I submitted this paper for Advanced Old Testament Theology II (TH 842) at Bob Jones University on April 20, 2004.
Introduction
The doctrine of election is one of the most controversial and infamous doctrines in Scripture. Throughout the history of the church, probably no other doctrine has caused as much intense and enduring debate as this one. The discussions on this subject have focused largely on the New Testament revelation, and rightly so, but usually and unfortunately to the neglect of the Old Testament data. While this doctrine does see a definite progression throughout Scripture, the Old Testament provides important theology that serves as a foundation for rightly understanding the New Testament teaching.1
The subject of election under consideration is limited to theological election, that is, where God is the elector and man is the elected. The non-theologically significant occurrences of election serve only to illustrate the various dimensions of this divine activity. The data demonstrates that God sovereignly chooses both groups and individuals for service and salvation.
Terminology
The most important word for election in the Old Testament is the verb בחר (“to choose”). It occurs 172 times and is significant only in the Qal.2 Fifty-one of these occurrences are theological and 113 are non-theological.3 The cognate בָּחִיר (“chosen”) occurs 13 times and always refers to God as the elector.4 Another important word is the verb ידע (“to know”). It often has a more pregnant meaning than the English “to know,” and is closely related to choosing.5 Often collocated with בחר is the verb אהב (“to love”).6 God’s love frequently serves as the basis for His election.
In addition to these key words, there are also important designations that communicate this theme of election. God refers to Israel as His “people,”7 His “servant” (Dt. 32:36;1 Chr. 16:13; Is. 41:8–9; 43:10; 44:1–2; Jer. 25:9), His “inheritance” (Dt. 32:9; 1 Ki. 8:51; Ps. 28:9), His “flock” (Ps. 78:52; 95:7), His “vine” (Jer. 2:21; Ezk. 15; Hos. 10:1), and His “treasured possession” (Ex. 19:5; Dt. 14:2; Ps. 135:4). There are certain images that God uses to picture this relationship: marriage (Is. 49:18; 50:1; 54:5, 8, 10; 61:10; 62:4–5; Jer. 2:1–7; Ezk. 16, 23; Hos. 2:2, 7, 16), a Father and His son (Ex. 4:22–23; Dt. 32:6; 2 Sam. 7:14; Is. 64:8; Hos. 11:1), and the Potter and the clay (Is. 64:8; Jer. 18:5–6; cf. Rom. 9:21). Some of the key passages that deal with election in some detail are Deuteronomy 7:6–8; 9:4–6; 2 Samuel 7:8–16; and Isaiah 41:8–16; 42:1–9; 43:1–3; and 44:1–5. Election is also a theme in Psalms 68, 79, 105, and 106.
Theological election in the Old Testament is of two types. God chose people to function in some role of service, and God chose people to enter into a saving relationship with Him. Election to service may or may not include election to salvation. Election to salvation, however, always includes service.
Election to Service
The primary focus of election in the Old Testament is not on election to salvation but election to service. God chose a variety of different people, both groups and individuals, to fulfill His purposes. This is evident by the way עֶבֶד (“servant”) is frequently used in parallelism with a form of בחר or one of its cognates (1 Chr. 16:13; Ps. 89:3; 109:6; Is. 43:10; 44:1, 2; 45:4; 65:9, 15, 22). Such an election, however, did not necessarily guarantee the salvation of the objects. Those whom God chose to serve Him in differing capacities may or may not have been true believers.8
The Objects of Election to Service
The major emphasis of Old Testament election is on the choice of the nation Israel to service and privilege. God chose the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to be His people (Dt. 4:37; 10:15; 14:2; 1 Chr. 16:13; Ps. 105:43; 106:5; Is. 14:1; 41:8, 9; 43:10, 20; 44:1, 2; 65:9; Jer. 33:24–26; Ezk. 20:5). They were a holy people, which God had chosen for Himself as His own special possession (Dt. 7:6; Ps. 135:4). In choosing Israel, He set His people apart, rejecting all the other nations from that privileged position (Dt. 7:6; 10:15; 14:2).9 God’s elect nation became great and very numerous (1 Ki. 3:8). To be the chosen nation of God is an enviable privilege (Ps. 33:12). This position of privilege and blessing was also a position of service. The Lord often referred to the elect nation as His servant (1 Chr. 16:13; Is. 43:10; 44:1, 2; 45:4; 65:9, 15, 22).
In addition to choosing the nation Israel to be His own special people, God chose the Levites to “minister before Him perpetually” (1 Chr. 15:2). Their election is stated in terms of service (Deut. 18:5; 21:5). God chose them to be priests (cf. Num. 18:1–7), offering sacrifices and burning incense before the Lord (1 Sam. 2:28; 2 Chr. 29:11). They alone were to carry the ark (1 Chr. 15:2).
God also chose specific individuals to serve Him in specific roles, usually positions of leadership. God chose Abraham (Neh. 9:7; Gen. 18:19) to be the father of the nation Israel (Gen. 12:2) and of many nations (Gen. 17:4–5). God wanted him to fulfill a specific purpose in establishing His people and ultimately in blessing all peoples. God chose Isaac and his descendents over Ishmael, through whom He would continue the covenant promises made to Abraham (Gen. 21:12; cf. Rom. 9:7–9). God also chose Jacob, rejecting Esau, to receive the covenant promises (Gen. 25:23; Mal. 1:2–3; cf. Rom 9:10–13). Then He chose Judah over Joseph and Ephraim (Ps. 78:67–68; cf. Gen. 49:8–10).
God chose Moses to lead His people out of Egypt and redeem them (Ps. 106:23; cf. 1 Sam. 12:6). He also chose Aaron (Ps. 105:26; cf. 1 Sam. 12:6) through whom He would establish the priestly service (Num. 17:5; Deut. 18:5). He later chose Saul to be king (1 Sam. 10:24; 2 Sam. 21:6).10 After Saul had disobeyed God and been rejected as king, God chose David to replace him (1 Sam. 16:8–10; 2 Sam. 6:21; 1 Ki. 8:16; 11:34; 1 Chr. 24:4; 2 Chr. 6:5–6; Ps. 78:70; 89:3, 19).11 The Lord chose Solomon after David to be the next king over Israel (1 Chr. 28:5; 29:1) and to build the temple where He could permanently dwell (1 Chr. 28:6, 10).12 God also chose the Messiah (Is. 42:1). He is the true Servant of the Lord (Is. 49:7). He is chosen to be the substitute for God’s people (Is. 53).
The Grounds of Election to Service
The reason for God’s choice of these individuals and nations is not always stated. Normally the emphasis is on God’s freedom to choose and the unworthiness of the object of God’s choice.13 When God chose Abram and called him, he was an idolater (Josh. 24:2, 14). He deserved God’s wrath, not the privileged position as the father of God’s elect people. Jacob also was chosen without any consideration to his merit. God chose him prior to birth (Gen. 25:23; cf. Mal. 1:2–3).14 The clearest example of unmerited election in the Old Testament is the nation Israel.15 God’s election of Israel was based on His love for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Dt. 4:37). He did not love (חשׁק) and choose them because they were already a great nation, for Israel was the fewest of all peoples (Dt. 7:7). Rather, the Lord chose them because He loved them and because He had made a covenant with their forefathers (Dt. 7:8).16
The Nature of Election to Service
This election to service was not irrevocable. Disobedience disqualified the nation, group, or individual from the position of privilege and blessing. Eli and his house were rejected by God (1 Sam. 2:22–36). King Saul was chosen by God to be king, but his disobedience led God to reject him (1 Sam. 15:23, 26; 16:1). Israel’s misunderstanding of the nature of God’s election to service was reflected in their externalism (Jer. 7:4; cf. Jn. 8:39). They believed that they could not forfeit their privileged position as God’s chosen people. However, their disobedience resulted in rejection (Jer. 3:8; cf. Rom. 11:17–20).
Election to Salvation
While election to service is more prominent in the Old Testament, this theme of election to salvation is certainly not absent. Election to service may include election to salvation, but election to salvation always includes election to service.17 One of the clearest texts in the Old Testament that emphasizes this point of election to salvation is Isaiah 43:10: “You are My witnesses… and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He.” In addition to election to service, there is an election to know and believe the Lord as well.
The Objects of Election to Salvation
Although the Old Testament data alone is insufficient to conclude that all believers in Old Testament were saved because of God’s election, it does make clear that God did choose certain individuals to enter into a saving relationship with him. This appears in seed form as early as Adam and Eve. God sought them out (Gen. 3:8–9) and provided salvation for them (Gen. 3:21). Scripture gives indication that God chose Abraham to salvation. God loved Abraham (Dt. 4:37; 10:15), entered into a special relationship with him (Gen. 18:19),18 chose him, and brought him out of Ur (Neh. 9:7). Although it included it, this election was not just to service and privilege.19 Jacob was indeed chosen for service as one of the patriarchs of God’s chosen nation, but individual election is nearly impossible to avoid, especially in light of the New Testament revelation (Rom. 9:10–13).20
In addition to the election of individuals to salvation, the Old Testament also speaks of the election of groups to salvation. From as early as Genesis 3:15 mankind is divided between elect and non-elect.21 Not only is the race divided,22 but also within national Israel there existed a spiritual body of the saved.23 God chose these out of the nation. Isaiah 65 makes this contrast between the unbelieving in the nation and the faithful. The believers are called God’s chosen three times in the passage (vv. 9, 15, 22), stressing that it is God’s election that made the difference between false and true Israel. This concept of election within the elect national clearly identifies the two types of election in the Old Testament: election to service and election to salvation. The latter theme develops primarily in terms of the remnant. God encourages Elijah by saying that He has reserved (וְהִשְׁאַרְתִּי) seven thousand faithful followers (1 Ki. 19:18).24 It is this remnant concept that corresponds to the New Testament emphasis on election to salvation.
The Grounds of Election to Salvation
The Old Testament does not explicitly address the issue of the grounds or basis for election to salvation. It is the New Testament revelation that most clearly addresses this issue. One text, however, does provide the Old Testament foundation. The Lord proclaimed to Moses, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion” (Ex. 33:19). Whereas election to service may be based on man or entirely on God, God’s sovereign freedom in giving His grace and mercy would seem to point to the view that salvific election finds its basis in God alone (cf. Rom. 9:11, 15–18).
The Nature of Election to Salvation
The nature of election to salvation differs from the nature of election to service. Election to service was conditional and forfeitable, while election to salvation was certain, being based upon the will and purpose of God. God’s choice of individuals to enter into a special relationship with Himself guarantees that individual’s final salvation. Although this conclusion is more clearly seen in the New Testament, the Old Testament hints at it.
Conclusion
In the Old Testament, God chose both groups and individuals to serve Him and to enter into a saving relationship with Him. This doctrine of election clearly plays a vital role in the theology of the Old Testament. It lies at the very heart of God’s salvation and purposes for mankind.25 It is vitally important for the church today. Failure to understand it can only be fatal to one’s understanding of most of the teachings of Scripture. The New Testament uses it in immensely practical ways: to motivate evangelism, to provide comfort and assurance, to promote holiness, and to produce humility. Although this doctrine has been the source of violent debate, God desires it to be for the good of His people.
Berkouwer, G. C. Divine Election, translated by Hugo Bekker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1960.
Demarest, Bruce. “Jacob I Loved.” The Cross and Salvation, edited by John S. Feinberg, 97–143. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1997.
Dunelm, Handley. “Election.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, 1:925–27. 1956; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.
Guillet, Jacques. “Election.” Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by Xavier León Dufour, 137–41. 2nd ed. New York: The Seabury Press, 1973.
Jewett, Paul K. Election and Predestination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.
Jocz, Jakób. A Theology of Election: Israel and the Church. New York: The MacMillian Company, 1958.
Kaiser, Walter C. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
Klein, William W. The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.
Klooster, F. H. “Elect, Election.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 348–49. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.
MacDonald, William G. “The Biblical Doctrine of Election.” In The Grace of God and the Will of Man, edited by Clark H. Pinncok. 1989; reprint, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.
Murray, J. “Elect, Election.” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, edited by Merril C. Tenney, 2:270–74. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975.
Nicole, Emile. “בחר.” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren, 1:638–41. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.
Oehler, Gustav Friedrich. Theology of the Old Testament, translated by George E. Day. 1883; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.
Oswalt, J. N. “בָּחַר.” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, 1:100–01. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.
Payne, J. Barton. “Election.” The Theology of the Older Testament, 177–94. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.
Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980.
Rowley, H. H. The Biblical Doctrine of Election. London: Litterworth Press, 1950.
Schreiner, Thomas R. “Election.” The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, 450–54 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
Shank, Robert. Elect in the Son: A Study in the Doctrine of Election. 1970; reprint, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1989.
Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. 1948; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1996.
Zemek, George J. A Biblical Theology of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace: Exegetical Considerations of Key Anthropological, Hamartiological and Soteriological Terms and Motifs. n.p., 2002.
Notes
1. It is worth noting that the most thorough treatment of this subject in the New Testament Scriptures, Romans 9, is full of quotations and allusions to the Old Testament. Paul demonstrates the importance of Old Testament theology for the church. Nevertheless, any interpretation of the Old Testament data that does not coincide with the inspired New Testament interpretation is surely faulty. It is unfortunate that many theologians feel that they can improve upon the inspired New Testament interpretation of this subject. For an excellent discussion of Paul’s interpretation of election in the Old Testament see John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993). ↩
2. It occurs 164 times in the Qal, 7 times in the Niphal, and once in the Pual. Its antonym is מאס (“reject”). See Ps. 78:67; Is. 41:9; Jer. 33:24. ↩
3. The word בחר is used in much the same way as the English word “choose.” Lot chose the valley of Jordan (Gen. 13:11). Pharaoh chose chariots (Ex. 14:7). Military leaders chose men for battle (Ex. 17:9; Jos. 8:3; 1 Sam. 13:2; 24:2; 26:2; 2 Sam. 6:1; 10:9; 2 Sam. 17:1; 1 Ki. 12:21). Moses chose leaders over the people (Ex. 18:25). Israel was exhorted to choose life (Dt. 30:19) and service to the Lord (Jos. 24:15, 22). Unfortunately, Israel chose other gods (Jdg. 5:8; 10:14). The people threw off God’s leadership and chose a king for themselves (1 Sam. 8:18; 12:13). David chose five stones for his sling (1 Sam. 17:40). Men can choose to obey God’s precepts (Ps. 119:73) and fear Him (Pr. 1:29). In all of these examples, the object is chosen because of its fitness or desirability. See J. N. Oswalt, “בָּחַר,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 1:100. This does not necessarily mean, however, that theological election will have the same basis. Of these non-theological occurrences, man is the subject 65 times and God is the subject 49 times (with something other than man as the object). Of these 49, 44 of them refer to the place where God’s name dwells, either the tabernacle, the temple, or the city of Jerusalem. ↩
4. See 2 Sam. 21:6; 1 Chr. 16:13; Ps. 89:4; 105:6, 43; 106:5, 23; Is. 42:1; 43:20; 45:4; 65:9, 15, 22. The cognate מִבְחָר (“best”) occurs 13 times (Gen. 23:6; Ex. 15:4; Dt. 12:11; 1 Chr. 11:38; Is. 22:7; 37:24; Jer. 22:7; 48:15; Ezk. 23:7; 24:4, 5; 31:16; Dan. 11:15), and מִבְחוֹר (“choice”) occurs twice (2 Ki. 3:19; 19:23). Neither have theological significance. The related verbs ברר (1 Chr. 7:40; 9:22; 16:41; Neh. 5:18; Is. 49:2?) and ברה (1 Sam. 17:8) also mean “to choose,” but they are not theologically significant. ↩
5. It can be used of the sexual relationship (Gen. 4:1) or of having favor upon or caring about (Ex. 2:25; Ps. 1:6; Hos. 13:5). It can also refer to entering into a special relationship with (Gen. 18:19; Jer. 1:5; Am. 3:2). This last sense is close to the semantic domain of election. Payne argues that it “carries the idea of elective grace and is equivalent to saying ‘choose.’” Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 179. Oehler as well asserts that ידע “is used to characterize the divine decree of election.” In many contexts is has “a more pregnant meaning than that of mere theoretical knowledge.” God uses it “in reference to His placing man in a relation to Him in virtue of which he acknowledges himself as His property.” As such, it is simply “another name for… divine election (synonymous with בָּחַר).” Theology of the Old Testament, trans. George E. Day (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1883), 117. ↩
6. See Dt. 4:37; 10:15; Ps. 47:4; 78:68; Is. 41:8, where these two terms appear together (cf. Dt. 7:7). ↩
7. עַמִּי is the most common way the Lord refers to His people. It occurs 45 times in Jeremiah, 30 times in Ezekiel, 27 times in Isaiah, and 20 times in Exodus. ↩
8. The clearest example of this is the nation Israel. Not all Israelites were believers (cf. Rom. 9:6). King Saul might be another example (cf. 1 Sam. 16:14, 15, 16, 23; 18:10; 19:9). ↩
9. The Hebrew phrase here is מִכֹּל הָעַמִּים. The min is separative (GK §119v-w). Horst Seebass argues: “Everywhere that bhÌr occurs in relationship to persons, it denotes choice out of a group…. Thus throughout, bhÌr includes the idea of separation.” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. T. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974), 2:82–83. ↩
10. Samuel identifies Saul as the one whom the Lord had chosen, but Solomon recounts in 2 Chronicles 6:5 God’s words to David that He had not chosen a leader to lead His people since the Exodus. Saul was clearly king prior to these words to David. According to Deuteronomy 17:15, the people could only have a king whom the Lord would choose; and it is clear, from the context of 1 Samuel 10, that God was the one who chose Saul. It is interesting, however, that in 1 Samuel 12:13, Samuel refers to Saul as the king that the people had chosen. God apparently chose Saul in one sense (i.e., in response to the people), but not in the same sense in which He chose David (i.e., freely). ↩
11. 2 Samuel 16:18 refers to Absalom as chosen by the Lord, but these words are on the lips of Hushai the Archite, the friend of David who was seeking to overthrow the counsel of Ahithophel (2 Sam. 15:32–37). It appears that he was trying to get on Absalom’s good side in order to serve David. ↩
12. See also Haggai 2:23 where Zerubbabel is chosen by God. ↩
13. Although, God chose David in connection with the quality of his heart (1 Sam. 16:7–12). ↩
14. Some have attempted to find the basis of this election in the foreseen response of Jacob and Esau. But Romans 9:11 removes any possibility of this. God made the choice of one over the other before birth. They had no merit yet. What about foreseen merit? In order to remove any notion that God chose Jacob based on anything future Paul adds the phrase, “and had not done anything good or bad.” If this is not the meaning of the phrase, it is tautological and adds nothing to Paul’s argument. Clearly if they had not yet been born, they had not done anything good or bad. The phrase must then mean that God’s election and rejection were not based on anything they would do. ↩
15. J. N. Oswalt argues that God chose Israel on the basis of “serviceability rather than simple arbitrariness…. Thus Yahweh chose Israel to be holy and thereby to serve as his witness among the nations (Deut 14:6)” (100). It seems that Oswalt has set up a false dichotomy. It is true that God’s choice was not arbitrary in the sense of being the uncontrolled exercise of His will. God is always controlled. However, in another real sense, His choice of Israel was arbitrary, that is, based solely upon His will. To argue that God chose Israel because of its serviceability or usefulness is somewhat misleading. First, it does not correspond with the emphasis of Scripture (e.g., Dt. 7:7), that Israel was the least likely candidate to serve God. Second, God could have chosen any nation to serve Him. Finally, the nation’s usefulness was the result of God’s grace. ↩
16. Often the Lord chooses the unlikely. No one would have expected God to choose the idolater Abraham, the deceiver Jacob, an insignificant nation such as Israel, or the youngest son of Jesse (1 Sam. 16:8–10). This point seems to highlight the unmerited nature of God’s election (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26–31). ↩
17. The New Testament virtually reverses the Old Testament emphasis, stressing individual election to salvation. By the time of the Epistles, election to salvation and election to service are inseparable and indistinguishable. ↩
18. The Hebrew word here is ידע. It is usually translated with a form of the English word “know.” But often it has a fuller sense. Here it must mean more than intellectual knowledge. That the volitional element is in the forefront is evident from the phrase יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן. The word לְמַעַן conveys purpose, an idea that would yield little sense if ידע did not have its fuller sense of entering into a special relationship with. ↩
19. See also the Old Testament data concerning Noah, Shem, Japheth, Isaac, Moses, Jeremiah. See Bruce Demarest, “Jacob I Loved,” The Cross and Salvation, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1997), 121–24. ↩
20. John Piper concurs with this conclusion that “there is warrant in the patriarchal narratives themselves for drawing conclusions about the individual salvation of Isaac and Jacob,” although these “Old Testament texts do not relate explicitly to eternal salvation” (64). E. Kaesemann as well argues that in Romans 9 “Paul is no longer concerned with two peoples and their fate but rather in a permanent way with the election and rejection of two persons who have been raised to the level of types.” Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 264. ↩
21. In His curse upon the Satanic empowered serpent, God spoke of Eve and her descendents and Satan and his descendents. One’s first thought might be that the descendents of Eve refer to the whole human race, but this is unlikely, for Satan has descendents which are a part of this human race. Jesus identified people as being children of the devil (Jn. 8:38, 44; 1 Jn. 3:8; cf. Mat. 23:33). Likely, then, Eve’s descendents are spiritual rather than physical (cf. Rev. 12:17). While the basis of some being the seed of the woman and some being the seed of Satan is not yet specified, the fact of this division of mankind into the saved and the lost is made clear. See Payne, 178; O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 97–99. ↩
22. The doctrine of reprobation is inescapable, both from a Biblical (Ex. 9:16; Pr. 16:4; Rom. 9:13, 17–18, 21–22; 1 Pet. 2:8) and from a logical standpoint. The very nature of making a choice necessitates a division. To choose one thing is to not choose another. When God selected Israel to be His special people, He did not select the other nations. The positive act of choosing cannot exist apart from the negative act of not choosing. There appears to be a difference in the emphasis that Scripture lays on God’s activeness in election and reprobation. The stress is laid on the positive act. Election is God’s primary; reprobation is subordinate (cf. Rom. 9:22–23). ↩
23. Paul develops this point in Romans 9:6–8. Not all of the physical descendants of Abraham were part of the true Israel. The nation includes both the children of the flesh and the children of the promise. Paul identifies New Testament believers as children of promise (Gal. 4:28). ↩
24. The Hiphil stresses God’s sovereignty in causing these seven thousand to remain faithful to Him. See also Is. 1:9; 6:13; 10:20–22, 24; 37:31–32; 46:3; 65:8–9, 13–15, 22; Jer. 31:7; 32:37–40; 50:4–5, 20; Mic. 2:12; Zeph. 2:9; 3:13; Joel 2:32; cf. Rom. 9:27; 11:5. For a discussion of the remnant see Payne, 184–88. ↩
25. Rowley argues that election is “fundamental to the thought of” both the Old and New Testaments. The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London: Lutterworth Press, 1950), 15. Warfield as well realizes the centrality of election, affirming that is “fundamental to the whole religious consciousness of the Biblical writers.” Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 270. ↩