Election Outside of Jesus?

The 2 Dangers

A recurring question that I hear within the Christian camp is one of understandable perplexion concerning the Jewish people's ongoing election. More specifically, how does election exist as the people of God outside of the knowledge of Jesus? And election unto what exactly? This paradox for the Church is a contradiction of fundamental identity within the Church's self-understanding. In this essay, we will explore some themes around the ongoing election of Israel and what this could mean for the Church’s own understanding of itself.

We can use David Novak's definition of election as "the choice by one person of another person out of a range of multiple candidates. This choice then establishes a mutual relationship between the elector and the elected, in biblical terms, a covenant." (Novak 2007, #23)

Indeed, from the opening of Genesis, we can see four sibling stories that create the election motif for us. This theme is unavoidable in Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and finally, within the story of Joseph as the favored Son. In reality, even the Jew and Gentile distinction was a God idea, carving Abraham out of the nations and cutting covenant with him. To know Abraham's God, one had to either come from Abraham's loins or come through Abraham's covenant and the people of Israel. Before this seemingly divisive act by God, there was no Jew or Gentile distinction. God chooses to come to the world as the God of Israel. Even today, knowing this God means understanding the God who identifies himself as the God of Israel. 

Within these elections, multiple roles can be played and this brings us to our two great dangers. These dangers face the elect and the non-elect. In every case, the base-level human psychology of jealousy, pride, envy, and covetousness are naturally stirred up. The opportunity for negative human response goes both ways within the concept of election. These roles demand that each side reaches deep within themselves and chooses a different path than what seems natural. On the side of those elected, unguarded, this election can turn into pride, arrogance, and triumphalism (We see both natural Israel and the Church do this). On the side of the non-elect, we can also see jealousy, envy, and covetousness. Within these two shadow sides of the elect and non-elect, we can find most of the struggles of humanity.     

One must also recognize that an election does not mean the non-elect is unloved. Nor does it mean that the non-elect serves no purpose. It should equally be stated that those elected for whatever purpose can still choose to walk in sin or make grievous mistakes. We see this concept with Pharaoh, Cyrus, and frequently with the nation of Israel. The idea of an election feels scandalous to the human mind because it triggers psychological base-level responses within us, like favoritism, jealousy, and pride. We must also remember that election and salvation can be two very different things. 

Even within the New Testament, we see hints of election themes or aspects of God that rile our sense of fairness. In Matt 20: 1-16, with the parable of the vineyard workers, we see the jealousy of the early workers aroused against those that came in late because the late workers received the same amount as the early workers. Also, in the parable of the talents in Matt 25:14-30, some are given five talents, while others are given two or one talent. This unequal talent distribution has the potential to rub our sense of "fairness" in all the wrong directions. Indeed, who are we to say what or whom God can elect and for what purpose? Why can't God give one man five talents and another only one? And to the man given five talents, woe to you if you don't invest wisely. The Jewish people were the first to be blessed but equally the first to be judged. Being chosen in this capacity is a challenging load to bear.  

We also see this in the transformation of Saul to Paul. It seems that Paul did not choose to be saved as much as God chose to save Paul. Paul was arrested by God, thrown to the ground, and temporarily blinded. It might more accurately be said that God elected Paul out of the destructive road that Paul was on.

Even Jesus himself said seemingly harsh statements like not to throw the food out to the dogs, relating to the gospel going outside of Israel to the Gentiles. Jesus also says, "Salvation is of the Jews". All of these concepts are scandalous to the modern mind. 

Within God's election, there always seems to be the idea that God's election is, at least in some way, for the good of the non-elect and that it is equally for the benefit of the non-elect to stand and support the election of the elect. If not simply for the reason that to do otherwise breeds jealousy and envy. Even deeper though we see the possibility of an economy of mutual blessing when both sides honor God's election design. There seems to be some divine purpose in the differences that somehow, in God's mysterious plans, work together for the good of both parties. As Dr. Kaminsky states: "the blessing of the non-elect is frequently brought about by their relationship to the elect."  (Kaminsky 2016, #25)

In this essay, we will explore three themes around the ongoing significance of God's election of Israel. A fourth theme should be mentioned, which is the future purposes of Israel in God's overarching kingdom narrative. Due to the length of that topic, it will be saved for a separate essay. In this essay, we will explore the theme of election as it relates to service, a witness, and finally and primarily as an expression of God's unfailing love.  

Election for Service:  

In all likelihood, the theme of service is the easiest for the human mind to grasp. Our nature, as humans, is to see things in transactional ways. God chooses Israel, but he does so because he needed them for an instrumental reason. A crude analogy for describing this is that God required digging a hole, so he elected a group of people as his shovel. When we see things in primarily instrumental ways, we can also see how instruments can be cast off when they don't perform as we want.  

In this way, when Israel failed to live up to its calling, which it frequently did, we can understand how God would cast them off because that is precisely what we would do if something were not performing as we wanted it to. 

Indeed, when God made his covenant with Abraham, one of the three aspects of this covenant was on behalf of the nations (Gen 12:3). We can see that when God reaches out to Abraham, God is also reaching out to the nations through Abraham and ultimately Jesus. When God makes a covenant with Abraham, in a real sense, he is also making a covenant for the nations. 

The question then becomes, was Israel's election primarily made for instrumental reasons? I am going to argue against this position, even though the instrumental themes for the election of Israel are certainly within the Bible.  

Within God's election of Israel, there seems to be no question that God is looking for Israel to respond to their election by being a "holy nation and a nation of kingdom of priests." (Ex 19:6)  As Michael Wyschogrod, the Jewish theologian has stated: "Israel tends to forget that its election is for service, that it is a sign of the infinite and unwarranted gift of God rather than any inherent superiority of the people." (Soulen 2004, #181)

One might rightly ask, then, what service does Israel provide? 

And what service has the Jews provided the nations? 

Sohn argues in The Divine Election of Israel that Israel's service went in two directions. The first and primary direction it went was towards God. The second direction it goes as a witness to the nations. Sohn argues: 

"As a servant of Yahweh, Israel was to worship him, celebrate his feasts, and sacrifice to him. Yahweh wanted Israel to be a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6). The phrase "a kingdom of priests" does not necessarily imply "the priest as a representative of nations" here. Rather, those services were exclusively committed to Israel among the nation" (Sohn 2001, #196)

Sohn's schema of election sees Israel's service as primarily toward God but secondarily as a witness to the nations, which we explore in our next point. But outside of the service motif, Sohn sees Israel's election as primarily an outflow of love and divine choice by God toward Israel. 

The biggest opponent to what Sohn argues above is probably N.T. Wright. More than any other living theologian, Wright extensively argues that Israel was chosen primarily for instrumental reasons. It is no small thing that Wright argues this, considering his massive influence on the New Perspective on Paul within theology. Wright summarizes his position on the instrumental nature of Israel when he uses Isaiah 40-66 (primarily Isaiah 42:6; 49: 6 when the light to the nations metaphor is used) and says:

Torah gives 'the Jew' the outline of knowledge and truth; it is then the responsibility of 'the Jew' to pass this on to the world, to obey the vocation, to bring a balance to the world, to mend the world. (Wright 2013, #811 )

Wright then uses Romans 2:17-20 as Paul's own indictment against Israel that she has not lived out her instrumental calling. (Wright 2013, #810-16) Wright's use of Romans 2 here is a New Testament and Pauline witness, according to Wright, that Israel has failed in this calling as a witness. 

In an inner-faith response, Mark Reasoner, a Catholic, and Joel Kaminsky, a Jewish theologian, respond to Wright's assessment of an instrumental reading of Israel's election. They are critical of what they deem is an overly instrumental reading of Wright into the election of Israel. They also criticize Wright's inherently Christian-oriented missional view of Israel. Another way of saying what Reasoner and Kaminsky say is that there are issues reading Isaiah in the light of Christianity and its primary missional-focused work. They argue that to compare the call of the Jewish nation to the call of Christianity makes for an incredibly strained argument. They argue against Wright with their critique below:

"N. T. Wright offers a systematic and highly influential metanarrative to account for Paul's theology of Israel. However, Wright overlooks or underemphasizes important dimensions of Paul's thinking, leading to problematic distortions. Thus, Wright claims that God rejected the historical people of Israel due to their failure to missionize the gentile nations, an idea not easily found in the Hebrew Bible texts Paul utilizes or in Paul's own statements concerning his fellow Jews. These exegetical decisions, which form a tightly structured messiah-oriented understanding of Israel's election, ignore what the Hebrew Bible and Paul affirm: while God accomplishes certain larger aims through Israel, God's election of Israel is ultimately grounded in God's inalienable love for Israel and Israel's ancestors."  (Reasoner and Kaminsky 2019, #1)

Wright eventually uses his instrumental reading of Israel to explain why Paul and Jesus forsake natural Israel. One can see this in Wright's language when he says:

"As we have already seen in relation to the question of table-fellowship, Paul has (dare we say!) replaced the solidarity of Israel, and/or his group of "the pure" within Israel, with the solidarity of the people of God who find their identity "in the Messiah." (Wright 2013, #367)

Wright continues to put forth replacement language when he says:

"Because Paul has so thoroughly and carefully revised the symbols of Temple, Torah and land, this revision, which refers to actual flesh-and-blood communities, now has to bear even more weight, within his symbolic universe, than its ancient Jewish original. The family solidarity of Israel was, after all, one of the load-bearing pillars, along with those others. But the kind of revision that has happened leaves this new family as the sole concrete, visible symbol of the new worldview. He [Paul] is horribly, tragically aware of the enormous question that this raises about those of his kinsfolk who do not believe in Jesus as Messiah, but it is a tragedy, . . . precisely because he believes that Israel's God, through Israel's Messiah and his death and resurrection, has himself redefined the family as he always warned that he would, and has done so thoroughly, explicitly, effectively."  (Wright 2013, #368)

In the above comment, we can see Wright spiritualizing all of the promises to Israel, revising the family of Israel in a way that removes natural Israel, and then laying the responsibility for this at the feet of Paul. The nexus of Wright's argument and the reason Wright's Paul does this is because of Israel's instrumental failure within God's purpose for Israel.

It is worth noting that of the three pioneers in the New Perspective on Paul (Sanders, Dunn, Wright), not all believe what Wright does. Dunn says the following about Israel's election:

"Could Paul only defend his gospel for Gentiles by denying that God remained committed to Israel? His denial was, as usual, emphatic: mē genoito—"By no means. God forbid." But the tension remained. Indeed, the theological argument of the letter reaches its climax precisely as the attempt to square the circle: that God is both a God who elects one and rejects the other (9.6–13) and the God who will have mercy on all (11.25–32). The God of Israel is the one God, is the God of all. And in his concluding summary Paul seeks to maintain the tension by declaring that "Christ became servant of circumcision for the sake of God's faithfulness" (Rom. 15.8)." (Dunn 2006, #45)

To translate Dunn, he says that even though there is theological tension in this, Paul does not need to deny God's commitment to Israel to bring the gospels to the Gentiles. Even with the paradox, God can remain faithful to Israel in their unbelief while also getting the gospel to the Gentiles and expanding the language of Israel to include the Gentiles. 

I would further critique Wright by challenging the idea that Israel failed. Paul highlights this idea in Romans 9 when he communicates all that has come through Israel: the oracles, the patriarchs, the promises, the diving glory, and even the Messiah in the flesh. I would add the apostles and the N.T. writings to the list of achievements of natural Israel on behalf of the world. The world has been offered salvation through the work of Israel. From the Christian perspective, we read a book assembled by Jews and embodied by Jewish people. Many times, this embodiment meant their death as far up as the holocaust when, as Wyschogrod said, "Jews who holding their children by their hands, walked into Hitler's gas chambers, grateful for the opportunity to sanctify God's name." (Soulen 2004, #182) This Bible that has now been assembled, often at the cost of both victory and defeat, is now in almost every home or online, accessible from every device or computer. How could a group be more missional than this? Their mission didn't look like flying bibles into the Congo or holding tent rallies in the south, but by all metrics, the outflow of natural Israel is the pillar that holds up the Christian faith. Israel to the world was a success in every metric in terms of offering the world the reality of the truth. Even in their "failure," which is to say from the Christian perspective, their ongoing blindness to the Messiah is to the benefit of the Gentiles, as Paul says in Romans 11:28.

As a final question to Wright, it would be interesting to understand if he views the Church's success as a result of the Church's own actions or of God's faithfulness. 

To end this idea we can look towards Leslie Newbigin masterful statement when she says:

“It is precisely because she [the church] is not merely instrumental that she can be instrumental.” (Newbigin 2009, 148)

It seems we should be willing to give Israel the same grace in which we see ourselves and God’s interaction with both communities. While we can undoubtedly see universal and instrumental traits of God's election of Israel, it is doubtful and difficult to prove that this is the primary motivation for Israel's election.  Let us now explore Israel as a witness.  

Election As A Witness: 

Another aspect of Israel's election was their witness to the nations. By hallowing God's name throughout their nation, the nations were supposed to recognize the holiness of God. We see this in Deuteronomy 19:5. There is an interplay between when Israel obeys God and when the nations see the righteousness of God. There is also the judgment side of this, which we see in full with Deuteronomy 28. To be chosen, when this turns to disobedience, means to be judged by God, as Wysochogrod says, "by punishments so terrible that no human justice could ever warrant them." (Soulen 2004, #26)

We can see this witness theme in Deuteronomy 4:5-7 when it says: 

"See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people." What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?

We frequently see that corporate Israel failed in its witness in this capacity. When Israel failed, God would eventually judge as He said He would. But Israel's witness is not only when it was unfaithful. It also includes its faithfulness and the heroic acts of Abraham, Moses, Caleb, Joshua, Elijah, Isaiah, David, Daniel, and the host of faithful Jews.  

In Isaiah 42, the prophet says this:

"You are My witnesses," declares the Lord,

"And My servant whom I have chosen,

So that you may know and believe Me

And understand that I am He.

Before Me, there was no God formed,

And there will be none after Me.

I, only I, am the Lord,

And there is no savior besides Me.

It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,

And there was no strange god among you;

So you are My witnesses," declares the Lord,

"And I am God.

As Sohn says:

"Israel was his chosen servant to be his witness, to testify that Yahweh alone is savior and that he alone is God from eternity (Is. 41:8; 44: l-2,8,21; 49:3-6). In order to be so, Israel was to know him and believe him. And Yahweh has put his words into her mouth (51: 16) to speak for him (51:16; 59:21) and to declare his praise (43:21). From this perspective of servanthood, Israel again can be called "a light to the Gentiles." (Sohn 2001, #198)

Augustine created his entire "doctrine of Jewish witness," often called "the witness doctrine," on Jewish unfaithfulness. He could not understand why the Jewish people continued to exist after the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Augustine "develops his theory that the Jews had a continuing role to play in salvation history, and that this role was to form a living testimony to the truth of Christian claims. Scattered throughout the Diaspora, they brought their own sacred texts with them. These texts (the Old Testament) carried the prophecies of Christ, and since they were borne by a people who were notoriously hostile to Christians, they had even greater veracity. A Christian could point to a Jewish text and say, "See, even our enemies attest to the prophecies." (McDonald 2012)

Augustine's witness doctrine has harsh edges, viewed through today's lens. He compared the wanderings of the Jews to the mark of Cain after he slayed his brother Abel (Jesus in this example). He has some very punitive perspectives on the Jewish people, but he did confess to a hopeful perspective of the hardening of Israel mentioned in Romans 11. "He understood that Israel's hardening was temporary and that it was for the benefit of the Gentiles." (Fredriksen 1995, #281,290)

One could also argue that antisemitism is the apparent response to God's election of Israel. The thousand-year wanderings of the Jewish people are both a failure on the part of the nations in their response to Israel's election and in part due to Israel's failures. One could rightly call antisemitism the most ancient of hatreds. It is the rivalry of siblings played out on a grand scale. Even in antisemitism, we see the witness of Israel's election played out, obviously in a very negative way.  Hatred of the Jews actually tells us something very relevant about their ongoing election.

It is worth adding that hardly a day goes by without Israel being in the news in some way, whether it is the modern nation of Israel or some form of antisemitism sweeping through Europe or parts of America again. When looking at the current media trends, Israel dominates the airwaves. This influence is perplexing when we consider that Israel is one of the smallest nations in the world, and the Jews constitute significantly less than even one percent of the world's population. It would be hard to argue that God's desire to make them a witness is not expressed in this outsized preoccupation with everything related to this small group of people.  

In this understanding of Israel as a witness, we can see that Israel is a witness in both her faithfulness and unfaithfulness. Ultimately, what holds Israel's election up is not Israel's failures or successes; it is the faithfulness of God. It might very well be understood that the witness Israel displays has little to do with her and everything to do with the character of God and that one of the primary roles of Israel as a witness is to tell us something about God. 

Election For The Sake of Love: 

We have examined the themes of service and witness related to Israel's election. Undeniably, both service and witness themes are expressed in God's election of Israel, but I would argue they are not the primary source of its election. I will argue for love and relationship as the basis for God's covenant with Abraham and Israel. Most people would recognize that instrumental purposes are a terrible basis for covenantal relationships. Indeed, as the Church, we don't qualify our understanding of God in this manner. Hopefully, we don't see our marriages this way either. As the writer of John reminds us, "We love because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19)

While the themes of service and witness can be found sporadically in the Old Testament regarding Israel's election, what is not sporadic is the language of love regarding Israel's election. Indeed, when the Exodus writer reminds Israel of why God delivered Israel from Egypt, he says, "Because He loved your ancestors and chose their descendants after them, he brought you out of Egypt by his Presence and his great strength. (Ex. 4:37) 

On the flip side of this love, we can see that when God was angry with Israel, he used love language to display His anger. When he says things like "You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God." (Ex. 20:5-6) We can see this language used throughout the Old Testament, and even Hosea's prophetic story uses the language of marriage and love as a metaphor for Israel. Indeed, when people have a negative view of God's anger in the Old Testament, this can frequently be attributed to his jealous anger boiled against Israel, but even this was an outflowing of His jealous love for them.   

As Sohn argues:

"We have seen that the election term (bāhar) is in almost all cases associated with love terminology, and this explains the reason for Yahweh's election of Israel. The fact that the marriage metaphor describes the idea of election gives us further insight into the motive of Yahweh's election of Israel. Yahweh simply loved Israel, and that was the main reason for Yahweh's election of Israel. "Yahweh did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because Yahweh loved you" (Dt. 7:7-8) (Sohn 2001, #193)

Soulen argues in regards to the choosing of Abraham, there is no language to indicate that God's primary reason for this choice is related to sin and restoring the world in any way. Soulen states: 

"Contrary to a common Christian assumption, nothing about this passage or its immediate context suggests that God's primary motive in calling Abraham is any special concern with the problem of sin, evil, or wickedness. To the contrary, God's motive seems chiefly to be the sheer fecundity and capaciousness of the divine good pleasure. While God's call of Abraham does indeed interrupt previous cycles of curse, this interruption appears to serve a more basic divine purpose. The same God who freely created the human family and blessed it with increase and growth (Gen 1-11) now graciously promises to bless the world "all the families of the earth" in a new way that presupposes God's previous activity but cannot be reduced to it." (Soulen 1996, #120)

We can also see the motif of love and favor in the four Old Testament covenants. When God makes a covenant with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and then David, in all cases, these covenants are meant to be the vehicle of blessing. God comes to each of these covenants with the core feature of blessing them because of His love for them. As Soulen has said, even in regards to the giving of the law, "the Torah is never merely a bulwark against sin. It is much rather a medium of blessing and life." (Soulen 1996, #122)

What the election of Israel tells us about the election of the Church.  

The Church should be able to understand the election of Israel if it has a correctly oriented view of its own election. As George Lindbeck argues:

"When the church is identified by its faithfulness rather than by God's election, Christian communities look for some property within themselves that ensures God will continue to acknowledge them as his own." (Braaten and Jenson 2003, #91)

In other words, we should recognize the grace given to the Church is the same grace given to Israel. Otherwise we tend to fall into our own legalistic and works based righteousness that the human spirit is only too oriented towards.  As Lindbeck continues to argue:

"God was under no necessity to call Abraham, choose Israel, bestow the Torah, send his Son, the Jewish Messiah, that the world might live, open the ranks of the chosen people to the uncircumcised, nor, finally, to promise in and through these acts to establish his reign at the end of time. These events are interlocking and interdefining so that the full significance becomes more and more as one considers them together." (Lindbeck 1997, #441)

An unusual dialogue happened in the 20th century between Christian theologian Karl Barth and Jewish theologian Michael Wyschogrod. In many ways, they are peer minds, both with a love for the word of God and arguably both keenly aware of God's sovereignty and election. Wyschogrod made a fascinating comment after one of his conversations with Barth when he said:

"There is nothing more important that I have learned from Barth than the sinfulness of Israel. There is no question that the history of the Jewish people is a history of obduracy and of unfaithfulness. It is a people that, time and again, has returned evil for God's good and has suffered grievously for it. I do not know that this point would be as clear in my mind were it not for my reading of Barth (and of course, Paul). It might be surprising that this should require a reading of Barth when this point is so clear in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is not a point which is naturally in the forefront of Jewish consciousness and I am deeply grateful to Barth for teaching it to me.

But, to turn from confession to comment, it is not the whole truth. Reading Barth, one would gain the impression that there is nothing but faithfulness on God's part and unfaithfulness on Israel's. This is not so. "Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem," proclaims Jeremiah (2:23), "saying, Thus saith the Lord: I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou went after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown. Israel is holiness unto the Lord, and the first fruits of his increase, all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the Lord."

There is nothing but faithfulness on God's part, but it is not the case that there is nothing but unfaithfulness on Israel's part. Along with the unfaithfulness, there is also Israel's faithfulness, its obedience and trust in God, its clinging to its election, identity, and mission against all the odds. True, all of Israel's obedience is tinged with its disobedience, but all of its disobedience is also tinged with its obedience. It is true that Israel does not deserve its election but it is also true that its election is not in vain, that this people, with its sin, has never ceased to love its God and that it has responded to God's wrath, to his unspeakable wrath, to his unthinkable wrath, by shouldering its mission again, again searing circumcision into its flesh and, while hoping for the best, prepared for what it knows can happen again. Perhaps it is not seemly to speak thus, to praise Israel when it should be criticized. But he who knows the God of Israel knows how he loves his people and that he loves those who love it." (Soulen 2004, #223)

The Church could learn much from Wyschogrod's understanding of Israel's election. That its election, like ours, is merely a gift by the grace of God. Both parties are underserving. Both frequently fail. Yet, we also exist by God's grace and sometimes succeed amongst our failures. Our obedience, tinged with all the failings common to humanity, still marches on. This story then becomes not so much about us at all, but about God and his faithfulness. This is the heart of the story within Israel and the Church.   

"It is only when the Church persists in refusing to learn this message, were it secretly-perhaps, unconsciously! Believes that its own existence is based on human achievement, and so fails to understand God's mercy to itself, that it is unable to believe in God's mercy for still unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and unscriptural notion that God has cast off His people Israel and simply replaced it by the Christian Church."  (Cranfield 2000, #244)

References:

Braaten, Carl E., and Robert W. Jenson, eds. 2003. Jews and Christians: People of God. N.p.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Cranfield, CEB. 2000. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Introduction and Commentary on Romans I-VIII, Vol. 1 I. Vol. 2. 4 vols. N.p.: T&T Clark.

Dunn, James D. G. 2006. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. N.p.: Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Fredriksen, Paula. 1995. Excaecati Occulta Justitia Dei: Augustine on Jews and Judaism, Article.

Kaminsky, Joel S. 2016. Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election. N.p.: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Lindbeck, George. 1997. "The Gospels Uniqueness - Election and Untranslatability." Modern Theology 13, no. 4 (October): 423-450.

McDonald, Thomas L. 2012. "St. Augustine and the Jews | Wonderful Things." Thomas L. McDonald. https://thomaslmcdonald.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/unwilling-witnesses-st-augustine-and-the-witness-doctrine/.

Newbigin, Leslie. 2008. The Household of God: Lectures on the Nature of the Church. 148: Wipf & Stock

Novak, David. 2007. The Election of Israel: The Idea of the Chosen People. N.p.: Cambridge University Press.

Reasoner, Mark, and Joel Kaminsky. 2019. "The Meaning and Telos of Israel's Election: An Interfaith Response to N.T. Wright's Reading of Paul." Harvard Theological Review 112, no. 4 (September): 421-446.

Sohn, Seock-Tae. 2001. The Divine Election of Israel. N.p.: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Soulen, R. K. 1996. The God of Israel and Christian theology. N.p.: Fortress Press.

Soulen, R. K., ed. 2004. Abraham's Promise. N.p.: Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Wright, N.T. 2013. Paul and The Faithfulness of God. N.p.: Fortress Press.