to take some other course of action, perhaps even look for another?
Is the promise of God thereby made conditional? In some sense, yes (see vv. 16-18). Fidelity was not optional. God could not have used a disloyal Abraham for the purposes God intends.”[63]
Now, such matters must be faced, for they are questions and issues that the text itself, as the Word of God, raises (and yet cf. 15:8, 13-16). They also seem to have relevance to our topic of election, defined as a universal divine causal determinism. Does Scripture give us warrant to think that such determinism is the full and final explanation of “whatsoever comes to pass?” What are the implications or logical entailments of a test (“God tested Abraham”), and the words, “for now I know that you fear God,” for God’s knowledge or foreknowledge as understood in this context of God’s relationship with Abraham? Fretheim explains,
“Although God does not intend that Isaac be killed, the test places God’s own promise at risk, at least in the form of the person of Isaac. The command has the potential of taking back what God has taken so many pains to put in place.
This story presents a test not only of Abraham’s faith in God, but of God’s faith in Abraham as well, in the sense that Abraham’s response will affect the moves God makes next. God places the shape of God’s own future in Abraham’s hands…As E. Roop puts it, “God took the risk that Abraham would respond. Abraham took the risk that God would provide.”[64]…One cannot project what God would have done had Abraham failed, or if Abraham had actually killed Isaac, but God would have had to find another way into the future, perhaps another way with Abraham.”[65]
But I digress. I leave that interesting matter with you to think through. Regarding what we are learning about “election” or God selecting Abraham, whatever our answer is to verse 12, we cannot conclude that this election by God of Abraham for a particular role equates to his election according to the Calvinist’s definition of being foreordained or predestined to eternal life (i.e., salvation). Abraham and others in the Old Testament can only be saved through the work of Christ that is yet to come, but that saving work is reckoned to them by God because of their faith in him. So, the work of salvation that only God in Christ could do, which is his act of grace that applies to every person (i.e., “For you are saved by grace…” Eph. 2:8), is appropriated by the individual sinner to themselves by the God ordained means of faith (i.e., ”For you are saved by grace through faith…” Eph. 2:8, CSB and again Gen. 15:6) Neither can we conclude that Abraham’s offspring, which will be “as numerous as the stars of the sky and the sand on the seashore,” receive salvation by virtue of their being Abraham’s offspring which is also what Calvinists teach is the case for the children of “elect” parents.
The point is that what is obviously crucial in these Genesis accounts is the response of faith. It was necessary for Abraham, and as we will see, it is necessary for those people God creates (i.e., the nation of Israel) and to whom he reveals himself and calls to enter into his plans and purposes. And as far as salvation will extend to the Gentiles, the way of salvation remains the same for all. It is salvation by faith. Abraham was learning that he could have absolute confidence in God. That God is faithful. We read, “And Abraham named that place The Lord Will Provide, so today it is said, “It will be provided on the Lord’s mountain.” (22:14, CSB). This is a major emphasis in the account (Heb. 11:17-19). We too ought to believe in God’s provision for our salvation (Jn. 1:29).
In chapter 23, Sarah dies at the age of 127. This chapter also records how the promise of possessing “the land” began. The promises of God were being fulfilled. But following our purpose of trying to get a biblical understanding of the doctrine of election, we turn now to chapter 24.
Genesis Chapter 24 – A Wife for Isaac: The Electing Providence of God Continues
In chapter 24, we read about how a bride was found for Isaac. This is a very detailed account, the specificity of which indicates the importance of the events, for this is the next step in God’s fulfillment of his promises to Abraham, the next step in his plan of salvation history, and stresses the point that it is God who is providentially at work “behind the scenes.”
Abraham, and now Isaac, having been through the test of faith, did not forget the covenant and the promises God made. These were of primary importance to the life and future of these two men. The events of chapter 22 also fostered Isaac’s trust in God. He, too, believed in God’s promises. And one of those promises made to his father was that “your offspring will be traced through Isaac” (21:12, CSB). Isaac was the child of the divine promise, which, as God reiterated several times, included many offspring (12:2; 13:15-16; 15:4-6, 13, 18). As such, he needed a wife. But who was this to be? Abraham charged his servant with a solemn oath to find a woman according to certain commands or criteria that Abraham laid out.
The first was that the servant was not to take a wife from the daughters of the Canaanites. Canaan was cursed by Noah and by prophecy, rendered a servant to Noah’s son Shem, who was the ancestor of Abraham (Gen. 9:18-10:29; 11:10-26).
The second command was to go to Abraham’s former country and relatives to find the woman. This would have been in Ur of the Chaldeans (i.e., present-day southern Iraq).
The third command was that if the woman was not willing to come back with the servant to “this land” (24:5), then he was not to bring Isaac back to “the country you [Abraham] came from (v. 5, NIV).
The point of this long account is to show that Abraham wants to be sure that he stays true to what the Lord has revealed to him. Isaac must stay in the Promised Land. He must fill that land with his descendants. The account shows how the promises to Abraham are being fulfilled under the Lord’s direction. The Lord was honoring his promises to his man of faith.
To understand biblical election, we must reiterate how the Lord led the servant through these events. Indeed, Abraham told him that the Lord will send “his angel” before the servant (v. 7). Now, through a “test” (this time of God?), the servant addresses his prayer to God with this designation, “O Lord, God of my master Abraham” (v. 12). He prays that God would order the circumstances in such a way “so I [the servant] will know you have shown kindness to my master.” He then stipulates that the woman who gives the servant a drink but also says “and I will water your camels” (v. 14) would be “the one whom you have appointed for your servant Isaac.” (The NIV has “chosen”). Rebekah runs to draw water for all his camels (vss. 18-20). The servant has his answer. The Lord miraculously answers as requested and leads the servant right to Abraham’s brother’s granddaughter, Rebekah. And again, the servant’s success is understood by him as showing “kindness to my master Abraham” (vss. 12, 14, 26, 48). The account stresses the Lord’s special relationship with Abraham and the fulfillment of the divine promises to him and the “test” indicated to the servant “the one my Lord has chosen for my master’s son” (v. 44, NIV).
Now, even given the fact of God’s specific leading of the servant to the woman God chose for Isaac, an interesting element of the account is its nondeterministic, contingent, or open elements. We see this when Abraham, who even affirmed that the Lord’s angel would go before the servant, entertains the possibility that the woman may not be willing to come back with the servant. In that case, the servant would then be released from his oath (v. 8). We also see this in verse 21 that, “Without saying a word, the man watched her closely to learn whether or not the Lord had made his journey successful.” (v. 21, NIV) Was it a possibility in the mind of the servant that God might not have prospered his journey? And we read in verse 49, “Now, if you are going to show kindness and faithfulness to my master, tell me; if not, tell me, and I will go elsewhere.” (CSB) The NIV reads “…if not, tell me, so I may know which way to turn.” Also, it was a possibility that her family would not let her go. Indeed, Rebekah’s mother and brother, after wanting Rebekah to remain for at least ten more days with them (v.55), at the objection of the servant, resolve the matter by letting Rebekah make the decision. They say, “Let’s call the girl and ask her opinion. They called Rebekah and said to her, “Will you go with this man?” She replied, “I will go.” (v. 57-58, ESV)
The point is that even in an account in which God directs the circumstances for the continuance of his promises to Abraham, and even if God himself predetermined Rebekah for Isaac, not only can we not conclude that this entails universal divine causal determinism, but we find that things could have gone differently (as in the test in chap. 22?). And yet, the promises, a servant’s prayer, and Rebekah’s decision were fulfilled and answered in circumstances that involved contingencies and free choices. This is to show us, first and foremost, that God has his hand upon those he has chosen and to whom he has made covenant promises and who also have responded to him in faith. It is to show that those who believe and trust in God are led by God into his will and eventually fulfill the unique but different purposes that he has for their lives.
Moreover, it must be stressed that we are reading about God’s work in salvation history. That is, God’s special activity in history to bring about salvation in Jesus Christ. This biblical historical concern cannot be extrapolated to conclude that every minute detail of world history, down to the personal lives of all of us, is caused by God to occur according to his predetermined plan. The biblical history of Israel is not primarily concerned with all the other people and nations existing at that time except as God brings them into his saving purposes, and as we know, intends to bless them according to the promises made to Abraham (Gen 12:1-3). These other people and nations are not chosen by God to be his people. These other people and nations do not play a direct role in bringing about the Savior of the world, but he will be the Savior of the world. They go about their daily lives apart from God’s special revelation in history to his chosen ones, thus far, Abraham and Issac. It does not follow that God loves other people less, or that God loves Abraham and Isaac more than all the other people and nations in the world (cf. Jn. 3:16). Indeed, again, what God is doing through Abraham and Isaac is to bring a blessing to these other nations and peoples (12:3). Their election is to be in the service of God’s plan of salvation.
So, I think we must say that to this point, the text has not led us to think election is unconditional and refers to anyone’s eternal destiny. So far, this Calvinist doctrine has not been supported by the biblical account. Rather, what we have seen is that God chose or elected a certain man that God would bless – Abraham – and that through that man “all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (12:2-3, ESV) Even as Abraham fled to Egypt to avoid a famine and lied to Pharaoh about Sarai, God still protects Abraham, although Pharaoh acts more ethically than Abraham in that circumstance (Gen. 12:10-20). We see God making a covenant between Himself and Abraham. This is made emphatic in chapter 17. Indeed, here God designates it as an “everlasting covenant” (17:7) which includes Isaac (17:19, 21), but not Ishmael, who nevertheless receives a blessing (17:20). We also have a detailed account of how Isaac, who at forty years old (Gen. 25:20), by the providential guidance of God, obtained a wife from within the family line, even though the text indicates the non-deterministic elements of alternative possibilities, contingencies, and an ‘open’ situation. In chapter 18, when God is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, we see how established and intimate the relationship is between God and Abraham, a relationship that God initiated. This was expressed in God’s reflection on inviting Abraham into deliberation on what God was about to do.
God, having chosen Abraham, established a special relationship with him. From this, we can conclude that God chooses certain individuals with whom he establishes a personal relationship for the very purpose of extending his blessing to “all the nations of the earth.” To these chosen people, he reveals himself, and to some degree, he also reveals his plans and purposes for the whole world. Abraham had dealings with the only true God, and that God had dealings with Abraham. Promises and covenants were made (chaps. 15 and 17). In this sense, Abraham has been chosen by God (18:19). So, we can confidently say that a doctrine of election involves, at least, the divine choosing of individuals to fulfill certain roles in God’s salvific plans and purposes. We have not seen that being “chosen” equates to or includes the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” to salvation.
We can also confidently say that even though God knows the future, such knowledge does not eliminate the free will of the people involved. The fact that God knows what will occur does not cause it to occur. God’s foreknowledge is not causal. People are making free will decisions, which God knows about. God’s foreknowledge tracks with people’s decisions. Whatever choices they make, God foreknows. If they make a different decision, God foreknows that. This is the nature of the biblical history we have been surveying. Abraham and Isaac are making their own decisions, freely, and God comes to them in genuine, personal ways to interact with them, to be involved with them, bringing them into what he is doing in history. They are involved with God, who, given his omniscience, along with his love, wisdom, judgment, and power, will surely make his planned salvation come to pass. This is the privilege of the response of faith. Faith allows us to participate in God’s work in the world. Unbelief prevents us from experiencing God’s work in the world (Matt. 13:58; Heb. 3:12, 19).
Hence, although we learn much about trust in God, the efficacy of prayer, and God’s providential care from these accounts, we do have a responsibility to view them first and foremost within the context of salvation history. What is happening to Abraham and Isaac is not because they are inherently special people, but because God came personally to Abraham to reveal himself to him, and because Abraham responded in faith, God continued his promise to make him a blessing for the whole world.
Genesis Chapter 25 – Abraham’s Death and The Birth of Esau and Jacob
Abraham was 175 when he died. He had Ishmael by his concubine Hagar, and Isaac by his wife Sarah. Interestingly, Ishmael had twelve sons according to the blessing God spoke to Hagar (16:10) and Abraham (17:20). After Sarah died, Abraham took another wife – Keturah – who gave him seven children. But in Gen. 25, although Abraham gave “gifts” to the “sons of his concubines” (v. 6, ESV), we are clearly told, “Abraham gave all he had to Isaac” (v. 5, ESV). As we have seen, Isaac married Rebekah. She who has two sons – Esau and Jacob. To their birth we now turn.
The text indicates that Rebekah was barren (v. 21). This circumstance is reminiscent of Abraham’s situation with Sarah. Like Abraham, Isaac’s situation will also require faith and God’s intervention. C. F. Keil writes about the barrenness of Rebekah.
“The seed of the promise was to be prayed for from the Lord, that it might not be regarded merely as a fruit of nature, but be received and recognised as a gift of grace. At the same time, Isaac was to be exercised in the patience of faith in the promise of God.”[66]
So, Isaac prays, and God answers. God performs a miracle. Rebekah conceives. As promised, we see the continuation of God’s relationship with the first of Abraham’s descendants. Here, grace and faith go together in a way reminiscent of Abraham’s situation, although he first took matters into his own hands with Hagar. Sailhamer writes,
“The concentration on the barrenness of both Sarah and Rebekah, as well as Rachel (29:31) and Leah (29:35), enables the writer to reiterate the point that the promised blessing through the chosen seed of Abraham is not to be accomplished merely by human effort. The fulfillment of the promise is only possible at each crucial juncture because of a specific act of God.”[67]
Now, regarding Esau and Jacob, the text says, “The children struggled together within her,” and Rebekah wanted to know why this was happening (v. 22, ESV). So, she “went to inquire of the Lord.” (v. 22, ESV) “And the Lord said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.” (v. 23, ESV)
Now, the firstborn “came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau” (v. 25, ESV). Esau may mean “hairy,” and Edom (v. 30) means “red.” His brother came out “with his hand holding Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob” (v. 26, ESV). Jacob means “he grasps the heel,” which is a Hebrew idiom for “he deceives.” Esau became “a skillful hunter, a man of the field” (v. 27), while Jacob “was a quiet man, dwelling in tents” (v. 27, ESV).
Regarding the situation in Rebekah’s womb, Terrence Fretheim writes,
“Rebekah’s prayer soon follows Isaac’s prayer. God responds differently to the two prayers, however. In the first, God enables conception; hence, one might speak of an “answer.” The second involves a more complicated issue…
God responds directly (an inner voice?) to her with an oracle. The oracle responds to an already existing situation; it does not start from “scratch.” God explains to her the reason for the painful pregnancy (twins) and interprets this as a sign of the future relationship between them and their descendants (v. 23), the struggle itself does not result from divine action…God is not described as an agent in these developments, which underscores the importance of human activity.”[68]
The prophetic word from the Lord about these two sons, their names, and their character dispositions would all contribute to the special events of their adult lives and their role in salvation history. These events also contribute to our study of the meaning of election in Scripture. Indeed, Paul uses this specific historical account in Romans 9, which involves the concept and definition of election, a text we will examine in detail later. Suffice it to say here that a crucial element in the prophetic word is that “the older will serve the younger.” That is, God’s promises would come through the younger brother Jacob, not the elder brother Esau, as was expected according to traditional cultural conventions of the day. Sailhamer states,
“Another important motif is present in this account: “the older will serve the younger” (v.23). As far back as Chapter 4, the narrative has portrayed God choosing and approving the younger and weaker through whom he would accomplish his purpose and bring about blessing. The offering of Cain, the older brother, was rejected, whereas the offering of the younger brother, Abel, was accepted. The line of Seth, the still younger brother, was the chosen line (4:26-5:8); Isaac was chosen over the older brother Ishmael (17:18-19); Rachel was chosen over her older sister Leah (29:18); Joseph, the younger brother, was chosen over all the rest (37:3); and Judah was chosen over the older brothers (49:8). The intention behind each of these “reversals” was the recurring theme of God’s sovereign plan of grace. The blessing was not a natural right, as a right of the firstborn son would be. Rather, God’s blessing is extended to those who have no other claim to it. They all received what they did not deserve (cf. Mal 1:1-5; Rom 9:1-13).”[69]
Allen P. Ross writes,
“Indeed, the Israelites (Jacob’s descendants) and the Edomites (Esau’s descendants) fought continuously. God’s election of Jacob the younger over Esau the older was against the natural order.”[70]
Note that from this electing sovereign grace operative within the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the fact that it was not a natural right but undeserved, it does not follow that God has chosen only certain people for eternal salvation. What it does show us is the way God was bringing about salvation. The way one becomes saved would be according to God’s own design, in Christ, through faith. It would be according to the promise, which means established in Jesus. And that way of salvation would not be bound by cultural conventions and human expectations. What God is doing to bless all the families of the earth, he does according to his own salvific will, plans, and purposes. That is what it means for God to be sovereign. God has appeared and is running ‘the show.’ What we are witnessing is God coming into history in a decisive, personal, and revelatory way. The covenant promises made to Abraham and Isaac are not based on their natural rights or subject to their human desires and demands. This point will become pertinent when Israel, as a fully established nation with a long history as the elect people of God, rejects their Messiah. At that time, Paul will have to explain to his fellow Jews and the Gentiles in his epistle to the Romans what God is doing and has a right to do, with the Jews, and to advance his work of salvation to the Gentiles. But at this very early stage, God’s revelation of himself to Abraham was undeserved by Abraham. It was an act of God’s grace to him. The only thing God acknowledged regarding Abraham’s part in the relationship was Abraham’s faith. That is to say that the proper response to God’s undeserved favor is simply the exercise of faith in God. And this, too, of course, is a major theme in Paul’s epistles, especially Romans. But here, God becomes personally involved in the lives of those he has chosen to direct their affairs with respect to his saving work. In so doing, God shows the individuals and the nation that was to come from Jacob (i.e., Israel) that salvation would be on his terms and not a privilege that was only for the Jew. The culmination of God’s purpose to bless all the families of the earth would not and could not be achieved by the efforts, plans, or purposes of men (i.e., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.). They would not be according to the flesh. God would not be beholden to man in this regard. The only thing God expects of man is faith.
Again, this will be an important theme when we seek to properly interpret Romans 9-11. The emphasis, within the unique historical situation of Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, will not be upon the “children of the flesh” but upon the “children of promise,” that is, those who submitted to God’s provision of salvation in Christ Jesus by faith. God was showing the people he chose that both the way of blessing and the means of obtaining that blessing would be uniquely his own, and yet, it would include the human response of faith. Absent that response of faith from Israel, that is, the hardening of their own hearts, it is God’s sovereign prerogative to further harden their hearts in judgment. Yes, even the hearts of his own elect people.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as chosen by God, play a role, not only in bringing to pass what God had revealed to them, but they also show us, in contrast to the human attempts to do so (e.g., Abraham and Hagar), the divine means by which that revelation would come to be realized (e.g., Sarah’s pregnancy in her old age; Rebekah’s pregnancy in which she was told ”the older will serve the younger”). Note that we are made privy to all the failures of these chosen individuals, and yet they were noted as persons of faith (cf. Heb. 11).
In our Old Testament historical context, we are not yet shown the fuller revelation of God’s saving work in Christ. And even though we are not there yet, the salvific themes of God’s gracious initiative, covenants, and promises, along with the necessity of a response of faith on the part of the individual, are being revealed at this point. We must acknowledge and appreciate that God’s salvation comes to us in different contexts and as a historically progressive revelation. Each element of God’s activity, each covenant, each promise, each revelation, adds to the unfolding of the divine purpose, plan, and means of appropriating salvation.
Note also that the elect status of the patriarchs was not without responsibility on their part, that is, acts that spring from faith (i.e., prayer), without which God would respond differently. Allen P. Ross notes that,
“God’s fulfillment of his promise to Abraham was carried out by his election of Jacob (later, the nation Israel). At the same time, on the human side, prayer was necessary (v. 21). God’s promise is not carried out except through faith in His supernatural work. God later gave Israel, His elect nation, the promise. But it would not come without Israel’s struggle.
From the outset the birth of the nation of Israel was supernaturally superintended. Paul noted that before the twins’ births the younger was chosen over the elder (Rom. 9:11-12). God often reverses man’s natural order, for his ways are not man’s ways.”[71]
A way of blessing all people (i.e., salvation in Christ Jesus) could never have been conceived by man or brought to pass by the designs and devices of humankind. It had to be by the sovereign, gracious, and loving plan of God that a full and free salvation would be brought about through the death of his own Son, Jesus, on the cross. But again, we should not get ahead of ourselves here.
Esau Despised His Birthright
The first step in the fulfillment of the Lord’s words to Rebekah was Esau’s despising his birthright. C. F. Keil writes,
“Jacob made use of his brother’s hunger to get him to sell his birthright. The birthright consisted afterwards in a double portion of the father’s inheritance (Deut. 21:17); but with the patriarchs it embraced the chieftainship, the rule over the brethren and the entire family (27:29), and the title to the blessing of the promise (27:4, 27-29), which included the future possession of Canaan and the covenant fellowship with Jehovah (28:4). Jacob knew this, and it led him to anticipate the purposes of God. Esau also knew it, but attached no value to it. There is proof enough that he knew he was giving away, along with the birthright, blessings which, because they were not of a material but of a spiritual nature, had no particular value in his estimation, in the words he made use of: “Behold I am going to die (to meet death), and what is the birthright to me?” The only thing of value to him was the sensual enjoyment of the present; the spiritual blessings of the future his carnal mind was unable to estimate. In this he showed himself to be… (Heb. 12:16), a profane man, who cared for nothing but the momentary gratification of sensual desires, who “did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way, and so despised his birthright” (v. 34). With these words the scriptures judge and condemn the conduct of Esau. Just as Ishmael was excluded from the promised blessing because he was begotten “according to the flesh,” So Esau lost it because his disposition was according to the flesh. The frivolity with which he sold his birthright to his brother for a dish of lentils, rendered him unfit to be the heir and possessor of the promised grace. But this did not justify Jacob’s conduct in the matter. Though not condemned here, yet in the further course of the history it is shown to have been wrong, by the simple fact that he did not venture to make this transaction the basis of a claim.”[72]
Sailhamer makes this interesting observation. He states that “God’s choice of Jacob over Esau did not run contrary to the wishes of either of the two brothers.” He writes,
“The story of Esau’s rejection of his birthright is purposefully attached to the end of the narrative that introduces the motif of the older serving the younger. It is a narrative example that God’s choice of Jacob over Esau did not run contrary to the wishes of either of the two brothers. It is clear from the narrative that Esau was one who “despised” his birthright, while Jacob is portrayed as one who would go to great lengths to gain it. The importance of the contrast between the two brothers can best be seen in the fact that the writer himself explicitly states the point of the narrative in the conclusion of the story: “So Esau despised his birthright” (v.34). In few cases in Genesis do we find such a clear and forthright statement of the writer’s own understanding of the sense of the individual stories. We are left with no doubt that the writer saw in this story of Jacob’s trickery a larger lesson, that Esau, though he had the right of the firstborn, did not value it over a small bowl of soup. Thus, when in God’s plan Esau lost his birthright and consequently his blessing, there was no injustice dealt him. The narrative has shown that he did not want the birthright. He despised it.”[73]
And because Esau despised his birthright, “the older will serve the younger” (v. 23).
Genesis Chapter 26 – The Promise to Isaac and The Interaction with Abimelech
Chapter 26 speaks of the continuity to Isaac of the promises God gave to Abraham (vv. 2-5, 24), the blessing of God evidenced in the further accumulation of the family’s wealth (vv. 12-14), and the good will evidenced by the “nonchosen” people (i.e., Abimelech, vv. 8-11) to Isaac’s lie and Isaac’s peaceful response in return (vv. 26-31).
The chapter begins with another famine, causing Isaac to travel as far as Gerar, “to Abimelech king of the Philistines” (v. 1). There, the Lord “appears” to him to prevent him from going to Egypt (v. 2). The Lord also promises Isaac his presence, blessing, and “all these lands.” He assures Isaac that he will establish the oath he swore “to Abraham your father” (v. 3). The Lord also promises the multiplication of Isaac’s offspring and that “in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blest” (v. 4). These are the author’s main points in his telling of Isaac’s history.
The account also has parallels with the events in Abraham’s life with respect to the quarrel with Lot over the land supporting the herds of both men (Gen.13). Furthermore, Isaac lying to Abimelech about Rebekah being his sister is also reminiscent of Abraham’s lie to Pharaoh about Sarah.
Note that at the end of this chapter, we are told about the marriage of Esau to two Hittite women. In this regard, Sailhamer writes,
“At first glance it may appear that the short notice of Esau’s marriage to two Hittite women does not play a significant role with the larger narrative context. However. when read as an introduction to chapter 27, it casts quite a different light on the events of that chapter. Just before the account of the mischievous blessing of Jacob, we are told that Esau, from whom the blessing was stolen, had married Hittite women and they were a source of grief to both Isaac and Rebekah. These verses, then, take their place along with vv. 29-34 as background to the central event of chapter 27, the blessing of Jacob. These preliminary notices put into perspective the cunning deed of Jacob and Rebekah. They demonstrate that Esau was not fit to inherit the blessing.”[74]
Fretheim observes that there was continuous conflict in the family relationships. He then states the following about the end of chapter 26 (vv. 34-35).
“Chapter 26 concludes on a negative note…Esau’s act of marrying, without parental consent, two Hittite (Canaanite) women (cf. 24:3: 28:1, 6) first provides evidence of difficulties. Esau’s wives’ making life bitter for both parents involves more than their family lineage. Yet, placement of these verses before chap. 27 reinforces a negative sense about Esau and disposes the reader to be less critical of the moves made by Jacob and Rebekah. Moreover, Esau’s actions create sympathy for the dilemma Isaac faces as a parent. However, one must not fall into the trap of placing Esau and Jacob on some kind of “fitness” scale, as if God’s choices were determined by measuring morality. Jacob is no plaster saint either.”[75]
Hence, this account in chapter 26 prepares us for the astonishing events in chapter 27. We have already seen that Esau despised his birthright. He swore and sold it to Jacob for some bread and lentil stew (25:29-34). And what Esau does here, continues to confirm his disregard of both his grandfather Abraham’s warning to Isaac (24:3), and presumably his father’s warning too, against taking a Canaanite wife. And yet Esau does just that – twice! This made life bitter and a source of grief for Isaac and Rebekah.
So, Esau, by despising and selling his birthright and marrying Canaanite women, has proved his attitude of disregard for God’s purposes and the blessing he could have had as the firstborn son of Isaac.
Genesis Chapter 27 –Isaac Blesses Jacob
I agree with Fretheim. Jacob is no “plaster saint.” What occurs in chapter 27 is engaging, shocking, and at points hard to believe! The events are driven by the Lord’s word to Rebekah before the boys were even born, that is, she was told: “the older shall serve the younger” (25:23). Whether Isaac knew of the oracle or not is an open question. Nevertheless, Jacob has already bargained Esau out of his birthright (25:29-34), and now, obeying the scheme of his mother Rebekah, he lies twice to his father Isaac to trick him into giving him the blessing rather than to Esau, yet Esau also begs to be blessed by Isaac.[76] Isaac capitulates and gives him the only ‘blessing’ he can give since the blessing that was supposed to be Esau’s was now given to Jacob (27:31-40). C. F. Keil writes regarding the ‘blessing’ that Isaac gave Esau.
“The mental eye of the patriarch discerned in the son his whole future family in its attitude to its brother-nation, and he promised Edom [i.e., Esau or the Idumaeans], not freedom from the dominion of Israel (for Esau was to serve his brother, as Jehovah had predicted before their birth), but only a repeated and not unsuccessful struggle for freedom. And so it was; the historical relation of Edom to Israel assumed the form of a constant reiteration of servitude, revolt, and conquest.”[77]
And yet, the oracle included “…but when you grow restless you shall break his yoke from your neck (27:40, ESV, NIV. the CSB has “but when you rebel”). Keil comments,
“It was not until the reign of Ahaz that they shook the yoke of Judah entirely off (2 Kings 16:6; 2 Chron. 28:7), without Judah ever able to reduce them again. At length, however, they were completely conquered by John Hyrcanus about B.C. 129, compelled to submit to circumcision, and incorporated in the Jewish state (Josephus, Ant. xiii. 9, 1, xv. 7, 9). At a still later period, through Antipater and Herod, they established an Idumaean dynasty over Judea, which lasted till the complete dissolution of the Jewish state.
Thus the words of Issac to his sons were fulfilled, – words which are justly said to have been spoken in faith concerning things to come (Heb. 11:20). For the blessing was a prophecy, and that not merely in the case of Esau, but in that of Jacob also; although Isaac was deceived with regard to the person of the latter. Jacob remained blessed, therefore, because according to the predetermination of God, the elder was to serve the younger; but the deceit by which his mother prompted him to secure the blessing was never approved…. In this way a higher hand prevailed above the acts of sinful men, bringing the counsel and will of Jehovah to eventual triumph, in opposition to human thought and will.”[78]
Once Jacob succeeded in gaining the birthright and securing the blessing, Esau hated Jacob (27:41) for what he did to him, or rather what Esau allowed to happen to himself![79] Indeed, he said to himself, “…I will kill my brother Jacob” (v. 41, ESV). When Rebekah learned what Esau was planning, she told Jacob to “flee to Laban her brother in Haran” (v. 43). This brings us to chapter 28.
Genesis Chapter 28 – Esau’s Attempt to Please Issac, and Jacob Encounters God
Before Jacob fled to Haran to avoid the wrath of Esau, he was blessed once again by Isaac and was directed not to marry a Canaanite woman.
“So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him. Then he commanded him: “Do not marry a Canaanite woman. Go at once to Paddan Aram, to the house of your mother’s father Bethuel. Take a wife for yourself there, from among the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother.” (28:1-3. NIV)
The main reason for Isaac’s instruction was to maintain the purity of the faith and preserve the covenant promises made to Abraham. Jacob’s willingness to obey his father reveals at least some respect for the divine promises that have played out in the life of the family until now. Jacob now has Esau’s birthright and the blessing that is rightfully Esau’s as the older brother. Having swindled these from his brother, how much does Jacob personally cherish them? Once again, we see in this chapter God’s initiative in bringing to pass what he has for the one he has chosen (i.e., Jacob). And yet Esau is still trying to maneuver himself back into what is already past. Esau tries to impress his father by taking another wife from within the family (after he already married two Hittite / Canaanite women!), he ends up marrying a descendant of Abraham through Ishmael! Allen Ross writes,
“In a contrasting anticlimax Esau, trying to please his father, married a descendant of Abrham through Ishmael. Mahalath, a daughter of Ishmael, was thus a cousin of Esau. Ironically the unchosen son of Isaac married into the unchosen line of Ishmael! So Esau tried to better his marital reputation by marrying a third wife (cf. 26:34). Esau had no understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant and its purity. He was still living on the human level.”[80]
But Esau was not the only one doing so. Jacob’s deception was certainly not on a divine level! What this tells us is that God does predetermine and cause what he wills to occur to actually come to pass in particular situations. How he does this, we do not know. Non-Calvinists affirm this definition of God’s sovereignty. But note this is not the Calvinists’ definition, which is a universal divine causal determinism. The Bible does not affirm or teach that form of determinism. Therefore, what the account of Jacob and Esau may also tell us is that God employs the free decisions of those with whom he is in relationship to accomplish his will within this vein of salvation history. God has a lesson for us in how we are to participate in bringing to pass what he has set out to accomplish. Again, what Abraham and Isaac know of what God is up to is only what they have been told in the promises and covenant spoken to them by God. In this respect, they have learned to live by faith.
What this chapter does is show that the God of Abraham and Isaac is also the God of Jacob. This needs to be revealed to Jacob in a more effective way by God himself. So, Jacob’s dramatic “conversion” is another theme of this chapter. In a dream, God communicates an extensive version of the blessings and promises made to his father, Isaac, and grandfather Abraham. Here is the passage.
“He [Jacob] reached a certain place and spent the night there because the sun had set. He took one of the stones from the place, put it there at his head, and lay down in that place. And he dreamed: A stairway was set on the ground with its top reaching the sky, and God’s angels were going up and down on it. The Lord was standing there beside him, saying, “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your offspring the land on which you are lying. Your offspring will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out toward the west, the east, the north, and the south. All the peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. Look, I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go. I will bring you back to this land, for I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” (28:11-15, CSB)
Note the reiteration of the universal aspect of the blessing, “All the peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring.” If we did not have the privilege of hindsight, we would be asking ourselves, “What is God ultimately up to?”
Jacob is so moved by the dream he exclaims, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I did not know it.” (v. 16) And he calls the place “the house of God” and the “gate of heaven” (v. 17). He worships God by pouring oil on the rock he used as his “pillow” and then changes the name of his location from the city of Luz to Bethel, which means “the house of God.” Jacob is so affected by the dream that he goes on to make a solemn vow.
“If God will be with me and watch over me during this journey I’m making, if he provides me with food to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safely to my father’s family, then the Lord will be my God. This stone that I have set up as a marker will be God’s house, and I will give to you a tenth of all that you give me.” (28:20-22, CSB)
God’s affirmation of Jacob as the one chosen to carry on the blessings and promises God made to Abraham, along with the assurance of God’s presence with Jacob, are important themes in this account. This assurance will be crucial for those descendants of Jacob mentioned in the promises, that is, for the Israelites. Furthermore, I submit that when Jacob says, “then the Lord will be my God,” he is saying that before this experience, he did not personally identify with the God and spiritual heritage of his father and grandfather. He did not think of the God of Abraham and Isaac as his God, too. But due to this experience of God’s presence and assurances, Jacob’s mind and heart were changed. Indeed, Jacob was becoming suited to become Israel and all that would mean for the future of God’s plans and purposes. Alan P. Ross writes,
“God’s promise to be with His people is a theme repeated throughout Scripture (e.g., God said to Isaac, Do not be afraid, for I am with you,” 26:24). The assurance of God’s presence should bring about in every believer the same response of worship and confidence it prompted in Jacob. This is the message from the beginning: God by grace visits His people and promises them protection and provision so that they might be a blessing to others. They in turn were to respond in faith, fearing Him, worshipping Him, offering to Him, vowing to Him, and making memorials for future worshippers at such places.
This event at Bethel then is archetypical of Israel’s worship, patterned after – and indeed named after – her patriarch Jacob.”[81]
We now turn to the beginnings of that “great nation” (12:2) Israel, which was purposed in God’s initial choice and call of Abraham and his subsequent selection of Isaac (not Ishmael) and then Jacob (not Esau). As such, the twelve sons of Jacob (i.e., Israel) will be spoken about as God’s chosen people. They will be his elect people. Israel is God’s unique people and his special possession. Also, the only true God is Israel’s God. We might ask at this point, “What is God doing in creating a people for himself? What will be their purpose?” But recall, God has already given us the essence of the answer to these questions in the protoevangelium of Gen. 3:15.
Genesis Chapter 29 – 31 – Jacob’s Wives and Children / Jacob and Laban Separate
At this point in our survey, we can say with confidence that God’s sovereign initiative is a major theme throughout the beginning accounts of Genesis. If the salvation of mankind from its fall into sin is to come about, if the prophetic word of Genesis 3:15 is to be realized, it will only come to pass because of God’s grace and love for mankind and due to his sovereign activity in history. But what we have not seen is a definition of God’s sovereign activity as a universal divine causal determinism, that is, divine sovereignty as defined by Calvinists. God has not predetermined all the thoughts, attitudes, and actions of all persons down to the minutest details, especially their evil actions. In this regard, Calvinist theology has already proven to be contrary to the biblical witness. Even at this early stage, we may deem Calvinism a false and unbiblical theology. But I want to continue to demonstrate its errors in the different texts and contexts we will examine in this chapter and others throughout the Pentateuch, to set the stage for a proper interpretation of election in the New Testament. So, we will continue to engage with Calvinism as we move along.
Therefore, we have come to God’s next step to bring about salvation – the establishment of the nation of Israel. It is God who initiated the blessings, promises, and covenants to selected individuals (i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) who were all flawed by sin. Even as Jacob slept, it was God who initiated a revelation of himself (28:13) and reiterated to him the blessings and promises made to his father and grandfather. In fulfillment of those blessings and promises, and in a twist of judicial irony, Jacob is now deceived by Laban. In chapter 30, the two will engage in a battle of wits until Jacob leaves Laban to go back to Canaan and his father, Isaac. In the meantime, another familiar theme arises. Rachel is barren!
Following his mother Rebekah’s instructions, Jacob fled from Esau to Haran. On the way, he had a dream in which God included Jacob in the promises he made to Abraham and Isaac. Haran was where Laban lived. Laban was Rebekah’s brother and the father of Leah and Rachel. Jacob meets Rachel at a well and comes to live with and work for Laban. Fretheim comments,
“Laban’s warm welcome and open offer may have created an ironic, unsuspecting trust in Jacob; on the other hand, if Jacob told Laban everything (“all”) that had happened in Canaan (v. 13; cf. v. 26), Laban would have good reason to be wary of Jacob. This combination of factors may bring out the worst in Laban. He thinks he can take advantage of Jacob, perhaps even that Jacob should “pay” for his deception of Isaac.”[82]
Now, Jacob loved Rachel (29:18) and told Laban he would serve him for seven years for her to become his wife. “So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her” (29:20, ESV). When the time was fulfilled, and Jacob was to marry Rachel, Laban threw a feast beforehand in which, I assume, Jacob became inebriated. Laban then substituted Leah for Rachel according to the convention that the older should marry before the younger. And Jacob “went in to her” (29:23, ESV), but in the morning was shocked to see it was Leah! The deception is ironic. Esau’s deceiver was now himself deceived. Fretheim writes,
“Laban’s appeal to tradition after the fact (v. 26) appears duplicitous, but by directly raising firstborn issues he establishes an explicit link with Jacob’s won deception on the same matter. His reference to “our country” functions similarly. In matching deception for deception, the narrator must have understood Jacob’s activity in chap. 27 as reprehensible. Jacob must now know something of how Esau felt. At the same time, he has met in Laban someone not unlike himself.”[83]
Yet, it seems that Jacob’s encounter with God (28:10-22) altered his disposition. He knew how God had chosen him and made promises to him. As such, Jacob was willing to listen to God and, to some degree, walk accordingly (28:16-22). His ultimate acceptance of what Laban had done to him and Jacob’s willingness to work another seven years for Rachel, this time married to her (29:30), may be viewed as indicative of a more humbled disposition.
It is important to realize that even though God’s will is being advanced by his own initiative, and he will bring to pass what he purposes to accomplish, nevertheless, he involves flawed persons in those purposes. Therefore, due to their own actions, they alter God’s preferred designs for them. God’s purposes did not have to happen in this way. John Sailhamer comments,
“Jacob was the object of deception… Jacob was getting what he deserved. In this light the seven extra years that Jacob had to serve Laban appear as a repayment for his treatment of Esau. By calling such situations to the attention of the reader, the writer begins to draw an important lesson from these narratives. Jacob’s deceptive schemes for obtaining the blessing did not meet with divine approval. Through Jacob’s plans God’s will had been accomplished; but the writer is intent on pointing out, as well, that the schemes and tricks were not of God’s design.”[84]
Fretheim observes,
“…the narrator makes clear that Jacob loves Rachel more than Leah (v. 30; the “unloved of v. 31 may also refer to preference). Which Leah interprets as no love at all (vv. 32-22). Laban’s devious orchestration could not force Jacob to love both women; love cannot be so manipulated. Once again, and appeal to custom (v. 26) fails to satisfy. The narrator gives love between a man and a woman a high role here, but it remains complicated by other issues that make for conflict and rivalry: between Laban and Jacob, Leah and Rachel, and Jacob with each wife.
Laban’s ruse, made possible through the use of veils (see 24:65) and heavy festival drinking, violates Rachel and Jacob and their love for each other. It violates Leah as well, whose feelings about the matter are not considered, but whose suffering in all of this will shortly be voiced (29:32-35)… The fact that God responds in so many ways to Leah’s suffering in the episode reveals the divine perspective on her mistreatment and an implicit judgment on her oppressors. She bears seven children, more than all the others. But in doing so, the Leah-Rachel conflict intensifies.”[85]
The point is that, as we have seen previously, things happen within this family’s relationships that are not ideal; indeed, they are not good. They were not God’s arrangement. Therefore, we can say that these people themselves do not act according to the desires and will of God. At times, Jacob and Laban, Rachel and Leah acted according to their own sinful wills, which created stress, conflict, jealousy, and strife between them. That is not the will of God for them. And yet, God’s word of promise to Abraham, Isaac, and now Jacob will be continually advanced. The reason it will do so is because of God’s necessary involvement in their lives and those they must deal with (e.g., Laban). We have seen, and will see, that God is silently at work in people’s lives to direct them to the degree that his purposes are accomplished. For instance, in this chapter, we have the birth of eleven sons. These sons will become the tribes of Israel. They are as follows:
Jacob & Leah – Reuben (1st), Simeon (2nd), Levi (3rd), Judah (4th), Issachar (9th), Zebulun (10th)
Jacob & Bilhah (Rachel’s concubine) – Dan (5th), Naphtali (6th)
Jacob & Zilpah (Leah’s concubine) – Gad (7th), Asher (8th)
Jacob & Rachel – Joseph (11th)
Leah also had a daughter named Dinah. Therefore, the end of chapter 29 and the beginning of 30 provide the fascinating yet troubled circumstances in which these sons and a daughter were born. God, Jacob, and the women are all involved in bringing to pass the sons of Jacob. This happens, not by virtue of an exhaustive determinism, but in a way that God works despite the attitudes and actions of flawed human beings. At the same time, the account acknowledges that God is also present, both directly (29:31; 31:3, 11-13) and at times secretly (30:22; 31:7, 9), so that their circumstances serve as the means through which he will accomplish his purpose for electing them (cf. Rom. 9:11), that is, to bring through them the the fulfillment of the promise. That promise was realized in Sarah having a son by Abraham, Isaac (not Ishmael), and by the divine oracle to Rebekah that the older Esau would serve the younger Jacob. Fretheim observes,
“God’s involvement in Jacob’s life correlates to promises made at Bethel (28:10-22): “I am the God of Bethel” (v. 13; the angel in v. 11 is identified as God). God has been faithful to the promises made to Jacob (28:13-15), witnessed to in 31:3b, 5b, 7b, 9, 12b, and 13. The divine command to return can be trusted in view of Jacob’s own experience. These verses also reveal a faithful Jacob, whose witness to God’s faithfulness in the presence of his wives remains pervasive and without equivocation.”[86]
The rest of chapter 30 and into 31 tell of the strained relationship between Jacob and Laban, how Jacob outsmarts Laban regarding his flocks, and becomes a wealthy man. Fretheim comments,
“Jacob testifies that their father has cheated him and changed his wages many times (given Laban’s invitations to Jacob, this seems hyperbolic). God, on the other hand, has been working behind the scenes against Laban’s arbitrary decisions regarding wages so that whatever changes Laban made actually worked to Jacob’s advantage (v. 8); God’s activity in vv. 7b and 9 encloses Laban’s deceit. God has transferred the animals from their father to him.”[87]
Jacob and Laban finally separate after making a covenant and setting up a boundary that neither will cross to harm the other in the future (31:44-55).
Genesis Chapter 32 – Jacob Fears Esau and Wrestles with God
It was twenty years prior that Esau, hating Jacob for what he had done to him, wanted to kill him (27:41-46). Therefore, Jacob fled to Rebekah’s brother, Laban, in Haran. But with Laban now out of the way, and Jacob reentering the land of Canaan – the promised land – Jacob must face his brother Esau again. We need to note that chapter 32 begins with “the angels of God” who come to meet with Jacob (32:1). This meeting is the complement of Jacob’s dream in 28:10ff. Alan Ross writes,
“Obviously the two passages are correlated. What took place at the naming of Bethel on Jacob’s way out of the land now took place at the naming of Mahanaim on his way back into the land. His glimpse of the angels of God assured him once again of divine protection accompanying him. And the angels welcomed him on his return to the land of promise. This reassurance came at a time when Jacob sorely needed it.”[88]
Jacob sent out messengers to Esau in Edom, who returned with a report that Esau was on his way to see Jacob with four hundred men. Jacob became very afraid and distressed (32.7). So, Jacob prayed. It was a prayer that revealed the change in Jacob’s heart and mind over the years. His encounter with God at Bethel and, recently, the angels at Mahanaim have matured him in every way, especially spiritually.
“And Jacob said, “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, O Lord who said to me, ‘Return to your country and to your kindred, that I may do you good,’ I am not worthy of the least of all the deed of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant, for with only my staff I crossed this Jordan, and now I have become two camps. Please deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau, for I fear him, that he may come and attack me, the mothers with the children. But you said, ‘I will surely do you good, and make your offspring as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.’” (32:9-12, ESV)
Jacob prays based on the promises God first made to his grandfather Abraham, his father Isaac, and then to him. He was coming to believe in those promises. And he was coming to believe in what God also told him about doing good to him; a promise Jacob sorely needed at this time, as he feared Esau’s reaction to meeting him again! But God would preserve and protect Jacob.
And we can see how God’s grace, patience, and activity in his life allowed Jacob to mature personally and spiritually. Jacob’s humility and spiritual maturity are evident when he prays, “I am not worthy of the least of all the deeds of steadfast love and all the faithfulness that you have shown to your servant…” This stands in contrast to his vow in chapter 28, where he says, “If God will be with me and will keep me…then the Lord shall be my God.” (28:18-22, ESV) God decided to take Jacob up on his promise. God didn’t let Jacob down. And there comes a point when Jacob will keep his word to the point of not letting go of God. Although Jacob was blessed by his father, Isaac, he also wanted God’s blessing. Here, Jacob’s faith is shown to be genuine and would now be made secure. In 32:22ff. Jacob wrestles with God via his representative; perhaps “the angel of the Lord,” that is, “the visible manifestation of the invisible God.”[89] Sailhamer writes,
“There are many unanswered questions in this brief narrative of Jacob’s wrestling with an angel. It is, however, clear that the picture of Jacob’s struggles with God is meant to epitomize the whole of the Jacob narratives. Jacob’s life has been characterized by struggle, particularly by a struggle to obtain a blessing from God – just as in this narrative. Jacob had struggles with his brother (chs 25, 27), his father (ch. 27), his father-in-law (chs. 29-31), and God (ch. 32). Jacob’s own words express the substance of these narratives about him: “I will not let you go unless you bless me” (v.26). Here we see a graphic picture of Jacob struggling for the blessing, struggling with God and with man (v.28).
Most significant is the fact that, according to this narrative, Jacob has emerged victorious in his struggle: “You have struggled with God and man and have overcome.” (v.28)[90]
This struggle with God resulted in Jacob’s name being changed to Israel. Israel means “you have struggled with God.” And here we reach a key point in the historical narratives. Israel, although not yet a nation of people, was brought into existence by God. Jacob was renamed and designated Israel by God himself.
We shouldn’t overlook Jacob’s description of God. He is a God of “steadfast love and faithfulness.” This is the God who promised Abraham that the whole world would be blessed through him. The point that continues through the narratives, which began at the beginning of Genesis, is God’s “steadfast love and faithfulness” moving toward the fulfillment of that promise. God chose to reveal himself and his basic plans for mankind to Abraham (Gen. 121-3). God tested him, and he passed the test. God therefore made promises and a covenant with him. God would then make a distinction (i.e., a selection or election) between Isaac and Ishmael, with Isaac, the child born of Sarah who was past child-bearing years, being the one who was promised and through whom the covenant made to Abraham would continue. But after Isaac, through whom would these promises continue? Rebekah was barren. So, there would be another child of promise, or rather children of promise? No. Rebekah was told by God that “Two nations are in your womb…the older shall serve the younger.” (Gen. 25:23) Again, there would be a child of promise. It would be Jacob, not Esau.
What was God’s purpose in operating in this manner? God had a purpose in advancing his salvation history by making these designations or selections. It was to show that it is God who is superintending this salvation history – moving it forward by promises made and promises kept. This way of promise affirms God’s prerogative to supersede human expectations and conventions (e.g., the firstborn receives the blessing) so that in the end all people, especially the Jew, would have to acknowledge that salvation occurs by God’s way, that is, ultimately in Christ Jesus and by faith. This method of election or selection of one and not another was to establish the principle that salvation would be through a promised One, the person of God’s own choosing (i.e., Jesus). This has nothing to do with God predetermining the eternal destinies of each person – as if one person, the elect, is predestined to eternal life and another person, the non-elect or preprobate, is predestined to eternal death. Rather, what the historical account is showing us is that as God chose the patriarchs despite their limitations and those of their wives, it would be through his promises and ultimately through his promised One or chosen One (1 Pet. 2:4-6) that his saving purposes would be fulfilled. As such, it would be the chosen people, a people God himself would bring into existence, through which the chosen One would come (i.e., Israel). There would be a narrowing, an electing, a selecting of persons (i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and a nation (i.e., Israel) so that God could reveal both himself and his Savior to the world. God, revealing himself to Abraham and having “chosen” him (18:19), promised to give him and Sarah “a son by her” (17:16, 19), that is, Isaac, through whom the covenant promises would continue (17:19, 21). And then, by direct revelation to Rebekah, God states that “the older will serve the younger” (25:22-23), that is, Jacob would rule over his brother Esau. God then changed Jacob’s name to Israel. God’s chosen or elect people, that is, the nation of Israel, were coming into existence.
Genesis Chapter 33 – Jacob Reconciles with Esau and Builds an Altar
And now, it is with the eleven of the twelve sons of Jacob having been born, and God changing Jacob’s name to Israel (32:28; 35:10), that we see the historical unfolding of God promise to Abraham to “make of you a great nation” (12:2, ESV) and that his descendants would be innumerable (13:16; 15:5; 16:10; 17:2, 16; 22:17-18), which was reiterated to Isaac (26:2-5, 24) and Jacob (28:13-15; 35:9-12). God was establishing a people for himself. God renaming Jacob to Israel is significant, as it is twice recorded in 32:28 and 35:10-11. God was bringing to pass something new and unique; a people that is God’s very own possession. They will be called “the people of Israel” (33:20).
But Jacob must survive his meeting and presumed confrontation with Esau. But God answers Jacob’s prayer of 32:11, “…deliver me from the hand of my brother.” Esau ran to Jacob, embraced him, and kissed him. And they both cried together (33:4). But in the subsequent conversation, Jacob’s persuasive insistence that Esau take Jacob’s gifts, and persistent refusals of Esau’s suggestions that he accompany Jacob or at least leave some of his men with Jacob, are palatable. Jacob manages to extricate himself from Esau’s company without harm. Sailhamer concludes,
“The picture of Jacob and Esau in these narratives curiously foreshadows the relationship between the historical Israel of the Davidic monarchy and Esau’s own descendants, Edom, as that relationship is depicted in the later prophetic books. Though often there was bitter resentment between the two nations, which God frequently used to chastise his disobedient people (e.g., 1 Kings 11:14; Obad 1-18), in the end God’s kingdom was to be extended to include the land of Edom (Obad 21).”[91]
Hence, Jacob was free to travel on. He went to Succoth, Paddan Aram, and then to Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan. There, he bought a plot of ground from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. Sailhamer observes,
“These last verses form a transition in the narrative between Jacob’s sojourn in the east and events of the later years of his life in the land of Canaan. As he left Canaan in chapter 28, Jacob vowed that if God would be with him and watch over him so that he returned to the land “in peace” (“safely”), he would give to God a tenth of all he had (28:20-22). The narrative has been careful to follow the events in Jacob’s life that have shown the Lord’s faithfulness to this vow. Thus, here we are told that Jacob returned “safely” to the land of Canaan. Though he was not yet back to Bethel, he was “in [the land of] Canaan”; thus God had been faithful.
Jacob returned to Bethel in chapter 35 and built an altar there (v.7). …The portion of land purchased by Jacob in Shechem plays an important role in the later biblical narratives. This was the portion of land where the Israelites buried the bones of Joseph (Josh 24:32) and thus represented their hope in God’s ultimate fulfillment of his promise of the land.”[92]
Genesis Chapter 35 –Jacob Returns to Bethel, and God Talks with Jacob
In chapter 35, God tells Jacob to return to Bethel and build an altar. Jacob calls upon the people to forsake their foreign gods and ready themselves to go to Bethel. This would be the end of Jacob’s journey, and God has proved faithful in Jacob’s life. Once again, God tells Jacob that his name will be Israel and reiterates that he should increase in number and promises that a nation will come from him, along with the promise of the land. Sailhamer comments,
“The importance of God’s words to Jacob in vv. 11-12 cannot be overemphasized. First, God’s words “be fruitful and increase in number” recalled clearly the primeval blessing of Creation (1:28) and hence showed God to be still “at work” in bringing about the blessing to all mankind through Jacob. Second, for the first time since 17:16 (“kings and peoples will come from her”), the mention is made of royalty (“kings,” v.11) in the promised line. Third, the promise of the land, first given to Abraham and then to Isaac, was renewed here with Jacob (v.12). Thus within these brief words several major themes of the book have come together. The primeval blessing of mankind was renewed through the promise of a royal offspring and the gift of the land.”[93]
And we can conclude our study of the patriarchal history as relevant to our issue of election with this closing observation by Sailhamer.
“In the course of the narrative, this section represents a major turning point and thematic focus. Two lines that have thus far run parallel are about to converge, and out of them both will emerge a single theme. Jacob has two wives, each representing a possible line through which the promise will be carried on: the line of Rachel, namely the house of Joseph, and the line of Leah, the house of Judah. Just as Abraham had two sons and only one was the son of promise, and just as Isaac had two sons and only one was the son of the blessing, so now Jacob, though he has twelve sons, has two wives (Leah and Rachel); and each has a son (Judah and Joseph) that can rightly contend for the blessing. In the narratives that follow, the writer holds both sons, Joseph and Judah, before the readers as rightful heirs of the promise. As the Jacob narratives have already anticipated, in the end it was Judah, the son of Leah, not Joseph, the son of Rachel, that gained the blessing (49:8-12).”
Note the echoes here of what Paul does in Romans 9. He employs the early patriarchal lineage to make certain points that I will examine in a separate section. Suffice it to say here that it is God’s hand and purposes that have been decisive and faithful in bringing to pass the promises.
Having completed our study of God’s work in the patriarchal lineage, this would be a good place to include a brief word about ‘predestination’ in the prophetic literature. Did the prophets, especially when predicting the future, believe that God must have predetermined “whatsoever comes to pass”?`
Prophetic Prediction and Predestination
We have read about God changing Jacob’s name to Israel; we should take an excursus into the time of the prophets when Israel was an established nation. The prophets understood Israel’s history. They also spoke in terms similar to the concept of predestination. Biblical scholar David J. Clines writes about the forms predestination takes in the prophets. He states,
“In the prophets, predestination ideas take on two major forms: the concept of God’s election of Israel, and the concept of divine purposes in history.
(1) The first major form which predestination takes on is that the people of Israel have been chosen by God to be his people. That is a predestination because it is not just an act of grace or salvation but an act which establishes Israel’s future destiny, and an act that defines what it will mean to be Israel. The occasion of this election is not for the prophets an eternal decree but a historical act: the election took place at the exodus from Egypt (Ezek. 20:5f.).[94]
Clines then cites the verses that contain the terms that show God has chosen Israel: “chosen,” “formed” (Isa. 43:20f.), “called” (Hos. 11:1), “wooed” (Hos. 2:14f.), “known” (Amos 3:1f.). He then states, “All these terms belong to the election vocabulary, for they all point to the divine action which constituted Israel.”[95] We saw this at work in the patriarchal history. And Clines also observes the following.
“It is noteworthy also how often in Isaiah Israel is referred to as God’s people in the context of its disobedience or its impending destruction (e.g., Isa. 1:3; 2:6; 5:13, 25). The role of election theology, then is to heighten the gravity of Israel’s sin and to guarantee that there is no escape from the consequences of their guilt.
However, the doom of Israel, though the major preoccupation of the pre-exilic prophets, is not their only concern. They, together with the prophets of the exile and beyond, also deliver prophecies of hope. In this setting the role of election is different. Here election takes on a character of promise, assurance that Israel will become what she was called into being to become. Israel must respond to the prophetic reminders about election with courage, faith, work.”[96]
We see here again what we observed in our historical study of the patriarchs. As God’s promises to the patriarchs would surely come to pass, and faith being the proper response to those promises, here, too, the theme is continued. God’s election of Israel “takes on the character of promise.” And Israel must respond in faith. This has been the theme throughout. Clines references the following scriptures: Isa. 41:8ff. and Isa. 43:1f, 44:1ff., 21f., Hos. 2:14ff., and Hag. 2:4f. He then states the second form of predestination in the prophets.
“(2) The other major form which prophetic predestination takes on is the idea that events of world history are planned by God. A clear example is Isa. 14:24-27:
The LORD of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, And as I have purposed, so shall it stand, that I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains trample him under foot…” This is the purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?
Other references of God’s “purposes” or “plans” or “thoughts” occur in Isa. 25:1; 46:10; Mic. 4:2; Jer. 23:20; 29:11; 49:20; 50:45: 51:11. And of course the whole rationale of prophetic prediction is that God has plans or intentions, whether judgment or salvation, which are so sure of fulfillment that they may be announced in advance.
Almost all of the specific references to God’s plans have in view a particular event or a limited series of events, for example, “his purposes against the land of the Chaldeans” (Jer. 50:45). Furthermore, it is not a matter of a single divine plan; various passages speak of various intentions, and some references are in fact to God’s plans in the plural. So it cannot be shown that the prophets believed in a fixed divine plan that extended from the beginning to the end of world history. When they spoke of God’s plan they referred to the obvious truth that God is purposive in his actions. As for the prophetic predictions of what God was going to do, it can be freely acknowledged that they are extremely varied in their scope, comprehensiveness, and time-range. But they do not amount to a claim that all the events in history move towards a divine goal. They are rather an assertion that within history God is working his purposes out.
…the predestinarian element functions as an assurance that the prophetic message will take effect. It is not an expression of a broad philosophy of history so much as an affirmation of the inescapability of God’s wrath or the certainty of God’s blessing. The same is true of the predictive or predestinarian aspect of prophetic oracles of judgment or hope, even when terms for God’s “plan” are not used.”[97]
Clines summarizes his chapter with helpful points on how to interpret the prophets and the Bible in general. Being principles of hermeneutics, they are of interest to us as we want to be good stewards of the Word and as we deal with these subjects in the New Testament. Clines writes,
“As far as our method goes in approaching the Old Testament teaching, we may summarize:
- Our method cannot be via the accumulation of proof texts drawn indiscriminately from the whole Old Testament, but rather we should move via the appreciation of the total message of each part of the Old Testament to the particular form which predestinarian ideas take on there.
- Even more important than deciding what is true in this subject is to decide how important various truths are. No doubt there are many reasonable inferences that may be made from biblical statements about predestination, but to be faithful to the Bible means in part to follow the Bible’s emphases and not erect mere inferences into essential biblical doctrine. This is an appeal for sensitivity to the role which predestinarian ideas play in the Old Testament writings.”[98]
This is good advice.
I will examine Paul’s use and meaning of predestination in our study of the New Testament passages. First, let’s summarize our conclusions from our study of the Old Testament.
What We Learned From Our Old Testament Survey
These historical events reveal to the reader, especially the Israelite reader, a theological paradigm that explains their coming into existence. That theological paradigm refers to God achieving his specifically determined purposes through the events he initiates in the lives of the people he has chosen. They are recipients of divine determinations, choices, and personal interactions. God’s choosing of these people for his salvific purposes is referred to in the Bible as election. The term ‘elect’ also applies to things, events, and corporate entities, but in our study of the doctrine of election, I have highlighted two of its purposes: service and salvation. The people who are chosen are those through whom God would reveal himself and work to fulfill his divinely determined purposes. Whether the decisions of the people God chose were good or bad, right or wrong, honest or deceitful, whether they told the truth or lied, the promises, covenants, oracles, and purposes of God moved forward and could not be thwarted by the flawed decisions and actions of these people. Indeed, God interacts with these people so that his purposes are fulfilled through their decisions and actions. For instance, in the account of Jacob’s deception of Isaac and Isaac’s blessing of the two sons, we nevertheless witness the fulfillment of God’s oracle in Gen. 25:23 that Rebekah would give birth to two nations, that one would be stronger than the other, and that “the older will serve the younger.” It was the trickery of Rebekah and Jacob that led to the fulfillment of the Lord’s oracle, which was also a prophecy. And we must not forget that previously Esau despised his birthright and put his own physical appetites above this profound privilege (Gen. 25:29-34). Hence, we may say that Rebekah was carrying out the word she received from God.
The point? God works with imperfect humans who, because they have free will, sin. God works with sinners to redeem and save sinners. Despite the sin of his human creatures, even those he has chosen for his special purposes, God can do good, for them and their ‘seed.’ Therefore, God is sovereign in the lives of the patriarchs and Israel, but not in the sense Calvinists define ‘sovereignty’ as a universal divine causal determinism. That would make God the cause of the sins and wrongs in the accounts, and therefore God would be responsible for them. It would also make the accounts historically meaningless and logically and morally incoherent. (See Chapter 4.) Rather, what we find is a God who is personally involved with the individuals in the biblical narratives to bring to pass his purposes. He is patient, engaged, and faithful to his promises. He enters into covenants with them. This is what it means for God to be sovereign. There is no theistic determinism here. There are, of course, theistic determinations at work. God has plans and purposes that will not fail to be accomplished, but they are not of the nature of a single exhaustive divine decree that predetermines and causes all things, including everyone’s every thought, desire, attitude, and action. That, of course, is not the testimony or worldview of the Bible. That is the Calvinists’ erroneous definition of God’s ‘sovereignty.’
Previously, I discussed how persons either respond to God in faith and obedience or unbelief and disobedience. Recall in Genesis 27 where Jacob deceives Isaac (not to mention the deceit of 12:13 and 26:6). Commentator Allen P. Ross writes,
“God expects his servants to carry out their spiritual responsibilities by faith. Unfortunately faith is not always present and then matters become complicated. This chapter [ch. 27] portrays an entire family attempting to carry out their responsibilities by their physical senses, without faith. This is the familiar story of how Jacob got the blessing of his father Isaac through deception. It is a story of the fragmenting of the family over spiritual matters! All participants were at fault.”[99]
Ross also writes,
“So in a sense Rebekah and Jacob won, though they gained nothing that God would not have given them anyway; and they lost much.
Yet God would work through their conniving. Their activities only succeeded in doing what God’s oracle had predicted. God’s program will triumph, often in spite of human activities.”[100]
Ross is suggesting that God can work his purposes in more than one way, depending upon how people respond to what he reveals to them. Is God any less sovereign because of this? Of course not! Terence Fretheim comments,
“Neither demons nor plaster saints are here, and the way the story pursues blessing for Jacob retains no little ambiguity. The way in which “what goes around comes around” for Jacob in 29:25-26 and 37:31-33 suggests that Jacob reaps the consequences of his deceptions of Esau and Isaac…One must be careful not to become too defensive regarding Jacob’s actions, lest God’s choices be grounded in “righteousness” or “uprightness of heart” (cf. Deut 9:4-5). God chooses to work in and through what human beings make available. This reveals a deep divine vulnerability, for it links God with people whose reputations are not stellar and opens God’s ways in the world to sharp criticism.”[101]
Yet this does not thwart God’s plans and purposes. Again, it is what it means for God to be sovereign in his world.
From Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God creates the nation of Israel as his own people. He will be their God, and they will be his people (Ex. 6:7; 29:45-46). They are his chosen people (Deut. 7:6; Isa. 45:4). He chose them so he might reveal to them and through them both what he is like and his plan of salvation. Israel was supposed to bring this knowledge of God and salvation to the world. They failed to do so. More on this later. Suffice it to say here that Israel was obstinate, stubborn, and disobedient to their calling or election. Therefore, the Calvinist understanding of the doctrine of election does not cohere with the biblical witness to election in Genesis.
It was crucial to investigate whether election in the Old Testament was ever intended to refer to a divine predetermination of the eternal destiny of individuals. We can safely say that it has not. Therefore, our hermeneutical principle is that New Testament election not only has its origin in the Old Testament but is also in continuity with the Old Testament phenomenon of God’s choosing a people for his purposes. This indicates that this doctrine in the Old or New Testaments has nothing to do with either Augustine’s Manichean influence on theology or Luther and Calvin’s 16th-century Reformation battles with Roman Catholic heresies and practices. ‘Election’ should never have been redefined and reduced to theistic determinism. These types of theistic determinism cannot be found in our Old Testament historical survey, nor are they taught by Paul, given his historical context. His concern, as a Jew, was to understand and explain how Israel, as ‘the people of God,’ had rejected their Messiah and the testimony of salvation in Jesus from the Old Testament and in his own teachings, life, death, and resurrection.
In continuity with the Old Testament promise to bless all peoples, God’s purposes in election were instructive as to the nature of God’s salvation and the inclusion of the Gentiles into ‘the people of God.’ God’s purpose in election is not to save some and damn others but to demonstrate the principle behind God’s saving work, which is that it would be by his gracious eternal plan “in Christ” by faith and not by man’s designs and efforts. That was the pattern we saw God establish in the Old Testament. It was to show that ‘he has mercy on whomever he wills and hardens whomever he wills,” that is, ironically, he will mercifully include the Gentiles in his saving work even if that requires a hardening of his very own people, Israel. This is God’s prerogative stemming from his very nature as both gracious and just.
Origin, Meaning, and Purpose of Election in the Old Testament
In researching the doctrine of election, I have discovered that an in-depth knowledge of its Old Testament historical and religious context is essential for understanding the use of the words “chosen” and “elect,” and the concept of “election” in the New Testament. In this respect, we modern Christians find ourselves at a disadvantage. That is, our knowledge of the Old Testament is most likely insufficient to properly situate the topic historically for a better understanding. What I have learned is that the historical and religious context of this subject is quite complex. What N. T. Wright called “a complex story-form worldview.” The Old Testament history and religion of Israel are very distant from us. We usually run up against that distance in reading the Old Testament and therefore tend to ignore it. We think it is minimally relevant now that we have the New Testament. But this would be wrong. The New Testament’s historical and religious context is the Old Testament. The New Testament is the progression of the history and religion of Israel in the Old Testament.
What this means is that, regarding our understanding of the more difficult Old Testament concepts, such as election, we need a thorough knowledge of the history and religion of Israel. This is necessary to fully comprehend the New Testament usage and meaning of the terms ‘elect,’ election,’ ‘chosen,’ and ‘predestination.’ Hence, we are dealing with a concept that has a richness and complexity that requires us to at least survey the Old Testament. Therefore, the above study of the Old Testament was my attempt to learn more to properly interpret the doctrines of election and predestination in the New Testament.
The Jewish scholar and reverend Dr. Jakob Jocz writes,
“Judaism has been described as ethical monotheism… “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One,” is the foundation of all Jewish thought and practice. …The God of Israel…is naturally the God of all mankind and Creator of the universe. But His relation to Israel is of a special nature. The awareness of chosenness is at the bottom of Jewish piety. “Our Father, our King” and “thou hast chosen us from all the nations” are recurring phrases in the liturgy of the Synagogue. In this way the Jews express their special relatedness to the God of Israel.”[102]
Biblical scholar James Daane writes,
“By approaching election in the first form in which it was historically actualized, we can protect ourselves against an individualistic distortion of election and a premature flight into the realms of eternity. For if the meaning of Christ’s election lies concealed in the election of Israel and the meaning of Israel’s election is revealed in Christ’s election, the election of no individual can be adequately understood in isolation from this context.”[103]
My point here is that a biblical doctrine of election must be established upon its proper Old Testament context, of which Israel is the elect or chosen people of God, which is God’s doing. James Daane observes,
“Turning to the Old Testament, we confront the first historical revelation of election in God’s choosing Abram and calling him from Ur of the Chaldees. Abram, of course, is an individual, but his election is not illustrative of a merely individualistic election. In choosing Abram, God does not choose a single individual; his election includes the election of his seed. There is no election of Abram the individual apart from his seed, and no election of his seed apart from Abram. The object of God’s election is the nation that flows from Abram and of which he is a part.”[104]
Daane quotes Isaiah 43:1,6,7,15, 20-21; 44:1-2; 49:1,7 to show the correlation between Israel’s creation and her election. He then writes,
“The whole thrust of the story of God’s establishment of his covenant with Abraham and his seed, together with the material we have cited from Isaiah, speaks of election on a quite different level than that of a selection out of a mass humanity.
It would appear, then that election, as we first encounter it in the Old Testament, is national, not merely individual. This election indeed includes the individual, but only within the larger scope of the nation. God calls and elects, establishes his covenant with, and makes his futuristic promises with, Abraham and his seed.
Divine election in its basic Old Testament form is collective, corporate, national. It encompasses a community of which the individual Israelite is an integral part. In the New Testament this form of election is not atomized and undone but fulfilled.”[105]
I hope you are beginning to grasp the essence of the historical definition of election. The Calvinist’s explanation of election as unconditional in reference to a limited number of particular individuals who are predestined by God to eternal salvation, while all others are left with no hope of salvation, has nothing to do with the biblical theme of election. Election must be understood from within the context of God’s divine initiative and activity with the patriarchs and Israel, and its meaning and purpose for the Jew as revealed in the Old Testament. Then and only then can we rightly understand its application in the New Testament period to the church and the individual believer. The New Testament meaning is in continuity with the progression of the history and religion of Israel in the Old Testament. In addition, our study of the Old Testament patriarchs indicated that election includes the necessity of faith, which is the responsibility of the individual. It is faith that pleases God (Gen. 15:6; Heb. 11:6)
A. Phillip Brown II, in his paper titled “Election in the Old Testament,” states,
“Geerhardus Vos’s succinct observation that “the election of Abraham, and … of Israel, was meant as a particularistic means towards a universalistic end,” encapsulates, I believe, the essence of God’s purpose in salvific election.” (Brown, footnote 23 quoting G. Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948), 77.
Brown also writes,
“It seems that individual election may have salvation as its consequence, but the OT contains no explicit record of God choosing an individual to be saved. God’s choice to reveal Himself to Abram and to make him the head of a nation resulted in Abraham’s salvation, yet God chose Cyrus and revealed Himself to him, yet there is no indication that he was regenerated. The OT data does not seem to [sic] support the idea that personal salvation is the necessary consequence of individual election.” (Brown, footnote 24)
Therefore, election in the Old Testament does not refer primarily to individual salvation but to being a recipient, i.e., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), and the nation of Israel, of God’s promises, which will bring to pass God’s plans and purposes for the world. We saw this throughout the patriarchal narratives. A fuller revelation of the salvation of the individual is, of course, to be had in the New Testament, but we will have to let the New Testament guide us into those gospel truths and in what sense they are related to election.
I recommend reading the book of Deuteronomy as well as the entries for ἐκλέγομαι (eklegomai) and ἐκλογή (eklogé) in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). They are found in volume 4, pages 144-176 and 176-181 respectively. For example, in the entry on ἐκλέγομαι(eklegomai), which in the middle voice means “to choose something for oneself,” “to make one’s choice,” we read,
“The fact that Yahweh spoke with Israel and entered into covenant with it was regarded as the decision of His will. From all the nations He chose Israel to lead it through history as His own possession. Why did He do this? To what end? How can such a stupendous statement be proved? What value will a proof have, no matter what it may be?”[106]
These are penetrating questions that directly bear on our inquiry into the meaning of election in the New Testament. New Testament scholar N. T. Wright states that Israel’s election is set within the broader plans and purposes of this One God who is the Creator of all and who will “bring his whole creation to its intended fulfillment.” “Monotheism” as well as “election” can only be fully understood through narration, hence, hopefully our historical survey above served this good purpose. Wright observes,
“Belief in one god, who called Israel to be his people, is the very foundation of Judaism. The only proper way of talking about a god like this, who makes a world and then acts within it, is through narration. To ‘boil off’ an abstract set of propositions as though one were thereby getting to a more foundational statement would actually be to falsify this worldview at a basic point. This is not to say that we cannot use shorthand phrases and words to refer, in a few syllables, to a complex story-form worldview which it would be tedious to spell out each time. Thus the phrase ‘monotheism and election’ (see chapter 9 below) does not refer to two abstracted entities existing outside space and time. It is a way of summoning into the mind’s eye an entire worldview. In this, as we shall describe presently, Israel told and retold the story of how there was one god, the creator, and of how he had chosen Israel to be his special possession, and of how therefore he would eventually restore her fortunes and thereby bring his whole creation to its intended fulfillment. To provide the whole explanation each time would be impossibly wordy.”[107]
The concept and definition of ‘election’ has an Old Testament historical and theological context and complexity that renders the Calvinist interpretation of God having chosen which particular individuals would receive salvation over all others not having been chosen, as just wrong-headed. I have also demonstrated on this website that Calvinism is biblically incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory. This is so because its hermeneutic violates the principle of coherence. Calvinism is therefore the result of overly simplistic proof-texting and is based on definitions of the terms “elect’ or “chosen” taken out of context. This includes their Old Testament context. James Daane writes,
“If this is a substantially correct report of the election of Israel as we see it in the Old Testament, we may sum up as follows. The election of Israel is the election of a nation rather than an election of individuals. Israel’s election and creation are inseparable. God does not elect what is (Abram, impotent and childless) but what is not (Abraham, the father of a great nation, even many nations), and thus creates what he elects. Israel is not a nation fathered by someone other than God and later adopted by God as a stepson; it is rather a nation fathered, begotten, elected, and created by god himself. Israel’s existence is grounded in God’s election. And all this is reflected in the ground and nature of the covenant.
This sketch of the structure of the Old Testament view of Israel’s election shows it to be much too rich and complex to be contained within the traditional classical view of individual election. It also obviously differs from a view of election as a divine selection out of a fallen human race. …Furthermore, if what we have said is substantially faithful to the notion of election as it appears in the Old Testament, we may expect significant elements of this view to reappear in the form in which election confronts us in the New Testament.”[108]
The Nature of Election: Primarily A Social and Corporate Concept
Everything that has been said about election from the OT has been of Israel as a whole. It has referred to Israel as a nation or a group of people. Election did not refer to individuals, except in the instances of the patriarchs, and those were elected to special service. Election in the Old Testament is primarily a social and corporate concept in that God chose Israel as a nation to be “the people of God.” The words of the Jewish scholar and reverend Dr. Jakob Jocz are worth repeating here.
“Judaism has been described as ethical monotheism… “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One,” is the foundation of all Jewish thought and practice. …The God of Israel…is naturally the God of all mankind and Creator of the universe. But His relation to Israel is of a special nature. The awareness of chosenness is at the bottom of Jewish piety. “Our Father, our King” and “thou hast chosen us from all the nations” are recurring phrases in the liturgy of the Synagogue. In this way the Jews express their special relatedness to the God of Israel.”[109]
Granted, election began with God’s initiative at the individual level. God called Abram. But we also learn that Abraham’s call included God’s promise to “make of you a great nation.” (Gn. 12:2) So, election transcends this call of an individual. And again, in chapter 15, “And he [God] took him outside and said, “Look toward the heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then God said to him, “so shall your offspring be.” And he believed the Lord, and counted it to him as righteousness.” (Gn. 15:5,6) The Old Testament concept of the election of Israel was not the election of individuals to salvation but rather their establishment and separation by God to be ‘the people of God.’ Although Israel was the elect people of God, individuals within the elect nation could and did respond differently, in faith or unbelief, to God. Even as part of the elect people of God, individual persons rebelled, were judged, and even destroyed by God. Indeed, it is interesting that at one point in their history, election refers to the people choosing God; that is, it is said that Israel had ‘chosen the LORD, to serve him’ (Joshua 24:22). The Israelites had to make a choice or decision about their relationship to God, that is, who they would serve (Deut. 30:19; Joshua 24:15).
This corporate concept of election precludes us from thinking election in the New Testament involves an immutable decree of God regarding the salvation or reprobation of individuals. If that is the case, the New Testament will have to clearly teach that as its message of salvation. Such an extensive meaning cannot be gleaned merely from the use of the terms “elect,” election,” “chose,” “chosen,” and “predestined.” The mere use of these terms without an extensive explanation confirming that they teach Calvinism would support the opinion that the New Testament writers are using these concepts as they were defined in their Old Testament context. There are Old Testament instances where God does make a choice regarding individuals who are presented as unique for the purpose of fulfilling a certain office or for a special function. God’s ‘choice’ or ‘election’ of them is not a determination of that individual’s eternal destiny. Election, therefore, is primarily the divine choosing of a people to whom he would reveal himself and through whom he would bring about his purposes of salvation for all people. Election is therefore a methodology of God that is, by definition, initially exclusive for the very purpose of an ultimate inclusivity into the knowledge and salvation God accomplished “in Christ.” Indeed, “Salvation is from the Jews.” (Jn. 4:22) As the New Testament writers use these terms, those persons referred to as “elect” were not divinely predetermined to be saved apart from all others not elected to salvation. They are spoken of as “elect” because, given the fulfillment of further revelation as to the nature of salvation by grace through faith, those who now believe in Jesus, the Messiah, are reckoned among the new “people of God” in continuity with and the fulfillment of the Old Testament concept of election. Believers now stand in relation to God through their belief in the Christ of the New Covenant as the Jew stood in relation to God in the Old Covenant. They can be called the elect.
An interesting passage in this regard is 1 Thessalonians 1:4 and 5a.[110]
“For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, in the Holy Spirit, and with full assurance.” (CSB)
Paul seems to indicate that he can know the Thessalonians’ status as chosen. How does he know this? Why is this a concern for Paul? What does Paul mean to say in claiming to know that “he [God] has chosen you?” Does Paul have in mind here the divine predestination to salvation of certain individual Thessalonians? Not at all. When Paul uses this election terminology, he is talking to the whole group of those who have believed in Jesus. He is not explaining why a person believes, nor is he claiming insight into God’s premundane decision to unconditionally elect some Thessalonians as opposed to all the others who are not and cannot be saved. That would never enter Paul’s mind, because it was not part of his gospel. Rather, Paul was employing the word “chosen” to apply its Old Testament association with Israel to those who now believe in Jesus. Paul is using the term to bring to mind God’s initiative or call, his love, faithfulness, provision, etc. of Old Testament Israel – everything it meant for them to be his elect people – and assigning that to those Thessalonians who believe in Jesus Christ. As Israel was to God as his elect in the Old Testament, believers are God as his elect in the New Testament. Only now, in the New Testament, the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile is broken down. All those who believe are elect in Jesus Christ. In his commentary on 1 Thessalonians, Abraham Smith writes the following about 1:4-5.
“Often deemed a signal of “group identity or a close sense of group kinship” (e.g., Deut 15:3),[111] the expression ἀδελφοὶ (adelphoi, “brothers and sisters”) here connotes a fictive kinship group, all of whose members can claim God as their Father (cf. 1:1). Similarly, the expressions “beloved of God” (Deut 33:12) and “chosen” (Deut 4:37; 7:6-8; 10:14-15;14:2) are election terms drawn from the OT, leading one scholar to aver: “It is clear by this early stage in his thinking Paul has already developed the concept of the church as the Israel of God.”[112]
Also, the church in Thessalonica, as a group, is viewed by Paul in terms of Israel in the Old Testament – the special possession of God by virtue of their faith in his fulfilled work in Christ. They were called out by the gospel and, having believed, they can be understood as the new Israel of God – the “elect,” the people of God. More on this and another relevant and important Thessalonians passage later.
Note that Smith mentions “the concept of the church as the Israel of God.” We must, at least briefly, examine the church in connection with election.
The Purpose of Election: Service and Salvation of the Nations
In the TDNT, we read,
“The idyllically presented traditions concerning the God of the fathers in the Genesis sagas bring the early period, too, within the compass of the belief in election. God caused the people to come into existence out of one family. The sons of Abraham are to be as numerous as the stars of heaven, as is said with figurative hyperbole and in terms of a specific view of blessing. In this fulness they are to bring blessing, i.e., the fulfillment of life, salvation, and fortune to all the nations of earth (Gn. 22:18; 26:4). This will come to pass because Abraham, the servant of God (26:24), in obedience and trust and against every consideration and custom followed God’s call to the unknown…for all the dubious and all too human elements, we suddenly come on the statement that Abraham believed. (15:6).”[113]
Here, election is to the service of God in trust and obedience, and participation in bringing to pass God’s salvation plan. Abraham is a servant of God (Gen. 26:24) through whom “all the families on the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3, ESV). Also, of equal importance, we saw that God acknowledges the faith of Abraham and reckons it to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6). If one sees here, or perhaps in Abraham’s obedience in 12:4, his ‘conversion’ to salvation, we still do not have the Calvinists’ idea of a premundane unconditional election or predestination of specific individuals to salvation apart from the possibility of salvation for any others. Rather, according to Gen. 12:1-3, Abraham is chosen to serve at least two purposes. They were to become a great nation blessed by God, and again, that through Abraham “all the families on the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3, ESV). This salvific purpose has no hint of an ‘unconditional election’ by God to save some individuals and not others. And if the Calvinist insists that once we get into the New Testament, their “doctrines of grace” become clearer, we respond that if there are interpretations of the controversial texts in the New Testament that are consistent with what we have found in the Old Testament and also provide coherent, consistent, and non-contradictory interpretations of those controversial passages, then Calvinism proves itself untenable, because it violates the hermeneutical principles of coherence, consistency, and non-cntradiction, not only with the Old Testament history, but also within the interpretation of the New Testament passages as I have clearly demonstrated on this site.
We read in Genesis 18 that Abraham was chosen to bring about the promises of God.
“For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” (Gen. 18:19, NIV)
This ‘choosing’ also applied to Israel as a ‘people’ or ‘nation.’ In TDNT, we read that the book of Deuteronomy,
“…seems to have been the first work to give a strict and precise meaning to the nation and its history, and to express this in the succinct form of an article of faith: “The Lord hath chosen thee for himself as a possession out of all the nations that are upon the earth” (Dt. 14:2).
Nevertheless, the idea behind this precise formulation of the concept of election was a vital one from the very beginning of the nation’s existence as the “people of Yahweh” (Ju. 5:11) Only the term election was needed to give the idea significance from the standpoint of salvation history. On the basis of the Gn. tradition it seems to be likely enough that the idea had already given a distinctive impress to the form of patriarchal religion. It certainly bears testimony to the spiritual outlook which characterises all the impulses in the national life of Israel from an early period, and which is usually described as the belief in election in the broader sense.”[114]
So, the TNDT suggests the term “elect” has spiritual or religious overtones from Israel’s beginning. “Salvation history” was always in play as part of God’s words to Abraham in Gen 12:3 (cf. Gen 3:15). In Deut. 7:6 we read of Israel’s election.
“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.” (Deut. 7:6, NIV)
What is the nature of this election? One aspect was to involve their rejection of heathenism. Interestingly, when the Israelites enter the land that was promised to Abraham, God tells Israel that it is occupied by “seven nations larger and stronger than you…” (7:1, NIV) God tells them, “…you must destroy them totally” (NIV) or “you must devote them to complete destruction (ESV). (Note: “The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them; also in verse 26.” (NIV, footnote) Why this total destruction?[115] The TDNT states,
“Anger at heathenism is caused by the recognition that the life of the [sic] heathen does not correspond to the norm of God, since it gives evidence of cults and customs which are unworthy of man. Thus Dt. 9:5 refers frankly to the wickedness on account of which Israel must avoid pagan nations. In the very same breath, however, there is a warning against arrogance: “Think not when thy God doth chase them out before thee, that it is for the uprightness of thine heart. Remember, and forget not, that thou hast provoked thy God to wrath.”…The point of this explicit presentation is indeed to keep this out of the belief in election, to lift the belief above the emotionalism of national feeling, to make it serve the fruitful observance of the demands of the covenant.”[116]
The TDNT comments that “the national element is very strong in the concept of election.”[117] And although Israel was not to be influenced by the heathenism of the nations, God warned his people to beware of the tendency to see themselves as “upright” and therefore deserving of this special elective relationship to God. They were not to think of themselves as superior to the other nations. Moreover, even Israel, as the Old Testament testifies to over and over again, was stubborn, sinful, and “provoked God to wrath.” This means that Israel, even as the elect people of God, was not immune to God’s just punishments and discipline, as their defeats and captivities by the Assyrians and the Babylonians revealed. Israel, as God’s people, was not immune to God’s just judgments. Indeed, their election is the rationale behind their punishments. In the TDNT, we read,
“And yet Israel receives the prophetic message “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for your iniquities.” (Am. 3:2). Divine election does not mean dominion or primacy.”[118]
Yet, the nature of election is integrally related to God’s love. And although divine love is behind the election of Israel, it is a love that would extend to all nations. The TDNT states the following about Israel.
“…It is because the God of the world loved you that He elected you. The sober thought of mystery is linked with this. It would be obviously arbitrary to draw out the opposite implication that He did not love the nations. For the reference is not to the nations. It is to the fact that He spoke with Israel. The basis of love is not a logical basis. It is the admission, proceeding from the strongest possible feeling, that the election is an inexplicable fact. In so far as it can be explained and interpreted, this can be only in terms of its factuality, not of the motives, as a comprehensive explanation would demand. Instructive at this point is the attempt of the author to show formally that there could be no question of God being controlled by a motive for taking Israel out of the nations which could be justified on logical grounds or reached by logical examination. Neither imposing greatness or power (7:7), nor uprightness and purity (9:5), can have impressed Him, since this tiny and wayward people does not possess either of these two characteristics (9:6). The people has to be formally urged to accept the gift of love, (Footnote “Hosea 2:18. → I, 31 f. (ἀγάπη)) and the nations are astonished at the gift (4:6 ff.).”[119]
Indeed, God’s election or choosing of Israel was for the purpose that they would know God and be his witnesses to others as to his love, and thus, also his salvation that he has provided for all people “in Christ.”
“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he.” (Isa. 43:10, ESV, Italics mine)
Isaiah continues,
“Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I. I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and I am God.” (Isa. 43:10-12, ESV, Italics mine)
“But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen.” (Isa. 44:1, ESV, Italics mine)
“Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from old and declared it? And you are my witnesses!” (Isa. 44:8, ESV, Italics mine)
Also, the purpose of their being witnesses to the only true God was to bring salvation to the nations. To know and worship the only true God is to know that salvation comes through him.
“Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (Isa. 45:22, ESV, Italics mine)
“I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” (Isa. 49:6, ESV, Italics mine)
“Therefore my people shall know my name. Therefore in that day they shall know that it is I who speak; here am I.” How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” (Isa. 52:6-7, ESV, Italics mine)
“The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” (Isa. 52:10, ESV, Italics mine)
And with respect to those outside of Israel, they too may join themselves to the Lord. Isaiah states,
“Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people…these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” (Isa. 56:3,7, ESV, Italics mine)
The Reverend Dr. Jakob Jocz reflects on the inadequacy of traditional and contemporary Judaism compared to the saving message of the prophets.
“…it seems to us that the most radical departure from the prophetic ideal on the part of Judaism lies in its relationship to the outside world. It is not enough for the Synagogue to keep on repeating in its liturgy: ’atah behartanu mikol ha-’amim – thou hast chosen us from all the nations…and rest content in the knowledge of its privilege. The prophets never understood election except in terms of service. Israel has a duty towards the nations which cannot be fulfilled by its present policy of passive endurance. This was clearly recognized by C. G. Montefiore, the leader of Liberal Judaism in Britain.[120] But the fact remains that Judaism of every shade, be it orthodox or Liberal, has no message of Salvation for the outside world. Judaism is therefore always under suspicion of tribalism. The God of the prophets is now primarily the God of a people, and the Synagogue has never been able to raise its voice with conviction and call the world as the prophet did: “Turn to me and be saved all the ends of the earth!” (Is. 45:22)[121]
Another Jew of the first century – the apostle Paul – also understood these same purposes and problems in the Jewish attitude and response to God and Jesus in his day. Serious questions arose about God’s plans, promises, and present actions with Israel, given that they are his “chosen people,” and yet they rejected Jesus, their Messiah. How then can we understand the Jews’ rejection of the salvation that has now been fulfilled in Christ? Have God’s word and promises to Israel failed? All this needed explanation, which Paul provides in Romans, especially chapters 9–11.
The nation of Israel, as the chosen people of God, is established by God himself, not for purposes of sustained isolation and exclusivity, but for the inclusivity of all people into the “people of God” or “the elect” by bringing to them the message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. That is, as the people of God, Israel was called to the service of the nations and to bring God’s salvation to all people. Corporately, as ‘the house of Jacob,” or Israel, they were privileged to know the only true God, receive and be witnesses to his self-revelation, and be the channel through which God would bring about his merciful, salvific purposes for all people (cf. Rom. 9:4-5).
So, we see from the Old Testament that God intends salvation to be universal in scope. Whether in reference to an individual or a group, election is the designation given to believers in Jesus in continuity with everything special regarding God’s relationship with Israel in the Old Testament. That is the paradigm of election as it applies to the New Testament believer. Election is not the full and final explanation of why and how a person is saved, as in Calvinism. Election refers to the treasure chest of blessings the believer inherits, which is patterned after the divine relationship God had with Israel. It does not refer to the reason or cause of the believer’s salvation as in Calvinism. God’s election or selection of the patriarchs and the nation of Israel serves this ultimate salvific purpose. Election is not about God predestining who would and would not be saved. We have also seen the necessity of a response of faith in God that pleases him. This is the framework of the Old Testament’s witness to God and his ultimate purposes. This is relevant to how we should understand the use of these terms – “elect,” “election,” “chosen,” and “predestined” – by the New Testament writers. Jocz makes this important observation.
“On the surface, the Old Testament appears to be a nationalistic book which concerns itself with the life and struggle of one single people. But on closer examination it reveals an undercurrent of universalism which frequently broadens to include the nations of the world.
…we must realize that the Old Testament is the battlefield of two opposing trends. We can almost say that the spiritual history of Israel is the story of the struggle between universalism and nationalism…Once we make universalism the focal point of Hebrew prophetism, the connection between Old Testament and New Testament springs into perspective. In the Gospel and in the message of the early Church, prophetic universalism reaches its highest expression and reveals the extent to which Jesus is the fulfiller of the Law and the Prophets. It is in the messianic proclamation of the Kingdom of God that the prophetic vision begins to take concrete form; i.e. the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. The fact that the nations respond to the invitation and come to the God of Jacob to be taught His ways and to walk in His paths (Is. 2:3) was of no small significance to the early Church.” [122]
Israel tended toward an introverted, nationalistic, exclusive pride due to their historic election by God to be his people. Israel wrongly perceived their election as an exclusive divine favoritism. They failed to understand that the blessings and privileges that God bestowed upon them (Rom. 9:4-5) by his grace were for the purpose that they would be a blessing to all nations. They were to be God’s witnesses to all people (Is. 43:10-12). Jocz observes,
“Biblical universalism which begins with the statement that God is Creator of man, continues with remarkable persistency right through the Old Testament. Abram’s call includes a blessing for the nations: “…in you all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). The book of Ruth, the book of Jonah, the great pronouncements in the Prophets, the many Psalms, all these testify that the biblical vision extends beyond Israel to the nations of the world…”[123]
It is here in the Old Testament, for these reasons, that Calvinism has already lost its biblical credibility. It does not properly reflect the nature of election in the Old Testament. Furthermore, we have not even touched upon Israel’s stubborn, rebellious, and disobedient behavior towards God and his grace to them. God’s words and interactions with them about their faithlessness can only be coherently understood based on human free will and moral responsibility. This constant dynamic throughout the Old Testament history of Israel is incoherent given Calvinism’s universal divine causal determinism. Israel forgot they were to be the means by which God would show his mercy to all people by accomplishing salvation for them in the Messiah that was to come through them. God’s choice of Israel had the purpose of extending salvation to all, not based on Israel’s nationalistic privilege or works of the law, but through the individual’s response of faith in Christ, which was the expression of God’s mercy and grace to them.
Paul’s phrase, “In order that God’s purpose of election would continue…” (Rom. 9:11) has reference to God orchestrating that salvation would be brought about by way of his promises, thus disarming Israel from claiming that salvation is based on and limited to their privileged lineage in Abraham. Granted the lineage of Abraham was the context through which the promises were accomplished, but the important thing is that they were promises or directives by God about through whom the promises would be fulfilled. What God’s involvement through promise (i.e., his purpose in election), indicated was that God was extending mercy to both Israel and all people. It does not speak of a divine purpose to save certain predestined individuals as opposed to “passing by” others. Such a soteriology is antithetical to the import of many theological themes and the universalistic divine purposes of mercy and grace found throughout Scripture.
Jocz goes on to cite many examples of this universalism in the Old Testament. For example, in the book of Exodus, “the stranger” is not to be oppressed. He is to be protected and treated with kindness. The rationale being, “You shall not oppress a stranger; you know the heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex. 23:9).[124] Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, comes to profess “faith in Jahwe because He delivered Israel from under the hand of the Egyptians and even offers sacrifices to that God: “Now I know that Jahwe is greater than all gods,” he declares. In the same chapter, we find Jethro instructing Moses in the councils of God (v. 23)…”[125]
Also,
“Be it noted that according to the biblical account, long before Israel appears on the scene, God makes a covenant with mankind and sets a rainbow as a sign and token of His promise (Gen. 9:13 fl.). The human race has a common ancestor whose name is simply MAN (Adam); the various races spring from the same family. Israel is not a people apart but belongs to the family of nations. In Gen. 10 we encounter a long list tabulating the nations as known to the writer at the time…All these were under the Covenant of God with the sons of Noah. The God of Israel is here pronounced to be the God of all humanity.”[126]
Old Testament scholar Terrence Fretheim, in his commentary on Genesis, observes that the construction of the beginning of the canon with the creation account instead of the birth of Israel is very significant. He writes,
“The fact that the creation account rather than the birth of Israel stands at the head of the canon remains of considerable importance…This canonical ordering corresponds to human experience of God’s activity. Human beings in all times and places have experienced (even if they have not known) God’s creative acts prior to and alongside of God’s redemptive acts. Human beings receive their life and all their native gifts from the Creator quite apart from their knowledge of the source. The redemptive work of God takes place within a world and individual lives that have been brought into being and sustained by God’s care. God’s redemptive activity does not occur in a vacuum, but within a context decisively shaped by the life-giving work of God within and without Israel…The position of Genesis 1-2 demonstrates that God’s purpose in redemption does not, finally, center on Israel. God as Creator has a purpose that spans the world, and since divine deeds are rooted in the divine will, God’s redemptive activity must be understood to serve this universal intention. Israel’s place in the purposes of God are clear only from within this creation-wide perspective. Israel’s election furthers God’s mission on behalf of the entire universe.”[127]
Again, this universalism is prevalent throughout Isaiah. “I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light to the nations” (Is. 42:6). “Let them give glory to the Lord, and declare his praise in the coastlands.” (Is. 42:12) “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth!” (Is. 45:22) “I will make you a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” (Is. 49:6) “The Lord has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” (Is. 52:10) “So shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.” (Is 52:15) “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (Is. 53:6)
And Isaiah 55 and 56 are clear in their universal calls for all to come to the Lord, “hear, that your soul may live,” (55:3) “seek him while he may be found,” (55:6) and the wicked should “forsake his way” and “return to the Lord that he may have compassion on him and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” (55:7) “Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, ‘The Lord will surely separate me from his people’;” (56:3) “The Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, ‘I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.’” (56:8) What we also observe here is God’s call for a response to his intiatives – “hear,” “seek,” “forsake,” “return,” “join” and “others” (i.e., those who believe).
The Calvinist will aver that these verses mean that God has unconditionally elected individuals among all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues. The scope of unconditional election knows no boundaries. Yet Calvinism reintroduces another kind of exclusivity contrary to the clear meaning, spirit, and intent of these passages. The biblical witness affirms that salvation is intended for all nations and goes forth to all nations, not only without distinction, but also without exception as to the individuals in those nations, tribes, peoples, or tongues. This is the only understanding that makes sense of this universal message of the prophets. If God is saying he has a saving concern for the nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues of the earth, it makes no sense to understand salvation merely in those terms. Granted, there is corporate language used to speak about salvation. That is an important part of the non-Calvinist’s argument regarding election. Election can be thought of in that way. But even then, the individual is not completely lost as essential to the group. Furthermore, even though the prophet speaks in corporate terms, it is an imposition foreign to the text to claim this supports unconditional election of individuals to salvation. How does that follow from such prophetic statements? It does not. The Calvinist doctrine must be gleaned from somewhere else and then imposed on these words, which, taken in their plain sense and in context, clearly speak about God’s intention of universal salvation. God does not save “nations,” “tribes,” “peoples,” or “tongues” in the abstract. He does so with respect to the individuals in those entities. He does not save the entity of a nation. God saves individuals from among these nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues. That is another way of saying, “every single person.” Hence, Calvinism’s salvific exclusivity must be read into these texts. It is not gleaned from them. And when it is read into the text, the text has to “float” or remain at the level of the abstract, because Calvinism cannot discern or make any commitment as to who the elect individuals are in these groups. In contrast, the non-Calvinist can speak about a salvation that is for all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, because it has the “good news” that God loves each person in those groups, i.e., the whole world, and that each person can be saved. It is only through the acceptance of the gospel that people are saved, whether we speak of them in terms of a group (e.g., Israel, Gentiles) or an individual in that group. Yes, God chose Israel as a people, but that was not to their salvation as a group. It is when we move into the New Testament and the fulfillment of the purposes of the Old Testament and Israel that more is revealed regarding God’s plan of salvation. This was Paul’s special purpose for which God chose or elected him. As the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13; Acts 9:15; Gal. 2:7; Eph. 3:1-8), he was given insight by revelation (Gal. 1:12; Eph. 3:3) into the gospel and its relationship and continuity with the Old Testament and the implications of salvation by faith in Christ for both Jews and Gentiles. Paul was given insight into “the mystery of Christ,” which has “now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph. 3:4-6, ESV).
Note the group language (e.g., Gentiles, body), yet Paul goes on to say “This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him” (Eph. 3:11-12, ESV). Obviously, Paul is referring to the individual when he speaks about faith here. Corporate thought and language and the responsibility of faith at the individual level are not mutually exclusive. Each person must believe for themselves, as each person is held accountable for their own unbelief and sins, as Ezekiel 18 makes clear. That salvation is individual is obvious from the Old and New Testaments. Although God created the nation of Israel for the purposes I have communicated above, not all the Israelites had faith as we see in both the Old and New Testaments. Election is not about their individual eternal destinies or the eternal destiny of a group. Israel, as a people, was expected to trust God because of God’s unique relationship with them. But that places an expectation of faith upon each individual in the group. So as a group they did not trust God because many individuals did not trust God. But that does not mean that all the individual Israelites did not trust God. Many did (i.e., the prophets, Jospeh, David, the disciples, etc.), others of the majority did not. The Israelites were chosen (i.e., elect) for service, witness, and as the people through whom the Messiah would come. But their salvation would occur person by person as they trusted their God and believed in Jesus who he has sent. If God loves a nation or people group, that entails that he loves the individuals that make up that nation or people group. You cannot love the group apart from loving the individuals in that group. And yet, it is appropriate when speaking about election for the biblical writers to refer to whole groups because of the historical context of Israel as elect in contrast to the Gentiles as not elect. What this tells us is that election is fundamentally a corporate, group, or social concept. Yet, it does not lose perspective regarding the individual. But that perspective is formed in continuity with the Old Testament history of God’s election of the patriarchs and Israel as elect. This means that in the New Testament, with the coming of Christ and the need for faith, the term ‘elect’ or ‘chosen’ now refers to those who believe in Jesus. It becomes a designation for those individuals who put their faith in Jesus. But that designation has profound significance. New Testament believers in Jesus obtain the blessings of God analogous to Israel’s blessings as described in the Old Testament. Peter helps us to understand this transition and the incorporation of the Gentiles into “the people of God.” He writes,
“…you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” (1 Pet. 2:9-10, NIV)
The Phillips translation captures the application of these blessing to the Gentiles with the phrase “all the old titles of God’s people now belong to you.” (1 Pet. 2:9, J.B. Phillips)
Furthermore, the Old Testament narrative is contrary to Calvinism’s divine exhaustive determinism. Throughout its pages we read of events marked by free will, contingency, potentiality, and possibility. These occur negatively through warnings of judgment and positively through invitations to repent and believe. Jocz concludes,
“In most cases the prophet’s utterance is that of judgment in recompense for cruelty to Israel. But their ultimate vision goes beyond the immediate situation and conjures up a time when Israel and the nations are united in the worship of the one and only God who is both the God of Israel and the God of the Gentiles. From here there is a straight line to the New Testament with its message of salvation to the nations of the world.”[128]
James Daane summarizes as follows:
“The movement of God’s elective and creative action may be illustrated by concentric circles that rise like a cone from a wide base until they reach their peak where the whole is concentrated in a single point. From the broad base of Abraham and his seed God’s elective action moves toward him who is the true Israel of God; from the many prophets of God to the Chief Prophet, himself the Word of God; from the many Old Testament priests to the only High Priest; from many kings to the true Son of David who will rule forever over a kingdom that has no end; from Abraham’s seed which says Paul, is Christ and is not many seeds but one (Gal. 3:16). God’s elective and creative action moves from a nation who is the suffering servant of God, the light of the Gentiles, created by God as a covenant for the peoples and projected as the hope of the end of the earth, to him who came in the form of a servant, whose blood is the blood of the new covenant, and who is the glory of Israel and the Light of the world.
Such an elective-creative movement of God in Israel’s history carries with is a displacement of Israel’s prophets, priests, and kings, her synagogues and temple, her laws and covenant until there is room for only one: Jesus Christ.”[129]
Jesus: The Elect One of God
We need to conclude our study of election in the Old Testament by including the epitome of that method and its purpose in Christ Jesus. In Isaiah 42:1, we read this prophecy about Jesus.
“Behold my servant whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him…” (Italics mine.)
The apostle Peter writes about Jesus as “chosen.”
“As you come to him, a living stone—rejected by people but chosen and honored by God—you yourselves, as living stones, a spiritual house, are being built to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:
See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and honored cornerstone,
and the one who believes in him
will never be put to shame.” (1 Pet. 2:4-6, CSB. Italics mine.)
A peek into the New Testament reveals that salvation, which is God’s doing, was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Salvation is then appropriated by the sinner on the grounds of their response (i.e., responsibility) of faith. The term “elect” was extended from its Old Testament context to apply to the body of New Testament believers constituted of both Jews and Gentiles. Election has its source in the meaning God gave it by his calling or choosing Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to establish the nation of Israel as his chosen or elect people. To be among the elect means to be the recipients of all of God’s initiatives, care, promises, protections, and covenants. Similarly, in the New Testament, the terms “elect” or “chosen” carry with them God’s initiatives, care, promises, protection, and a new covenant. But here in the New Testament these terms apply to the establishment of a “people of God” who become such by their faith in the “Chosen One” – Jesus Christ (Isa. 42:1ff; Matt. 12:18; 1 Pet. 2:4, 6; Lu. 9:35, 23:35; BEDBT – Matt. 24:22; Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:12; Titus 1:1; Rev. 17:14). All the blessings and privileges that were Israel’s as God’s elect people are now spoken of as applying to New Testament believers (1 Pet. 2:9-10) because they are “in Christ.” All the blessings that flow from God to this new “elect” group, composed of those who believe the gospel of their salvation, were established and patterned in God’s choice of Israel as his special people. As was the relationship of God in the Old Testament with Israel, the term “elect” is now applied in all its fullness of meaning to God’s relationship with believers as Christians. James Daane writes,
“Observe that Jesus the Son of God is said to be the Christ because he was ordained, that is, elected, by God and therefore anointed with the Spirit. By virtue of this divine election and anointing Jesus, the Son of God, is said to reveal fully “the secret counsel and will of God concerning our redemption.”
“… Jesus is the Christ because of his election. If the believer bears – in the profound biblical sense – the name of Christ by bearing the name of Christian, he does so because he shares in the election of Christ. The idea that we share or participate in Christ is characteristic of the Christian religion …And we share in his election. That we do so is only another expression for the fact that election in biblical thought is never a purely individual matter. The election of the believer, as that of Israel and the church, is an involvement in the divine election of Jesus.”[130]
As we move into the New Testament, Israel’s failure becomes an important issue regarding God’s word of promise to the patriarchs and for the nature of salvation for both Jew and Gentile. This unique and problematic historical situation needs to be explained, so it is taken up, mainly by the apostle Paul in Romans 9-11. He must explain and answer the serious theological problems and questions that the rejection of Jesus by the Jewish leadership and the Jewish people raises. Given the fulfillment of God’s salvific plans and purposes in Jesus Christ, how is it that the very nation that was chosen or elected by God to be “the people of God” and from whom the Messiah would come has rejected their Messiah? Has God’s word to them failed? Has God therefore rejected his people? And who can be saved given the fulfillment of the saving work in Christ? Is salvation for Israel only? Can the Gentiles be saved?
Given the above considerations, the focus of God’s election or selective purposes in the Old Testament was to culminate in the person and work of Christ. The Bible teaches that he is God’s “Elect One” (Isa. 42:1; 1 Pet. 2:4, cf. 1 Pet. 1:20, NIV). Therefore, those who are “in Christ” are also termed the ‘elect’ or ‘chosen,’ for they now too are part of “the people of God.” (cf. Eph. 1) “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,” says Paul (Rom 9:6, ESV). For it is only by believing in Christ as the Son of God and what God has done in Christ, providing the only way of salvation, that one becomes part of the true Israel, ‘the people of God.’ As such, they are ‘the elect.’
This is the New Testament way of describing those who presently believe in Christ as now part of the stream of the saving plan and purpose of God from Old Testament times. They have entered into God’s “purpose of election.” The elect are those who believe in Christ. The biblical testimony is that those who believe in Christ are elect “in him.” It is not that those who are among the unconditionally elect believe. The definition of the word “elect” has to do with God’s choices and determinations, which are his prerogative as the sovereign God in bringing about salvation through his people, Israel, not his predestination of individuals to salvation or damnation. Although his plans and purposes did involve the selection of certain individuals, their salvation or eternal destiny was not in view in our Old Testament survey, nor is it in view in Romans 9. Those who believe are elect because they are found “in Christ.” There is no exegetical evidence for understanding election as a static decree of God predestining some to salvation while damning all others for reasons only God knows. The whole scheme is contrary to the biblical evidence, our God-given logical and moral frames of reference, and most importantly, the gospel message as “good news.” James Daane has written,
“Reformed theologians never solved the problem of “an election for some and a gospel for all.”[131]
He also writes,
“Election is not the one point at which the Bible goes individualistic. Yet almost every great doctrinal controversy in Reformed theology has arisen from the individualistic character of its doctrine of election. In biblical thought the believer shares in all that Christ is and does. Christ is the only Son of God, yet the Bible says that we are sons of God; his death is unique, yet we are said to have died with him; Jesus is the only Christ and all others are false, yet believers bear his name…One of Christ’s benefits is his election by God, which makes him preeminent in all things.
…The idea of participation in Christ’s election spells the end of any purely individualistic doctrine of election and the illegitimacy of theologically tailoring the gospel to fit such a doctrine. It liberates us from the insoluble problem that merely individual election raises for the proclamation of the gospel. It makes election the language of grace, thereby removing its vulnerability to rational manipulation in terms of logical inferences and implications.”[132]
Daane continues,
“The truth of election as participation in Christ’s election can be spoken only in the idiom of faith and worship, in the languages of proclamation that summons men to believe. This means that the truth of election is not a biblical base from which reprobation can be projected as a biblical explanation of the fact that some men do not believe. For Christ is the truth of election, the reason that some men are saved, but not the reason that some are not. This means that any doctrine of reprobation is illegitimate by biblical standards except that which biblical teaching sanctions: that he who rejects God, God rejects. Any doctrine of reprobation that goes beyond the biblical teaching of election, any doctrine of reprobation that arises outside of faith by the power of human logic, must be regarded as biblically undefensible.”
Election and the Church
Finally, we must say a word about election in relation to the church. The Christian church, as a whole, is also designated as “elect.” Some may ask, “Well, how can you have a group that is elect without the individual being elect?” The answer involves further clarification. “If the individuals are elect, in what sense or definition are they elect?” In other words, should our definition presuppose that the Calvinists’ definition of unconditional election to salvation is biblical? Is the church just a collection of unconditionally elect persons? This we cannot say lest we beg the question, because whether that Calvinist definition is biblical is what our inquiry is all about. And I submit that the cumulative evidence, not only given in this chapter but throughout this website, has already demonstrated that the Calvinist definition of unconditional election is false. Not only has the philosophical evidence proved this, but also the hermeneutical and exegetical evidence. Therefore, consistent with all this evidence, the church can be spoken of as elect because, as each individual believes in Jesus, the elect One, they become partakers of the fulfillment of the reason Israel was chosen, to bring us the Messiah, Jesus. James Danne explains.
“The church is a thing of mystery. Its mystery stems from what Paul refers to as “the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). Paul asserts that this mystery “was made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (vs. 5). What is the mystery of Christ? “How the Gentiles are fellow heirs, member of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (vs. 6). By the grace of God Paul was made a minister of this mystery to the Gentiles “to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord” (vv. 9-11).”
“This is a rich biblical deposit of truth about the church. The mystery of the church derives from the mystery of Christ, namely, that God in his wisdom eternally purposed in Christ that the Gentiles should become heirs and partakers of all the spiritual blessings that belong to Israel by virtue of her election. The actualization of this mysterious eternal purpose in Christ, through the gospel, creates the church, so that the wisdom of God, who created all things, might through the existence of the church be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.”[133]
Daane also affirms what we have learned in our study of election in the Old Testament about the uniqueness of Israel’s election. But the intent of Israel’s election in service of the salvation of the nations finds its critical point of fulfillment in the death of Christ. Paul writes about how a “mystery” was made known to him by revelation (Eph. 3:2). He calls it “the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4) which was not known to other generations, but is now revealed “to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit (Ep. 3:5). What is that “mystery?” It is not who is unconditionally elected to salvation and who isn’t. Paul states,
“This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (Eph. 3:6, ESV, cf. Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:29; Titus 3:7; Heb. 6:17, 11:9, et al.)
Paul continues,
“To me…this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in god who created all things, so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.” (Eph. 3:8-12, ESV)
Daane writes,
“This mystery of the church was not wholly unknown in the former generations. The Old Testament does speak of Israel as a blessing to all the nations of the earth, and Abraham as the father of many nations. Yet from these suggestive affirmations the emergence of the church could not be deduced. What prevented such deductions was the fact of Israel’s exclusive election by God. She alone, and no Gentile nation was elect. Hence the mystery of Christ also lay athwart such a process of logical inference, for the mystery of Christ is disclosed in that creative action of Christ’s death, whereby he created of Jew and Gentile that one new humanity which is the church. The inference of the election of a church containing Gentiles from Israel’s election faced a gap that only the creative power of Christ’s death could fill (see Eph. 2:11ff.). Israel’s election was something she could not share with other nations. God himself had assured her of her peculiar relation to himself. It took the creative act of Christ’s death to make Gentiles heirs and partakers of Israel’s election.”[134]
The point here is that although salvation is an individual matter by faith in Jesus, Paul understands this against the background of Israel’s special place as having been elected or chosen by God to be his people in his service as his witnesses and to bring salvation to the nations. Duaane argues that the church is not a “community of the elect.” Rather, it is an elect community. It is the church as a whole that is elect. Paul calls it “the body of Christ.” He writes, “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” (1 Cor. 12:27, NIV) The corporate emphasis is lost within the description “community of the elect.” Daane points out that “According to biblical thought, it seems that individual election does not do justice to the election of the church. …The attempt to define the church in terms of elected individuals always becomes in the end a definition of the church in terms of the number of the elect. And this does not define the church as an elect community, for the number of the church is only one. There is but one holy, catholic church, and the church is not defined by number but by unity.”[135]
So there is a corporate nature of Paul’s writings about the church that references the individual when he qualifies “the body of Christ” with “and each one of you is a part of it.” Although this qualification may have served to remedy the false superiority of one’s spiritual gift over another’s, the solution to which is precisely to understand the corporate nature of their election. They are “the body of Christ.” Again, the historical context is very important. Daane comments,
“The church that took shape with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was a wholly Jewish church. The amazement that the gospel was also for the Gentiles and the stubborn reluctance of the Jerusalem church to accept this ar familiar. The Jerusalem church tried to reduce this new phenomenon into something more palatable by the demand that Gentile Christians become Jewish Christians. The Jewish church for some time insisted that the church was for Jews only. It required a transformation of their theology to rid them of this idea. When they finally acknowledged that Gentiles could also share in the salvation wrought by Israel’s Messiah, they knew something new had happened. And it was Paul who gave them a new understanding of the church by disclosing the mystery of the church.” (139)
Paul’s Doxology and Calvinism’s Explanatory Failure
It’s no wonder that Paul exalts in what God has done. In his doxology in Ephesians, Paul writes, “Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.” (Eph. 3:20-21, ESV)
And we can now appreciate some of Paul’s reasoning and his praise in Romans 11: 25-36, although much more needs to be said, and will be said, when we deal with this passage separately. Paul writes,
“I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
“Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
“Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”
For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.”
Even this short section of Romans 11 is incoherent with Calvinism’s deterministic interpretation of chapter 9. The praise Paul gives is not referring to the unfathomable ways of God in working out his universal divine causal determinism, that is, unconditional election or predestination. I hope you can see that Paul’s statements and praise are best understood within God’s working out of a universal salvation testified to in the Old Testament history we have surveyed above. The point is that there is no hint of Calvinism in that history (or here in these verses in Romans), and any references to the elect or election are coherently interpreted within the context of the Old Testament history of the doctrine (and the epistle of Romans).
So there are subtle nuances to the doctrine of election that, if over-simplified, can reduce it to the Calvinists’ determinism that maintains “God chose those who will be saved.” This is not merely an incredible intellectual reduction of the doctrine that insults Paul’s genuinely Christian theology; it wouldn’t take Paul sixteen chapters to explain the doctrine of salvation if it consisted of the five points of Calvinism – but Calvinism is also a serious distortion of the doctrine of election. It ignores the historical context of the Old and New Testaments, the literary context of the passages in question, as well as the insurmountable logical and moral difficulties Calvinism entangles itself in. Hopefully, you are beginning to see not only the complexity of the biblical concept of election but also its profound spiritual implications and the depth of its encouragement in being considered elect in Christ. I submit that because its foundations are rooted in the Old Testament history, which is extensive and culturally distant from us, causing us to fail to give it the attention it deserves, the doctrine of election has been misinterpreted and misunderstood by Calvinists. Divorced from its Old Testament moorings, election has become distorted by the Calvinists’ superficial proof-texting of New Testament passages taken out of their context and reconstructed into an anti-gospel heretical doctrinal system identified by the acrostic TULIP.
This study ought to provide the Old Testament context through which you can read and interpret the New Testament passages I will examine next more accurately.
Return to Chapter 16 – The Doctrine of Election According to Scripture
Footnotes
[1] G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Phillipsburg: Puritan and Reformed Publishing Co., 1978), 3.III.1, p. 30.
[2] This is William Lane Craig’s description of the theistic determinism inherent in the Confession’s description of “God’s Eternal Decree.” Craig’s phrase correctly emphasizes the universality and divine causality that are the logical implications of this Calvinist definition of divine sovereignty. For Dr. Craig’s five-fold philosophical critique of Calvinism, see William Lane Craig, Defenders 2 Class, Doctrine of Creation: Part 10. Oct. 21, 2012. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-10/ Last accessed April 30, 2026.
[3] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.2, chap. VII, “The Election of God” (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 3.
[4] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Preface, X.
[5] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Editor’s Preface, vii.
[6] Alan M. Stibbs, The First Epistle General of Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 72.
[7] William Lane Craig, “The Mytho-historical Adam View” in Perspectives on the Historical Adam and Eve: Four Views, ed. Kenneth D. Keathley (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 73. Also quoting L. A. Turner, “Genesis,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove: IVP, 2033), 353.
[8] Terence E. Fretheim, “Genesis”, in The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2015), 47.
[9] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis”, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:81.
[10] Westermann, Genesis, 1-11, 394.
[11] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 78.
[12] Fretheim, Exodus, 303-5.
[13] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 79.
[14] David J. A. Clines, “Predestination in the Old Testament,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock. (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1975), 112-113.
[15] Clines, “Predestination…”, Grace Unlimited, 113.
[16] Clines, “Predestination…”, Grace Unlimited, 114.
[17] C. F. Keil, Commentary, 63-64.
[18] See Fretheim, The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, 52-53.
[19] David J. A. Clines, “Predestination in the Old Testament,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock. (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1975).
[20] Ibid., 110.
[21] Ibid., 111-112.
[22] Allen P Ross, Genesis, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, eds. 2 vols. Colorado Springs: Victor Books, 1985), 1:41.
[23] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:96.
[24] Allen P. Ross, Genesis, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, eds. 2 vols. Colorado Springs: Victor Books, 1985), 1:40-41.
[25] A. R. Millard, “Amorites,” New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 30.
[26] Allen P. Ross, Genesis, 1:53.
[27] Brisco, Thomas, Holman Bible Atlas (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 12.
[28] K. A. Kitchen, “Canaanites,” New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 164.
[29] Ibid., 164.
[30] Ibid., 164.
[31] Allen P. Ross, Genesis, 1:55.
[32] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:129.
[33] Allen P. Ross, Genesis, 1:56.
[34] Allen P. Ross, Genesis, 1:57.
[35] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:139.
[36] Ibid., 2:139.
[37] Ibid., 2:140-141.
[38] Ibid., 2:147-148.
[39] G. Quell, ἐκλέγομαι, TDNT 4:167-168.
[40] G. Quell, ἐκλέγομαι, TDNT 4:168.
[41] Allen P Ross, Genesis, 1:59.
[42] C. F. Keil, The Pentateuch, in Commentary on the Old Testament, C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, 10 vols. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001) 1:147.
[43] To help answer the questions Gen. 18:20-21 raises about God’s omniscience, perhaps we can offer an explanation if we understand the verses as an anthropological metaphor. As such, these verses may be seen as setting the stage for the dialogue between God and Abraham. Abraham is learning about the justice of God. These verses also have a direct bearing upon our study of election. The verses read, “Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is immense, and their sin is extremely serious. I will go down to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to me. If not, I will find out.” (18:20-21, CSB) So, how should we interpret the metaphors in these verses? (i.e., “the outcry,” “I will go down,” “to see,” “I will find out.”) A truth, which has been obvious thus far, is affirmed again here. It is that the transcendent God is aware of things happening on earth. Indeed, with respect to Abraham (i.e., salvation history), God has become very personally involved. Now, the text indicates that there is an “outcry against” these cities that God “hears.” “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is immense…” (v. 20, CSB). According to C.F. Keil, this “cry” is “the appeal for vengeance or punishment, which ascends to heaven (ch. 4:10).” God hears this outcry as involving the need for justice to be done. This outcry also refers to God’s awareness of sin. It indicates that God knows that “their sin is extremely serious.” (v. 20, the ESV has “very grave.”) God is aware of sin and, in his just nature, requires it to be dealt with. God takes sin seriously. Now, because of this “outcry,” God will make his own personal inquiry or investigation. “I will go down to see if what they have done justifies the cry that has come up to me.” (v. 21) This teaches us not that God needs to know more about Sodom and Gomorrah, but that God only acts when there is sufficient justification to proceed with his judgment. It must be based on truth, that is, actual evidence. His judgment cannot be arbitrary or unfounded. Another point in the metaphor is that God desires to withhold judgment if possible. “If not, I will find out.” The negative answer here expresses a kind of default nature of God towards compassion and mercy, but also judgment when required. These are the divine traits I believe this section is meant to teach us if viewed as an anthropological metaphor (i.e., “anthropomorphism”).
[44] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:150.
[45] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:150-151. See the commentary for further discussion on remaining questions.
[46] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:136.
[47] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:135.
[48] C. F. Keil, “The Pentateuch,” 1:148.
[49] C. F. Keil, “The Pentateuch,” 1:147, 148.
[50] C. F. Keil, “The Pentateuch,” 1:148
[51] C. F. Keil, “The Pentateuch,” 1:148
[52] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:135.
[53] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:111
[54] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:167-168.
[55] Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 424; George W. Coats, Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 189.
[56] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:181.
[57] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:157-158.
[58] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:157, 157.
[59] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:169.
[60] C. F. Keil, “The Pentateuch,” 1:159.
[61] Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis 16-50,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 2, (Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 110.
[62] Brueggemann, Genesis, 187; on the less than absolute character of divine foreknowledge, see Fretheim, The Suffering of God, 45-49.
[63] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:158.
[64] Eugene F. Roop, Genesis (Scotsdale, Pa.: Herald, 1987), 151.
[65] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:158.
[66] C. F. Keil, “The Pentateuch,” 1:171.
[67] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:182.
[68] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:175.
[69] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:182-183.
[70] Allen P. Ross, Genesis, 1:69.
[71] Ibid., 1:69.
[72] C. F. Keil, “The Pentateuch,” 1:73.
[73] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:183-184.
[74] Ibid., 2:188-189.
[75] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:182-183.
[76] For an interpretation of the end of Genesis 25, when Esau sells his birthright, and chapter 27, when Jacob is blessed by Isaac, that has Esau as the deceiver, not Jacob, see the following lectures by Dr. Baruch Korman on Romans 9.
Romans 9 | Part 2 | Jacob I loved but Esau I have hated.
Romans 9 | Part 3 | How this chapter is correlated to chapter 25? | Jacob, Esau and Abraham.
Romans 9 | Part 4 | An explanation of Jacob’s blessing according to Genesis 27.
You can find out more about Dr. Korman’s ministry at www.Loveisrael.org
Although I am not very familiar with Dr. Korman’s ministry and teachings, and I may not agree with points of lesser importance in their statement of faith, I appreciated the thoroughness and clarity of his book-by-book and verse-by-verse exposition of the texts in these lectures. I also affirm his sound hermeneutical principles. He uses the biblical languages in his expositions. He does not avoid books and passages that are difficult or controversial. He can also speak about the Jewish perspective and historical context. I suspect that one may listen to many other of his expository lectures with great profit.
[77] C. F. Keil, “The Pentateuch,” 1:179.
[78] Ibid., 179.
[79] See Dr. Baruch Korman’s lectures in footnote 76.
[80] Allen P Ross, Genesis, 1:74.
[81] Ibid., 1:74-75.
[82] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:192.
[83] Ibid., Genesis, 1:192.
[84] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:199.
[85] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:193.
[86] Ibid., 1:195.
[87] Ibid., 1:195.
[88] Allen P. Ross, Genesis, 1:79.
[89] Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 195, cf. 18:1 ff., Judg. 13, esp. 21-22.
[90] John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, 2:210.
[91] Ibid., 2:212.
[92] Ibid., 2:213-214.
[93] Ibid., 2:218.
[94] David J. A. Clines, “Predestination in the Old Testament,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock. (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship Inc., 1975), 120.
[95] Ibid., 120.
[96] Ibid., 121.
[97] Ibid., 121-122.
[98] Ibid., 124.
[99] Allen P. Ross, Genesis, 1:72.
[100] Ibid., Genesis, 1:73
[101] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:186.
[102] Jakob Jocz, The Spiritual History of Israel (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1961), 155.
[103] James Daane, The Freedom of God: A Study of Election and Pulpit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 100.
[104] Ibid., 100.
[105] Ibid., 104.
[106] G. Quell, ἐκλέγομαι, TDNT 4:161.
[107] N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 77-78.
[108] James Daane, The Freedom of God, 106.
[109] Jakob Jocz, The Spiritual History of Israel, 155.
[110] “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” (ESV)
[111] Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, 77. See also Philo On the Special Laws 2.79; Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 10.20.
[112] I. H. Marshall, “Election and Calling to Salvation in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in Collins, The Thessalonian Correspondence, 262. Abraham Smith, “The First Letter to the Thessalonians,” The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, vol. X (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2015), 295.
[113] G. Quell, ἐκλέγομαι, TDNT 4:166.
[114] G. Quell, ἐκλέγομαι, TDNT 4:159.
[115] This is a complex topic that I cannot address here. For more on this subject, I recommend reading Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), and also Paul Copan & Matthew Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014).
[116] G. Quell, ἐκλέγομαι, TDNT 4:165.
[117] G. Quell, ἐκλέγομαι, TDNT 4:167.
[118] G. Quell, ἐκλέγομαι, TDNT 4:162.
[119] G. Quell, ἐκλέγομαι, TDNT 4:165.
[120] For a recent discussion of the missionary obligation on the past of Judaism see the American Jewish weekly, The National Jewish Post and Opinion: “Converting Non-Jews,” Feb. 14, 1958, 14.
[121] Jakob Jocz, The Spiritual History of Israel (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1961), 164-165.
[122] Ibid., 53.
[123] Ibid. 55.
[124] Ibid. 55.
[125] Ibid, 54.
[126] Ibid. 54.
[127] Terence E. Fretheim, Genesis, 1:46.
[128] Ibid. 57.
[129] James Daane, The Freedom of God: The Study of Election and Pulpit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 107.
[130] Ibid., 198-199.
[131] Ibid., 34.
[132] Ibid., 199.
[133] Ibid., 134.
[134] Ibid., 134-135.
[135] Ibid., 136, 137. Including the next quote, which is on p. 139.
The Truth of the Gospel 