The meaning of the "elect" in the OT & 1st Clement

Jimmy Akin has a fascinating series on the 'original' meaning of the theological term known as the "elect". Over the centuries since the time of the Apostles, the term has come to mean something along the lines of "those predestined for Heaven," those who cannot lose their salvation, those chosen unconditionally, etc. But since this isn't the 'original' Biblical meaning, I think this is an unfortunate case of misusing key Biblical terminology and thus should be corrected. Catholicism has no problem with theology developing in a manner in which no Dogma or Divine Revelation is undermined, but really we should try to stick with the original understandings of key Biblical terms. I think this is especially crucial when it comes to reading the Bible, so we know what is being said rather than projecting our own assumptions immediately onto the text. And with that, I will dive right into Jimmy's three 11/17 articles (and will update this post when he makes a fourth), summarizing what he said, and I encourage you to read them yourself. 

Jimmy begins with looking into the Epistle of 1 Clement, which is a good place to start, because it shows what the earliest Christians thought about certain key terms. This Epistle is traditionally attributed to St Clement, one of the earliest Popes, and personal friend of Peter and Paul (Philippians 4:3), and there is no good reason to doubt this. The Epistle is staid to have been written around AD96, but Jimmy says it could be even as early as AD70. 

Jimmy points out how Clement consistently uses the term "elect" to refer to the whole body of Christian believers, not specific individuals predestined for heaven. In fact, Clement speaks of members of this this "elect" community as liable to fall away if they turn to sin, which certainly doesn't fit the conventional notion of election. 

Some noteworthy quotes from the article:

Clement writes: Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, for it says, “Woe to that person, it would be better for him if he had not been born than to cause one of my elect to sin. It would have been better for him to be tied to a millstone and to sink into the sea than to turn away one of my elect” (Matt. 26:24 with Luke 17:1-2). Your schism has turned many away . . . ! (46:7-9).

Here Clement envisions it being possible for the elect to sin and to “turn away”—something he says the Corinthian schism has accomplished. Clement also says that the Roman church will make “earnest prayer and supplication, that the number of those who are counted among his elect throughout the whole world, the Creator of everything may guard unharmed through his beloved child Jesus Christ” (59:2). The elect thus need to be guarded from harm.

What, then, can be said about 1 Clement’s understanding of the elect? It appears that 1 Clement’s understanding of “the elect” is based on Old Testament passages (e.g., Deut. 7:6, 14:2, 32:9, 1 Chr. 16:13, Ps. 105:6, Is. 65:9) that conceive of Israel as God’s elect or chosen people.

And onto Jimmy's second article. In this second article, Jimmy notes how in the OT there is often a reason for why something is chosen (meaning election isn't unconditional) and that something can lose its elect status. 

He first looks into how Jerusalem was 'chosen', and why it was chosen, and that it (temporarily) lost its elect status due to sin (Zech. 1:17, 2:12). Jimmy then looks at how God chose certain individuals, such as Abraham, Aaron, Moses, Saul, David, et al, for certain purposes.

A brief selection of key quotes: 

It is clear that many of these elections are not unconditional, for reasons behind them are stated. Aaron is chosen as priest because he is the head of the tribe of Levi (Num. 17:1-3), as a result of its actions during the golden calf incident (Ex. 32:29). The fact that Saul’s election was not unconditional is indicated in Samuel’s announcement of him as king, when he declared, “Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people” (1 Sam. 10:24). The statement there is none like him is a reference to Saul’s impressive stature and charismatic qualities (1 Sam. 9:2, 10:23).

David’s election as king also is not unconditional. When Samuel is sent to anoint him as king, he initially thinks that David’s older brother Eliab is the chosen one, but God tells Samuel: “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). David’s election is thus based on qualities God sees in his heart—qualities which he did not see in Eliab.

Solomon’s election to build the temple is not unconditional. David was specifically rejected for this role because of a quality he had: he was a “man of blood.” David was told: “You have shed much blood and have waged great wars” (1 Chron. 22:8). Conversely, Solomon was elected to this task because he was a “man of peace.” Thus David was told: “Behold, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. He shall build a house for my name” (1 Chron. 22:9-10).

Election to the kingship could be withdrawn due to sin. We see this in the case of Saul (1 Sam. 15:11). Samuel consequently tells Saul: “The Lord has rejected you from being king over Israel” (1 Sam. 15:26). Despite this loss of election, Saul continued to function as king of Israel until his death, and he was regarded by David as still “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 24:6, 26:9, 11, 16, 23, 2 Sam. 1:14, 16). We will see further examples of loss of kingly election in our next post.

And his third and latest article. This article focuses on how election is seen as "corporate," that is a group is said to be chosen by God, rather than just individuals. The most important of these groups are the Israelites and the kings of Judah. Jimmy shows that these groups were chosen because of certain things about them, so it was not 'unconditional', and that this election could be lost by sin. 

The Levites were chosen because they stood up for God's holiness with the golden calf incident (Ex. 32:29), but we also know certain priests were killed because of their sin (Lev. 10:1-2; 1 Sam. 2:12-17). “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me” (Hos. 4:6). 

Some key quotes:

By far the most common subject of corporate election, however, is Israel itself. Its election is stressed in numerous passages. Israel was chosen “because the Lord loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers” (Deut. 7:8). Here two factors are cited: The Lord’s love and his oath to the patriarchs. Deuteronomy elsewhere links God’s choosing of Israel to his love for the patriarchs (Deut. 4:37, 10:15). In the New Testament, Israel’s election is directly stated to be based on God’s love for the patriarchs (“as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers,” Rom. 11:28).

God makes the initial oath concerning Abraham’s descendants specifically as a reward for what Abraham has done. After rescuing his kinsman Lot, Abraham receives the promise of a reward from God. He is specifically told, “your reward shall be very great” (Gen. 15:1). God makes a covenant with him, promising numerous descendants who will have a glorious destiny (Gen. 15:4-21). It is when he believes the promise regarding his numerous descendants that God “reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6), which the New Testament links to him being called “the friend of God” (Jas. 2:23), a designation elsewhere given him in the Old Testament (2 Chron. 20:7, Isa. 41:8). The patriarchal promise electing Israel thus is not an arbitrary choice but is based on the fact Abraham—God’s friend—pleased the Lord by his actions, as did the other patriarchs.

The choice of Judah to lead the tribes (Gen. 49:8, 10) is based on the fact that Reuben disqualified himself (Gen. 49:3-4; cf. 35:22), while Simeon and Levi disqualified themselves (Gen. 49:5-7; cf. 34:25-31).

Many say that God’s covenant with David was “unconditional,” but this is manifestly not true. It was based on the fact David pleased God (2 Sam. 7:16 cf. 2 Sam. 13:13, 1 Kings 11:38), and his descendants were only guaranteed the kingship on condition they obeyed God (1 Kings 2:4, 8:25, 9:4-5, Ps. 132:12). Otherwise, the Davidic line would fail—as it eventually did (Jer. 36:30).

The same is true of individual Israelites. They also can lose their place in the chosen people. Numerous passages indicate that an offending Israelite is to be “cut off from his people”. Eventually, the sins of the nation grew to such proportions that God would declare, “you are not my people and I am not your God” (Hos. 1:9), though he prophesied that he would take them back (Hos. 1:10, 2:1, 23).

If one thing is sure, the Old Testament does not have a “once righteous, always righteous” viewpoint.

Still awaiting his New Testament article, which I don't see published yet (six month later!). But based upon the above information, as I do a word search for terms like "elect" and "chosen," it seems there is a very similar theme in the New Testament. The language of "chosen" and "elect" and "called" often comes in the introductory verses of an Epistle, typically referring to the whole church body in that city, and thus a corporate election. Of course, with the Epistle full of warnings and such, it thus fits Jimmy's theme above and indicates that "election" doesn't necessarily correspond to making it to Heaven. For example, Galatians 1:6 (Gal 5:7-8) speaks of the congregation deserting God who "called" them and turning instead to another Gospel.

Paul is frequently said to be "chosen" to be an apostle, which not all Christians are, and thus showing God can call but doesn't have to mean to salvation. This is especially true when the Judas passages are chosen, for it says Jesus "chose twelve" (Lk 6:13), yet we know Judas would betray despite being "chosen" (Jn 6:70; 13:18). Judas proves a "chosen" one can be lost (cf Jn 17:12).

That's all I will say for now, but I could compile a better list, unless Jimmy beats me to it.

I think this is a fascinating "discovery," and it should help people greatly improve both their understanding of Scripture and their apologetics - since good Biblical arguments shouldn't be based upon improper use of terms. This series also caught my attention because I recently came to see that 1 Clement uses the Greek word "justify" multiple times, yet not in a manner feasible to the Protestant position, so I hope to finish that up soon as well.