*This is a repost that I’m almost sure none of you have read; I did this quite some time ago. But I thought I would post this prompted by the new book that just came out from David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson, which I spoke of in my last post.

Theology of Election in the New Testament

εκλεκτος

Election as those who are saved from God’s wrath during the “Tribulation”: Mt. 24.22; 24.24; 24.31; Mk. 13.20; Mk. 13.27

Election referring to people who are on God’s side versus Man’s side during the “Tribulation”: Mt. 24.24; 24.31; Mk. 13.20; 13.22; 13.27

Election referring to people God has “chosen”: Mk. 13.20; 13.22; II Tim. 2.10; Tit. 1.1; Rom. 9.11; 11.28; II Pet. 1.10

Election refers to the nation of Israel’s “vocation” as God’s chosen means to bring salvation to the world: Rom. 11.7; Rom. 9.11; 11.28

Election in reference to God’s “chosen” Angels: I Tim. 5.21

Election refers to a “class” of people who are considered “chosen” in a brute (economic) sense: II Tim. 2.10; Tit. 1.1; Rom. 9.11; 11.28

Election referring to people who are chosen to obey God in sanctification: I Pet. 1.1; II Pet. 1.10

Theological Implications

The word εκλεκτος in the “Theological English,” translated “elect” or “election” or “chosen” has taken on a highly charged and technical bit of connotation. Which is why I engaged upon doing a basic “Biblical Theology” of this word and its usage in the New Testament (studying it in its LXX or Septuagintal usage would make for an interesting study as well). To my surprise this word is scant in its usage in the actual text of Scripture; from the theological baggage surrounding this word, a person would think that the New Testament would be full of this word, but instead it is only used 14 times.

As can be seen it has quite a semantic range, with of course over-lap in its various contexts and usage. It is used a few times in the context of the events that Jesus refers to in the Olivet Discourse (I have labeled this the “Tribulation” period); and then we see it simply as a usage in reference to God’s (apparent) arbitrary choice of people or groups of people; then we see it used in reference to Israel’s vocation and role as mediating salvation to the nations; further, we see it in reference to God’s Angel’s (with the supposition that there must then be those “Angels” who are “non-elect”); then I have labeled a category that appear to be called chosen or “elect” in a non-technical (or “theological”) sense, in the sense that they are simply part of that group of people who belong to God (which includes vocational purposes in regards to mediating salvation to others); and finally we see a reference to those who have been “chosen” to obey God as they grow in salvation and holiness.

What this study concludes, is that if an particular exegete or theologian was seeking to establish the “technical” and/or “theological” sense of the word “elect” or “election” that we see referred to in so many “systems” of Theology; he/she would be unable to do this, based simply upon the usage of this word in its various Biblical contexts. In other words, there is more necessary to draw the conclusions that people do about election (like the assumptions assumed about election in the TULIP or the Arminian FACTS) than what is provided by merely studying its semantic and lexical usage in its various Biblical contexts. In short, if we are going to come to the conclusions that we do about “election” in its connotative and “theological” sense; then those must be arrived at organically and theo-logically, by endeavoring to “lay bare” what the text might be assuming per its various contextual and occasional usages in the text of Scripture. P.S Issues of “causation” and such just simply are not present in the text of Scripture; so anyone who claims that they are “just” arriving at their conclusions on election by “just” reading Scripture — and then these same folks somehow end up with a metaphysic and causal structure (or theory of “causation”) that goes beyond the text; we must conclude that these kinds of exegetes or people are naively importing something into the text that the text (prima facie) simply does not communicate or support (at least in regards to the “word,” “election”).