Asia-Africa Journal of Mission and Ministry

Vol. 22, pp. 3–25, Aug. 31, 2020

ⓒ 2020 Mission and Society Research Institute
https://doi.org/10.21806/aamm.2020.22.01

Metaphors of Election in the Old Testament

1
Elisha Kwabena Marfo

ABSTRACT—The theme of election is prominent, if not the central

theme, in the Old Testament. Election is expressed in some particular
terminologies, but very often mirrored otherwise through imageries and
metaphors. The election metaphors cover several issues that present
themselves in the daily lives of humankind. Metaphors such as parental
adoption or father/son relationship, military recruitment, master/servant
relationship, shepherd/flock relationship, farmer/plant relationship,
potter/pottery relationship, and marital union are used by the Hebrew
Bible writers to highlight the theme. This underscores the theological
significance of election in the Old Testament. Looking at the different
aspects of the election metaphors, it also appears as a concept
contributing to the theological coherence of the Old Testament. Thus,
the concept belongs to the very theological framework of the Old
Testament.
Keywords: Election, theme, concept, Old Testament, metaphor, lexical
markers, conceptual markers.

I. Introduction

Biblical scholarship shows that election in the Old Testament (OT) is

of great importance for the Christian church today, as it was to the people
of Israel, peoples of the nation, as well as the early church. The idea has a
prominent place in the daily activity of God’s children and their role in
His plan for humanity. The concept is prevalently noted in the OT. It has
been a critical focus of Israel’s pride. Also, in the OT, the idea of election

Manuscript received Feb. 4, 2020; revised Aug. 1, 2020; accepted Aug. 10, 2020.
Elisha Kwabena Marfo(elisha.marfo@vvu.edu.gh) is with Department of Theological
Studies, Valley View University, Ghana. He is a Ghanaian by nationality.
is somehow discussed concerning mission, covenant, and land, among
other concepts.
There is a never-ending inquiry into the nature and scope of the study
of election in the Bible. For example, Rowley (2009) has employed a
systematization of the OT theme on election and how it functions within
the broader context of OT theology. He does not concern himself with a
detailed linguistic study that deals directly with the Hebrew expression of
election. Thus, Rowley’s approach relates to the theological rather than
exegetical/linguistic research of election terms in the OT. Also, Shafer
(1968) has studied election theologically. He points out that God’s
watchful selection of Israel as His priestly family was to set them apart to
take care of the holiness He brings among humanity. Other scholars have
also studied the concept of election theologically (Tsalijini, 2012, pp. 14–
26; Kaminsky, 2011, pp. 34–44; Klein, 1990; Kaminsky, 2001, pp. 135–
144; Kaminsky, 2012, pp. 375–386; Preuss, 1995; Kaminsky, 2007;
Kaminsky, 2013, pp. 44–66; Payne, 1962; Kaminsky, 2008, pp. 123–132;
Imchen, 2001, pp. 23–29). Some theologians, also, study the OT concept
of election from the NT perspective (Wiley & Culberton, 1946;
Berkouwer, 1960; Erickson, 1985; Hodge, 1960; Miley, 1892). It is
impossible to be fully updated on the multitude of publications, but as far
as I can see, the present study, on the metaphors of election as viewed
and mirrored in the OT, fills a gap in the study of the OT.
The objective of this article is to study metaphors used to highlight the
concept of election in the OT. To carry out this task, we will explore the
lexical and conceptual markers that help in understanding the motif in the
Hebrew Bible. Klingbeil’s (2009) method of markers identification is
employed to serve as a way of delineating the theme of election in the OT.
First, the lexical marker for election is analyzed (i.e., semantic field,
word-pairs, quotes, and allusions), then finally, the conceptual markers
(i.e., motifs and typologies). The metaphors are discussed afterward.
However, the concept of mission in the OT is studied chronologically to
ascertain Israel’s interactions with nations/non-Jews concerning mission.

II. Concept of Old Testament Election

The concept of election ensues in relation to people or individuals,

places, and objects. However, the analysis presented here is limited to a
consideration of God’s election of Israel. This is because Israel’s election
receives extensive treatment in the OT, and it also bears direct
significance to the present study.

4 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

 Israel’s election is at the center of their existence as a people called by
God. Israel has viewed election as a fundamental pillar of its religion.
Dunn (1991, p. 18) has rightly pointed out that election was a key pillar
of second temple Judaism. Wright (1968) has also emphasized the
importance of election as an OT theme. He describes the importance of
election in relation to the theme of covenant. He postulates that “the all-
pervading sense of election and covenant, therefore, is the chief clue for
the understanding of Israel’s sense of destiny and of the meaning of
existence” (Wright, 1968, pp. 62–63).
Similarly, some major thematic concepts in the OT, like mission,
remnant, covenant, exile, and restoration, and land, are unswervingly
related to the idea of election. For example, Joubert (1987) has studied
election in the OT and has pointed out that the theme of election leads to
covenant. It is the relationship between the two that helped in the
development of the concept of covenant by the prophetic writers (Cott,
1984, p. 199). Some of these significant OT concepts presuppose the
theme of election. The election theme in the Hebrew Bible “is of
fundamental importance to both Judaism and Christianity, since both
trace their roots to Yahweh’s election of Old Testament Israel” (Sohn,
1991, p. 1). Therefore, God’s election of Israel is a prominent theme in
the OT as God selected the His people and dealt with them all through
Israel’s history in the Hebrew Bible.

III. Lexical and Conceptual Markers of Election in the Old

Testament

Several methodological considerations are given to the study of OT

election. Two main approaches are used. One analyses the semantic field
of election by looking at critical expressions, and the other examines the
theological flow of the concept in the OT concerning Israel. Rogers
(1969), in his study The Doctrine of Election in the Chronicler’s Work
and the Dead Sea Scrolls, considers 19 terms related to election in the
Chronicler’s work. He looks at the nominal and verbal aspect of the
terms but dwells mostly on the Hebrew bāḥar which he classifies as the
sine qua non of election in Chronicles and the Dead Sea scrolls. In the
Dead Sea Scrolls, he identifies 22 terms from which he undertakes a
comparison of the theology both the Chronicler’s work and the Dead Sea
Scrolls bring out. Joubert (1958), also, points out that the Hebrew verb
bāḥar in the OT “is the most important terminus technicus of election,
describing grace as the ground of election” (p. 201).

AAMM, Vol. 22, 5

 The study of the semantic field of themes gives a better opportunity of
comprehending the role and meaning concepts in the OT, especially OT
theology of any kind. The writers of the Hebrew Bible depicted ideas and
concepts through terms, expressions, pictorial and narrative forms for
proper and better understanding, instead of abstract terms/forms of
presentation. The OT audiences’ mindset, also, was able to clinch to the
ideas in such ways.
The concept of election in the OT is shown in different facets of the
Hebrew Bible. Several markers give nuance to the idea. To rely only on a
particular election marker would not provide a clear picture of the
concept and could present only one face of it. As Sohn (1991) has
indicated, the idea of election in Scripture is portrayed in “a variety of
metaphors. We must understand this idea in light of the composite picture
portrayed by these various imageries. The idea of election is too vast and
deep to be expressed by a single term or phrase. Rather, election is a
composite idea with graphic imagery developed from the unique life
context of Old Testament Israel” (p. 100).
In this article, though two different markers are used in analyzing the
idea of election in the OT, the metaphors of election are critically studied.
The two markers are lexical election markers and conceptual election
markers. These markers are outlined and considered in the OT context.

A. Lexical Markers for Election

The exploration of the Hebrew lexicons of election provides a

foundation for defining an OT concept of election. “The idea of election
has its origins in a variegated and changing life setting, and it is
expressed in a variety of literary terms and styles” (Sohn, 1991, p. 3). The
lexical choices help in understanding the context of the election theology
in the OT. Also, the lexical relations emanating from the markers are
essential in exploring the meaning and significant role of the OT theme
of election.

1. Semantic field
The concept of election is projected in the Hebrew Bible with lexical
markers from the semantic field of several terms/expressions. Key among
the terms is bāḥar (Shafer, 1977, p. 20). bāḥar in its simplest meaning is
“to test” (cf. Isa 48:10), “to select” (cf. Gen 6:2; Job 9:14), “to give
preference to” (cf. 2 Sam 6:21), or “to elect” (Judg 5:8; Ps 135:4; 1 Kgs
8:16) (Holladay, 1971, s.v. “bḥr”). Other terms include lāqah “to take,
lay hold of, seize” (Deut 21:11–12; Judg 21:22; Josh 4:2; Hag 2:23)

6 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

(Holladay, 1971, s.v. “lāqah”; see also Gen 6:21; 32:13; 47:2; Deut 21:3;
26:2; Judg 6:25; 1 Sam 7:9, 12; 2 Sam 3: 15; 12:4; 1 Kgs 18:31; 2 Kgs 7:
14; Is. 44: 15; Ezek. 16: 16, 17; 17: 15). The lexicon may include yādaʽ
“to know” (cf. Gen 18:19; Job 34:4; Amos 3:2; Hos 13:4–5) (Koehler, &
Baumgartner, 2001, s.v. “yādaʽ”). It further includes ʾāhab “to love” (cf.
Deut 7:7; 10:15; Mal 1:2–3) (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, 1952|, 1952, s.v.
“ʾāhab”). It should be noted that these terms construe the idea of election
from the primeval period towards the end of the post-exilic period. It
serves to reflect the broadness of the terms and how the OT presents the
concept along with Israel’s history and their relationship with God.

2. Appellatives
Some appellatives seem to underscore YHWH’s relationship with
humans, particularly, with His people, Israel. The appellatives show
God’s election of Israel. One of the titles is ʽamî, which is translated as
My people (cf. Exod 3:7, 10; 7:4; Isa. 1:3; Amos 7:8).
Apart from ʽamî, several other appellatives related to the theme of
election appear in the OT. Such appellatives are doubtless packed with
the theological meaning of election. The appellative ʽabǝdî, which is
translated as My servant or from the OT context, the servant of YHWH,
occurs in Deut 32:36 and Jer 25:9 to convey the idea of God’s election of
Israel. The use of the title perhaps has to bear from the context. Moses
admonishes the people of Israel at the plains of Moab before his death
and assures them of judgment and compassion over Israel as His selected
nation (Deut 32:36). When Israel loses strength, YHWH, through His
promise, will give them the power to overcome their weakness. Judging
from the context, therefore, one can say that Moses’ use of the appellative
is descriptive of God’s assurance and will to protect and judge His elect.
Another appellative that denotes election is ʽamô, which can be
translated as His people (i.e., the people of YHWH [cf. Deut 32:36, 43;
Judg 5:11]). There is also the title lî sǝgulāh mikāl-hāʽammîm which is
translated as My own possession among the people (i.e., people of God’s
distinct possession [cf. Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ps 135:4; Mal
3:17]). All these appellative phrases suggest God’s election of His people.
It also highlights the understanding of the theme of election in the OT.
The foregoing discourse has observed that there are several
appellatives connected to election in the OT. It is obvious that these
appellatives denote God’s election of Israel as His people; hence they are
a means of revealing His choosing of the nation. Each of these various
appellatives was therefore employed in contexts which best suited its
theological meaning of election.

AAMM, Vol. 22, 7

 bāḥar. For this study, bāḥar is further analyzed for a clearer
understanding of election in the OT. The term is seen as one of the
essential expressions that depict the theme of election. According to
Abraham Even-Shoshan, the root bḥr and its derivatives are attested 198
times in the Hebrew Bible (Even-Shoshan, 1979, s.v. “bḥr”).
The root bḥr is attested in Middle Hebrew, Amorite or East Canaanite,
and Akkadian. It is also found in the Biblical Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic,
Old South Arabian, Jewish Aramaic, and Palestine Aramaic (Koehler, &
Baumgartner, 2001, s.v. “bḥr”). bḥr is a Semitic root word and widely
used amongst the Western Semitic peoples. It appears in the Ugaritic, but
not in the Ethiopic. The term is related to the Aramaic bḥr which has the
meaning of service (Koehler, & Baumgartner, 2001, s.v. “bḥr”), and in
cultic sense worship (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, 1952|, s.v., “bḥr”).
However, in the basic understanding of the Aramaic, bḥr means to “select,
choose” (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, 1952|, s.v., “bḥr”).
In Egypt, the root śtp means selection or choosing. It also means “to
choose someone or something out of a larger group or to give preference
to someone or something above another” (Bergman & Ringgren, 1999, p.
2:73). The selection conveyed by śtp was carried out in a royal setting.
The Egyptian Pharaoh had the privilege to choose people, lands, and
objects as an honor or for the best of things.
The verb in Mesopotamia (w)atû gives the meaning of discovery,
choice, and seeking (Koehler, & Baumgartner, 2001, s.v. “bḥr”). This
shows that the root was widely used amongst the ANE peoples. Special
privileges were given to the kings in Mesopotamia for appointment and
selection of people. The king was seen as the “Chosen One of the gods”
with much emphasis on the purpose of choice (Bergman & Ringgren,
1999, p. 2:74).
The Syriac conveys testing or choosing. The Middle Hebrew conveys
the same idea of selection and choice. In the Christian Palestine Aramaic,
the term expresses selection, and/or choosing men for military battle. The
root used in its substantival sense, Amorite or East Canaanite Yabḫaru
and beḫru involve the notion of elite soldiers. The root in the Akkadian
bēru is a root word that conveys the usual meaning of choice or choosing.
The other forms of the Akkadian word are beḫēru which expresses the
idea of choosing (Bergman & Ringgren, 1999, p. 2:74; Brown, Driver, &
Briggs, 1952|, s.v., “bḥr”). Its participle form biḫirtu means “official to
levy troops” (Bergman & Ringgren, 1999, p. 2:74; Koehler, &
Baumgartner, 2001, s.v. “bḥr”). Thus, the derivatives of bḥr are generally
assumed to mean to choose or to select.

8 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

 3. Word-Pairs
In this link, reference ought to be made of word-pairs similar to the
use of bāḥar and lāqah that show robust reference markers to election
from a relational point of view. bāḥar and lāqah in the book of Haggai
show semantic word-pair. Haggai 2:23 uses both terms in a synonymous
way to God’s election of an individual and a group of people, in this case,
Israel. YHWH’s selection of His servant Zerubbabel is parallel to His
election of Israel. Therefore the usage of both bāḥar and lāqah here in
collocation/word-pair indicates God’s relationship with individuals and
Israel through His divine process of election.
Another word-pair that highlights the concept of election in the OT is
bāḥar and ʾāhab. They occur collocationally in the Torah (cf. Deut 4:37;
10:15), the Prophets (cf. Isa 41:8), and the Writings (cf. Ps 47:5; 78:68).
In Deut 4:37, Israel’s election by God and His subsequent deliverance of
His people from Egyptian slavery is premised on love. From the text,
ʾāhab is the impetus for God’s election. It should be stated that, although
love serves as the motivation for Israel’s election by God, in Mal 1:2
ʾāhab is employed with the sense of God’s choice of Israel implied.

4. Quotes
In the Bible, most writers support their arguments or concepts by
quoting earlier writers. Some authors also affirm, validate, or develop
what an earlier author has stated. On election, such quotes are mostly
found in the NT, mostly from the writings of Paul. For example, Paul, in
Rom 9, argues on God’s election based on the OT. He quotes several
passages from the Torah to the Prophets tracing out Israel’s election by
God in biblical history. In Rom 9:14–18, the apostle uses two passages
from the book of Exodus to establish the dominance of God’s election
and how the non-elect has a place in the plans of God (cf. Exod 9:16;
33:19). Paul also quotes several passages from the books of Isaiah and
Hosea to demonstrate the outcomes of Israel’s election and the duties that
are to be undertaken by the nation.

5. Allusions
Allusions construct fewer etymological reference indicators but are
commonly used in the OT. A biblical allusion is an unintended or
ephemeral reference to other passages or ideas in the Bible, and seeks to
bring to mind ideas without commenting on it explicitly (Broyles, 2001,
p. 167; Klingbeil, 2009, p. 28). Allusions produce fewer reliable
vocabulary reference indicators. Nevertheless, they are commonly
employed by the OT writers. When the writer of Hosea indicates God’s

AAMM, Vol. 22, 9

command to name his son lōʾ ʽamî (literary not My people), the allusion
to God’s election of Israel was emphasized by presenting a negative
election status for the people of Israel (Hos 1:9). This allusion thereby
makes a profound statement of the negated state of Israel’s election and
God’s displeasure at their behavior.
In Isaiah 30:14; 41:25; and 64:7, the prophet alludes to the shaping
into form like pottery of Israel by God as an image of Israel’s election. A
similar allusion is employed by Jeremiah in Jer 18:1–10. These allusions
in the nature of metaphors show YHWH as the potter who fashions out
the people of Israel according to His desires, as pottery is made out of
clay by a potter. These also make a significant proclamation for the
theological understanding of election in the OT through allusions.

B. Conceptual Election Markers

Ideas pertaining to concepts in the OT are vital in understanding the

OT theme of election. These are the ample features in the OT that make it
possible for the concept of election to be made eligible and
understandable (Nida, 1979, p. 26). They serve as bridges that link
concepts in the OT.

1. Motifs
From the Hebrew Bible, the call of Abraham and God’s subsequent
covenant with him and his descendants offered God’s people ideas and
backgrounds to describe their election situations. It provided a
framework by which to understand other acts of God’s election of Israel
(Gen 12:1–9). Moreover, God invested the Abrahamic call with election
and future anticipation elements in the preparation of His people for His
plans for the other nations and the world as a whole (Gen 15, 17). The
idea was interlaced into the fabric of the OT, as Hebrew Bible writers
looked to previous historical events to comprehend the contemporary and
the impending events (Deut 15:15; 24:18).
Also, the covenant motif provides a panoramic understanding of how
the concept of election is viewed and consummated in the OT (Gen 12,
15, 17). “The Covenant is an election ‘You belong to me from among all
peoples’; it is a bond, the people will have with Yahweh the particularly
close bond of belonging which characterizes the priestly function; it is an
obedience, for if Yahweh is king, the members of the people can only be
the subjects who will follow Him everywhere he leads” (Imchen, 2001, p.
25, Italic his). Thus, these motifs help in noting the importance and

10 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

background of the concept of election in the OT (cf. Exod 7:4–5; 9:16;
Isa 41:8; 43:1; 44:1–2; 45:4; 48:12; 51:16).

2. Typologies
To Davidson (2000), typology is the “study of persons, events, or
institutions in salvation history that God specifically designed to
predictively prefigure their antitypical eschatological fulfillment in Christ
and the gospel realities brought about by Christ” (p. 83). They reserve
historical facts of occasions or biblical characters of a previous era and
bring them into current situations still carrying a theological focus or
undertone (cf. Isa 42:1; 48:14–15; 49:1–6; 61:1).

IV. Metaphors of Election in the Old Testament

Away from the Hebrew Bible’s use of terms, expressions, and phrases
related to the concept of election, the writers show some connections in
the OT that picture YHWH’s selection of the people of Israel. It comes in
the form of metaphors. The term metaphor can be defined as a “figure of
speech that implies a comparison between two unlike entities, as
distinguished from simile, an explicit comparison signaled by the words
like or as” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2002). Wright (1969) also
indicates that with the metaphorical presentation of the OT, “the images
or symbols are abstractions of experienced realities by which and within
which thinking and action take place” (Wright, 1969, p. 147).
The OT records a plethora of pictorial forms (Kahn, 1985, p. 350),
images (Ryken, Wilhoit, & Longman III, 1998, p. 30), and metaphors
(Soskice, 1987, pp. 15, 58) related to the concept of election. These are
pervasive throughout the OT corpus. The idea of election was part of the
understanding of the people of Israel and formed part of their theological
impulse. Before God selected the nation, the peoples’ mindset on election
was construed along with metaphors and imageries of their daily cultural
practice and lives. These several pictures aided as illustrations that
elucidated and deduced accurately how God’s people understood and
arrogated the realism of the idea of election in their context.

A. Parental Adoption or Father/Son Relationship

The idea of adoption is used by the OT authors to show the reality of

Israel’s adoption by God (Knobloch, 1992, pp. 1:76–79; Moule, 1962, pp.
1:48–49; Gold, 1987, pp. 443–450; Gold, 1994, pp. 173–179). Though

AAMM, Vol. 22, 11

very little is portrayed in the OT on a specific situation where OT
characters practiced adoption, the concept was generally known and also
very common in the Ancient Near East (Ellis, 1975, pp. 130–151;
Mendelsohn, 1959, pp. 180–183; Paul, 1979–1980, pp. 173–185). For
example, the Nitocris Adoption Stela dated around 656BC records the
adoption of Nitocris, an Egyptian Pharaoh’s (Psammetichus) daughter, as
“successor to the celibate Divine Wife of Amon at Thebes” (Knobloch,
1992, p. 1:77).
Exodus 2:10 indicates an adoption. The daughter of the Egyptian
Pharaoh adopted Moses. The text reads, “And the child grew, and she
brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son” (Exod 2:10).
The Hebrew phrase wahǝwāh lah lǝbar shows an adoption formula. The
use of hyh in the phrase emphasizes a “transition from one sphere of
existence to another . . . in describing the concept of adoption” (Sohn,
1991, p. 62). Other adoption formulae found in the Hebrew Bible are 2
Sam 7:14 and Jer 31:9. Both use the phrases ʾanî ʾehǝyeh lo lǝʾāb wǝhûʾ
yihǝyeh-lî lǝbӗn translated as I will be a father to him and he will be a son
to Me (2 Sam 7:14) and kî-ḥāyîtî lǝyisǝrāʾǝl lǝʾāb wǝʾepǝrayim hûʾ
translated as For I am a father to Israel, And Ephraim is My first-born
(Jer 31:9). While 2 Sam 7:14 shows a personal level of God’s adoption
that highlights His election of David as King over Israel, Jer 31:9
indicates a national level of adoption where YHWH serves as the father
of Israel.
Other examples of the metaphor of parental adoption are found in the
OT. In Gen 15:2–3, Eliezer was given the status of a son by Abraham and
could inherit Abraham’s estate. Also, Mordecai, Esther’s uncle, adopted
her after the demise of her parents (Esth 2:7, 15). Furthermore, the OT
uses the phrase I will become your God, and you shall be My people, that
shows God’s adoption and His election of Israel. [The adoption formula
of I will become your God, and you shall be My people are attested in the
Torah (Exod 29:45; Lev 11:45; 22:33; 26:12, 45; Num 15:41; Deut
26:19; 29:12), Prophets (2 Sam 7:24; 2 Kgs 11:17; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 13:11;
24:7; 30:22; 31:1,33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 34:24; 36:28; 37:23,27;
Zech 2:15; 8:8), and Writings (1 Chr 17:22; 2 Chr 23:16)].
In the adoption process, as shown in the OT, YHWH is the initiator.
He adopts Israel. Israel has no active role in the adoption process. God
chooses Israel as His people. He separates them from the rest of the
peoples and makes them heir to His inheritance. As Deut 32:8–9
indicates, “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance when
He divided all mankind, He set up boundaries for the peoples according
to the number of the sons of Israel. For YHWH’s portion is His people,

12 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

Jacob His allotted inheritance.” God promised to protect His people and
to give the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land, as Israel’s inheritance.
As Sohn (1991) rightly articulates, “Since adoption was an expression of
election, the possession of the land for Israel was the sure mark of their
sonship and their election” (p. 72). Israel, on her part, was to be faithful
to God and obedient to His laws (cf. Deut 14:1–2; 28:58–68).
YHWH intimates that “Israel is my firstborn son” (Exod 4:22) whom
He loves unconditionally (Kaminsky, 2007, p. 81; cf. Deut 14:1; Isa
63:16; 64:7–8; Hos 11:1). God’s declaration that Israel is His firstborn in
Exod 4:22 “gives as realistic a sense to the idea as Pharaoh’s family
relationships—the idea to which this election is compared and
contrasted” (Jacob, 1958, p. 202). He delivered Israel out of Egyptian
captivity as slaves into a prosperous nation. He fathered Israel as a father
takes care of his children. Even in Israel’s disobedience, YHWH
continued to care for them and did not abandon them. He wanted Israel to
call Him “Father and not turn away from following” (Jer 3:14) Him (cf.
Jer 31:20; Isa 63:16; 64:7). The prophets also announce Israel’s
restoration into the father-son relationship with God when they lose those
rights. Due to God’s love for the nation, if they sin against Him, He was
ready to show His care and forgiving grace to Israel (Kaminsky, 2007, p.
83). His love in selecting Israel is demonstrated by bringing the nation
back onto the Promised Land to enjoy its fruits and His divine blessings
(cf. Ezek 20:5). The metaphor of God’s adoption of Israel indicates His
unconditional love in electing the nation.

B. Military Recruitment

Military expeditions were part of the cultural setting of Israel. The

nation had to go to war to conquer a city or either defend its cities against
invasions from other nations. The military commanders, notably the
kings, and tribal heads, were mandated to choose among the men of
Israel abled warriors who could serve in battle. This characteristic was
known among the ANE people of the time. It should be noted that God,
as the supreme warrior of His people, solely fought most of Israel’s
battles. Other battles also saw God leading His people, where Israel
receives the blessings of YHWH to go for a war. On other occasions,
God uses the other nations to fight Israel’s battle (cf. Isa 13:3–4).
The Hebrew expressions qrʾ, bḥr, and pqd are the primary terms upon
which the military recruitment metaphor is based. In the wider contexts,
bḥr is employed in the military sense with the notion of charging or
enlisting soldiers (cf. Exod 15:4; 17:9; 18:25; Josh 8:3; 1 Sam 17:1; 2

AAMM, Vol. 22, 13

Sam 10:9). In Judg 20:15, the phrase yiš bāḥûr is used by the author to
show that 700 men were selected among the inhabitants of Gibeah by the
Benjamites to fight Israel. The same phrase is used in Judg 20:34; 1 Sam
24:3; and 2 Chro 13:3, 17 to indicate the selection of military men for
battle. In 1 Kgs 12:20 and 2 Chro 25:5, bāḥûr is used in the selection of
men for a military expedition. Also, in a military context, 2 Sam 10:9
uses both the perfect bḥr and participle bāḥûr. bḥr is also used in Deut 7
in a military setting. Here, YHWH promised to deliver several nations to
Israel upon entering the land of Canaan. Israel is commanded in vv. 1–5
to annihilate them after defeating the nations. Verse 6 indicates God’s
election of Israel as His people to take possession of the land.
qrʾ in its basic meaning denotes call, summon, appoint, or mention.
qrʾ can be construed in military service to mean “to appoint,” “to
conscript,” or “to muster” (Koehler, & Baumgartner, 2001, s.v. “qrʾ”). In
Num 1:16 and 26:9, qrʾ is used by YHWH to either select or summon
Israel to battle her adversaries. As Sohn has rightly pointed out, qrʾ
should not only be considered a “military term but also an election term.
Yahweh called Israel before her birth and named her, just as a military
leader called his officers by name to appoint them to their special
assignment” (Sohn, 1991, p. 52).
pqd among its semantic range of meaning denotes the concept of
rallying an army for war (Koehler, & Baumgartner, 2001, s.v. “pqd”). In
its use in Num 1, YHWH employs pqd to command that all able-bodied
males in Israel of 20 years and above are to be numbered for the military
battle for the Promised Land. The prophet Isaiah, in his prophecy against
Babylon (cf. Isa 13:4), indicates that YHWH is mustering (pqd) an army
for war against Babylon as the day of YHWH approaches (v. 6). Also, in
Isa 14:1, God’s compassion is shown to Israel as His chosen people for
taking hold of the land where foreigners will connect with Israel and
“unite with the house of Jacob” (v. 1). Thus, the metaphor of military
selection in the concept of Israel’s election by God shows Him as a
mighty warrior. He chooses Israel as His host on earth with the role of
winning their battles and bringing them to the land He promised their
fathers.

C. Master/Servant Metaphor

The relationship between God and His people is portrayed in the OT

through the metaphor of master and servant relationship. God refers to
Israel as ʽamî and His sǝgullāh. The first reference to the use of ʽamî by
God is in Exod 3:7, 10. Israel was under Egyptian captivity, and the Lord

14 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

saw the affliction and cry of His people. He moved to save and brought
them to the land He had promised their fathers. YHWH’s claim of His
people as His possession and His intention to liberate them was for His
people to come and serve Him as their God (cf. Exod 3:12). Israel’s
service to their God was the foremost reason in YHWH’s command for
their release from Egyptian bondage. In six instances, the command,
through Moses, to the Egyptian king to release the Israelites, God
reiterated the need for Israel to serve him (cf. Exod 7:16, 26; 8:16; 9:1,
13; 10:3).
The understanding that the people of Israel were the possession of
God is deeply rooted in the OT (cf. 1 Sam 12:22; 2 Sam 7:7–10; 7:23–24;
1 Kgs 3:8–9). God emphasizes Israel as His possession and shows His
ownership of the people. In several instances in the OT, the idea of
YHWH’s ownership is highlighted (cf. Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18;
Ps 135:4; Mal 3:17). The expression sǝgullāh, in its basic and broadest
sense, indicates Israel as the possession of God. The term’s usage in 1
Chro 29:3 and Eccl 2:8 shows the sole possession/treasure of an
individual, notably a king. In this case, Israel could be termed as the
private treasure of YHWH. Also, in its attestation in Deut 7:6; 14:2 and
Ps 135:4, sǝgullāh is used in collocation with bḥr to emphasize its link
with the idea of election and YHWH’s possession of Israel, thereby
reinforcing the master/servant metaphor concept.
In Israel’s history, none of her kings claimed to have taken possession
of the people. The monarchs did not take the people as their personal
treasure. This is because God’s election of Israel was done before the
establishment of the kingship institution of Israel. As Sohn (1991) has
rightly stated, “The idea that the human king is not the ultimate owner of
the people, but that Yahweh is, is a characteristic feature of kingship in
Israel. This could be possible because Yahweh’s election of Israel as his
people existed before the beginning of the monarchy” (p. 137). God’s
possession of Israel as His people is also based on His redemption of
Israel from the Egyptian bondage. The prophet Isaiah links the themes of
possession, redemption, service, and election. In Isa 44:1–6, Isaiah shows
the connection between Israel’s election by God and their status as God’s
servants. Israel serves as both treasures and servants (cf. Isa 49:3)
because they have been procured as God’s noble inheritances (cf. Ps
74:2; Isa 43:3–4, 10). Isaiah portrays a stylistic feature of double
parallelism of Jacob/Israel and servant/elect to highlight this metaphor. In
Isa 41:8–9; 42:1; 43:10; and 44:1, these double parallelisms are indicated.
Isaiah uses ʽbd with a close connection not only with bḥr (the primary

AAMM, Vol. 22, 15

election term), and with qrʾ (another lexical marker for election; see Isa
41:9; 42:6; 43:1; 48:12, 15; 49:1).
The concept of election is also shown through master/servant relations.
Thus, the master/servant correlation is a feature of election. The Hebrew
term ʽbd is used to highlight the idea of servanthood. Israel is an elected
servant of God. The root ʽbd is in Ugarit ‘bd, Old South Arabic ‘bd, and
Arabic ‘abada and give the meaning of service (Koehler, & Baumgartner,
2001, s.v. “ʽbd”). However, the verb form of ʽbd is used for service either
voluntarily or as a slave. This nature of service is “determined by some
other party and is performed for the benefit of that party” (Lindhagen,
1950, p. 50). In its usage to denote service, ʽbd gives the understanding
of a carried out activity or the submission and obedience nature of the
person carrying out the duty. Thus the verb is used either to connote an
“act,” “work/work upon,” or “to serve/service.” These kinds of activities
denoted by the verb occur in both the secular and religious contexts
(Marfo, 2017, pp. 28–44).
The verbal form of ʽbd occurs 289 times in the OT, and in 230 of its
attestations, ʽbd has either God or a king as the object. Other times, the
verb takes a group of people or the nation as its object (cf. 1 Sam 4:9;
11:1; 17:7; 2 Sam 10:19; Jer 40:9). Sometimes it takes certain individuals
as the object. ʽbd connotes “ideas of several Semitic roots, e.g., the old
Aramaic root which means ‘to do or make,’ an Arabic root meaning ‘to
worship, obey’ (God) and its intensive stem meaning ‘to enslave, reduce
to servitude’” (Kaiser, 1980, pp. 2:639–641). On the whole, ʽbd is
primarily used to denote service to God and king. Thus, ʽbd connotes
most expressively Israel as the servant of God. Though the nature of
God’s call to Israel for His service possibly varies, Israel as His servant
was not from her quest but God’s divine selection, which is a result of her
election by God.

D. Shepherd/Flock Metaphor

This metaphor is highlighted in the Book of Psalms and the prophetic

books. They depict the relation between YHWH and Israel as a shepherd
and his flock. Both Psalms 68:8–11 and 77:21 inform how YHWH
delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage and led the people through the
wilderness experience to the Promised Land just as the shepherd leads his
flocks. It shows the election imagery pictured by the authors of the
Psalms. In the Prophets, Isa 63:11 and Hos 11:4 also show YHWH’s
leading of Israel as a shepherd leads his herd (see Isa 40:10–11; Jer
13:17; 23:1–3; 31:10; 50:6; Ezek 34:12–16, 31; 36:37.; Amos 3:12; Mic

16 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

2:12; 4:8; 7:14; Zech 9:16; 10:3). Jacob intimates that the Shepherd/flock
metaphor “by its frequency bears witness to the central place of the
Exodus theme (Ps 68.52; Is. 63.11; Hos 11.1–4) and insists on the utter
dependence of the people with reference to their God” (Jacob, 1958, p.
203).
Along with Israel’s history, the OT shows on several occasions where
Israel went astray from God’s leadership and guidance, but YHWH still
searched for them and brought them back into His fold. God also had to
assign monarchs to keep watch and care for His nation (cf. 2 Sam 5:2;
7:7; 1 Chr 11:2; 17:6; Ps 78:71). God’s care for His flock Israel is
depicted in the shepherd-flock relationship, which shows His election of
Israel.

E. Farmer/Plant Metaphor

This metaphor shows YHWH as a farmer taking an interest in a

particular crop and planting it on his/her farm. Here God is the farmer,
and Israel is the crop. God takes the initiative of selecting Israel and
brings them to the land He promised to their forefathers. Israel’s
settlement in the Promised Land, coupled with her election by God, is
highlighted in the metaphor. So in this metaphor, the land is critical in
understanding the concept of Israel’s election. As Sohn as indicated,
“This image is closely related to the land. On the one hand, the
deportation of the people from the land is viewed as the uprooting of the
vine from the vineyard. On the other hand, the election is portrayed as the
planting and the restoration as the replanting” (Sohn, 1991, p. 164).
Psalm 80:9–16 portrays this imagery. Israel’s election by YHWH is
shown through her deliverance from Egypt and settlement on the land of
Canaan. The passage indicates that YHWH has brought Israel (a vine)
out of the Egyptian bondage, has displaced the nations from the land
(Canaan), and has planted them (Israel) on the land. The Lord also has
taken good care of the plants and favored Israel—His elected people.
Isaiah 5:1–7 also shows YHWH’s election of Israel as His plant,
which He planted for good produce/fruits, but the plants bore unpleasant
fruits. While YHWH was looking for obedience and loyalty from Israel,
the nation yielded disobedience and disloyalty. There was, therefore, the
need for uprooting the harmful plants and replanting good/better ones (cf.
Deut 29:28; Jer 2:21; 11:17; 18:9–23; 45:4; Ezek 19:10–13). God’s
rejection of Israel and their subsequent plunge into captivity shows His
uprooting of the bad crops, and Israel’s restoration on the land shows
God’s replanting of His elected people (cf. Isa 60:21; Jer 24:6; 31:27–30,

AAMM, Vol. 22, 17

40; 32:41; 42:10; Amos 9:15). Hans Wildberger has postulated that
“election is related intrinsically to possession of the land. To be elected
once again means to be brought in and settled in the land once again”
(Wildberger, 1997, 35). Therefore the farmer/plant metaphor could be
seen as highlighting the OT concept of election. In this metaphor, the
election concept is implied and shown commonly through the land
concept and God’s rejection and restoration of His people.

F. Potter/Pottery Metaphor

The Potter/pottery metaphor is somewhat linked to the creation

theology of the OT. The understanding that all things were created by
God and the creatures exist for His purpose and glory. YHWH is the
creator and Maker of Israel. He formed Israel and shaped them into
becoming His people. He chooses Israel because He declares that He
created the nation out of the womb (cf. Isa 44:2). Here Israel’s election is
linked to the creation imageries employed by God. This creation of
imageries and language also shows the Potter/pottery metaphor of God’s
election of Israel.
Both Isaiah and Jeremiah highlight this metaphor in their prophecies.
They use prophetic parables in showing it, and later they employ allusion
to reiterate the metaphor. In Isa 29:16; 45:9–13; and Jer 18:1–10, the
prophets present God as the Supreme potter who has chosen Israel and
shaped her like a clay shaped into pottery. These are also alluded to in Isa
30:14; 41:25; 64:7; and Jer 19:11 where YHWH is shown as the potter
who fashions out Israel—His people—into perfection as pottery from
clay.
God takes his time in caring for His elect as the potter cares for the
pottery he makes. Also, there is planning into what the potter wants to
make out of the clay; likewise, God plans in bringing out the best of His
chosen people. The idea of restoration is also seen in this metaphor, as
when the pottery breaks, the potter takes time to remold/reform it back
into the right shape/piece of pottery (cf. Jer 18:1; Isa 64:8). Israel’s
rebellion from the care of God always had God bringing them back and
remolding them into His people and reorienting them into the purpose He
has for them. Jeremiah 18:4–15 shows this phenomenon where re-
shaping or re-formation of broken pottery, in this case on Israel, is carried
out by God. YHWH’s role in shaping Israel into the right people and
purpose He has intended for them highlights His divine election of the
nation. This helps in understanding the idea of election in the OT.

18 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

 G. Marital Union

The OT portrays several forms/patterns of marriage, and the most

standard is the patriarchal marriage (Hugenberger, 1991; Baab, 1981, pp.
3:279–283; Martin, 2001, pp. 1–49; Nowak, 2005; Jackson, 2011, pp.
211–251). In the patriarchal marital relationship, the man initiates and
takes the woman as a bride after paying her dowry. The wife then
becomes his possession, and he takes all the responsibility of her upkeep
(See Gen 20:3; Exod 21:3, 22; Deut 22:22; 24:4; 2 Sam 11:26). The
Hebrew bʽl construes this idea. In its nominal form, bʽl denotes
ownership or being a husband. And in its verbal form, bʽl construes the
idea of ruling over someone or marrying someone (Brown, Driver, &
Briggs, 1952|, s.v. “bʽl”; Koehler, & Baumgartner, 2001, s.v. “bʽl”). Sohn
notes that by the use of the Hebrew term bʽl in its relationship to a
marital union, “a husband becomes the owner of the woman he took, and
she becomes the possession of her husband. By marriage, a husband
becomes a ruler, master, and owner of his wife” (Sohn, 1991, p. 17). The
woman, on her part, has the responsibility of staunch loyalty to her
husband in terms of obedience and fidelity, and childbirth. This positive
marriage metaphor reveals that Israel belongs entirely to YHWH. Israel is
God’s partner and treasurable possession.
The Hebrew uses the verb lqḥ to describe the concept of marriage in
the Torah. Though lqḥ means “to take,” (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, 1952|,
s.v. “lqḥ”) when used in the context of a man taking a woman, then
marriage is in view (Koehler, & Baumgartner, 2001, s.v. “lqḥ”). Thus, the
man takes the woman as a wife. For example, in Gen 4:19, the verb lqḥ is
used when Lamech marries two wives: Adah and Zillah. Other contexts
of marriage commencing from the use of lqḥ are Gen 11:29, which shows
Abram and Nahor marrying Sarai and Milcah, respectively. Genesis
12:19 indicates Pharaoh’s unwillingness to marry Sarai upon knowing
that she is the wife of Abram. Genesis 20:2, 3 also pictures Abimelech
king of Gerar’s desire to marry Sara after Abraham introduces her as his
sister. In other contexts, lqḥ denotes the idea of electing or selecting
either for war (cf. Josh 4:2), in choosing wives (cf. Gen 6:2, where lqḥ is
used in collocation with bḥr), deliverance from bondage/slavery (Deut
4:20), taking a woman as wives as part of booties from conquering
nations in battle (Deut 21:11), YHWH’s selection of Jeroboam as king
over Israel following His rejection of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:37), and
YHWH’s choice of Zerubbabel and making him like a signet among the
post-exilic people (Hag 2:23 where lqḥ is used in collocation with bḥr).

AAMM, Vol. 22, 19

 YHWH’s relationship with Israel is shown in the form of a personal
and intimate relationship between husband and wife (cf. Isa 50:1; 54:5, 8,
10; 62:4–5; Jer 2:17; 3:11–22; Ezek 16, 23; Book of Hosea). The OT
exhibits the marriage concept to show the elections of Israel. The marital
union metaphor parallels the correlation between YHWH and Israel to a
connubial relation in which YHWH chooses His people. This idea is
portrayed right from the Torah through the Prophets and the Writings.
Exod 6:3–8 showcases the idea of YHWH taking Israel as a wife in His
election of the nation. YHWH intimates His covenant with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob to the people of Israel. He establishes that He has taken
Israel as His possession and, as a result, given the inheritance: the
Promised Land. The books of Jeremiah and Isaiah also picture Israel as
YHWH’s wife and possession. Both Jer 31:32 and Isa 54:5 use the
Hebrew verb bʽl in the context of marriage to stress that Israel belongs to
YHWH. In the book of Hosea, Israel’s unfaithfulness to YHWH is
highlighted as the prophet’s wife exhibits infidelity to the husband. But
YHWH still shows love towards His bride—Israel—due to His election
of the nation as His possession. The marital union metaphor expands on
the OT concept of election. YHWH elects His people as His possession
as a man marries a woman in the OT context.

V. Election Metaphors and Mission Implications

The OT theology of election is premised on mission, which is

YHWH’s plan for the universe. YHWH’s plan for mission leads Him in
doing everything possible to communicate His salvation. From His
creation of the world, YHWH’s promise of universal blessing is for
humanity irrespective of background or race. His love for all people
serves as the backdrop for His blessing of humankind in His salvation.
In the metaphors of YHWH’s election of His people, His plan for
mission, which hinges on His saving act of humanity, is emphasized.
YHWH’s election of His servants, the Messiah and Israel, is to bring His
plan of salvation to ends of the earth (Isa 42:6; 49:6). All human beings
are within the privilege of this most excellent gift of God. When God’s
ideal for humanity was brought to a halt by the fall of man (Gen 3), there
was the need to reconcile humanity to Himself. God had to identify a
unique group that was to carry out its distinctive role as His agents on
earth. This initiative commenced with the call of Abraham. Abraham’s
call in Gen 12 is seen as a sequel to man’s failure to serve God. Therefore,
the election of Israel was more than redemption of all humanity of a kind.

20 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

Through Israel, YHWH’s salvific grace was to be known by all people on
earth.
Mission theology espouses that salvation was not the sole intention
for YHWH’s election of His people; instead, God’s people were elected
for mission. Therefore, YHWH presented His missionary intention and
missionary task to Israel right from its election as His people. Israel was
assigned a task and a message to proclaim. God’s people were to be
bearers of YHWH’s salvific message to everyone (Ps 67:2; 96:3). Their
missional mandate was universal and to benefit all.
YHWH’s purpose for mission is noted in His election of the Messiah
(Isa 42, 49, 53) to bring His universal mission to the heathen world.
Again, Israel’s election for mission is earmarked for a universal
proclamation of YHWH’s message and mission. As Kaiser (2000) has
pointed out, the “purpose for Israel as a missionary force originated in the
universal scope of the message in Genesis 1–11 and more definitively in
Genesis 12:3. But it would achieve its clearest definition in the ‘Servant
of the Lord’ passages in Isaiah 42 and 49, where Israel, who was also that
‘servant,’ was appointed to be ‘a light to the nations’” (p. 33).

VI. Conclusion

As indicated in the discussion above, there is a wide variety of lexical

and conceptual election markers that the Hebrew Bible writers used in
their writings to refer to the OT concept of election. While some are
distinguishable, others had to be inferred or studied in their connections
and imageries they project in the OT. It is noteworthy to highlight that the
OT writers understood and built their concept of election around pivotal
lexical and conceptual markers.
The theme of election is prominent, if not the central theme, in the OT.
Election is expressed in some particular terminologies, but very often
mirrored otherwise through imageries and metaphors. The election
metaphors cover several issues that present themselves in the daily lives
of humankind. Metaphors such as parental adoption or father/son
relationship, military recruitment, master/servant relationship,
shepherd/flock relationship, farmer/plant relationship, potter/pottery
relationship, and marital union are used by the Hebrew Bible writers to
highlight the theme. This underscores the theological significance of
election in the OT. Looking at the different aspects of the election
metaphors, it also appears as a concept contributing to the theological

AAMM, Vol. 22, 21

coherence of the OT. Thus, the concept belongs to the very theological
framework of the OT.

References

Baab, Otto J. (1981). Marriage. In Keith R. Crim and George A.

Buttrick (Eds.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Bergman, Jan, & Ringgren, Helmer. (Eds.). (1999). Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament (Vol. 2. John T. Willis, Trans.).
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Berkouwer, Gerrit C. (1960). Divine Election (Hugo Bekker, Trans.).
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Brown, Francis, Driver, Samuel R. & Briggs, Charles A. (1952). A
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament With an
Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Oxford, UK:
Clarendon.
Broyles, Craig C. (2001). Traditions, Intertextuality, and Canon. In
Craig C. Broyles (Ed.), Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide
for Exegesis (pp. 157–175. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Cott, Jeremy. (1984). The Biblical Problem of Election. Journal of
Ecumenical Studies, 21(2), 199–228.
Davidson, Richard M. (2000). Biblical Interpretation. In Raoul Dederen
(Ed.). Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology (Vol. 12, 58–
104). Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald.
Dunn, James D. G. (1991). The Partings of the Ways. London, UK:
SCM.
Ellis, Maria de J. (1975). An Old Babylonian Adoption Contract from
Tell Harmal. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 27(3), 130–151.
Erickson, Millard J. (1985). Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker.
Gold, Michael. (1987). Adoption: A New Problem for Jewish Law.
Judaism, 36, 443–450.
Gold, Michael. (1994). Adoption as a Jewish Option. In S. Bayme and
G. Rosen (Eds.), The Jewish Family and Jewish Continuity (pp.
173–179). Hoboken: KTAV.
Hodge, Charles. (1960). Systematic Theology. London, UK: James
Clarke.
Holladay, William L. (1996). A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon
of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Hugenberger, Gordon P. (1991). Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of
Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from

22 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

 the Perspective of Malachi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, United
Kingdom.
Imchen, S. Temjen. (2001). The Election of Israel: A Theological
Critique. International Journal of Theology, 43(1/2), 23–29.
Jackson, Bernard S. (2011). The ‘Institutions’ of Marriage and Divorce
in the Hebrew Bible. Journal of Semitic Studies, 55(1/2), 211–
251.
Jacob, Edmond. (1958). Theology of the Old Testament (W. Arthur
Heathcote & Philip J. Allcock, Trans.). London, UK: Hodder &
Stoughton
Joubert, Michiel D. (1987). The Election of Israel from Old Testament
to Rabbinical Times (A Terminological Study) (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa, South Africa.
Kahn, John E. (Ed.). (1985). The Right Word at the Right Time: A Guide
to the English Land and How to Use It. Pleasantville: Reader’s
Digest.
Kaiser, W. (1980). ʽbd. In R. Harris, G. Archer, & B. Waltke (Eds.),
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. (Vol. 2, pp. 639–
641). Chicago: Moody.
Kaiser, W. (2000). Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to
the Nations. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
Kaminsky, Joel S. (2001). The Concept of Election and Second Isaiah:
Recent Literature. Biblical Theology Bulletin, 31(4), 135–144.
Kaminsky, Joel S. (2007). Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical
Concept of Election. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Kaminsky, Joel S. (2008). Loving One’s Israelite Neighbor: Election
and Commandment in Leviticus 19. Interpretation, 62(2), 123–
132.
Kaminsky, Joel S. (2011). Election Theology and the Problem of
Universalism. Horizons in Biblical Theology, 55, 34–44.
Kaminsky, Joel S. (2012). The Hebrew Bible’s Theology of Election
and the Problem of Universalism. In Heinrich Assel and Stefan
Beyerle (Eds.), Beyond Biblical Theologies (pp. 375–386.
Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.
Kaminsky, Joel S. (2013). Can Election be Forfeited? In Gary A.
Anderson and Joel S. Kaminsky (Eds.), The Call of Abraham:
Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson (pp.
44–66). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Klein, William W. (1990). The New Chosen People: A Corporate View
of Election. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

AAMM, Vol. 22, 23

Klingbeil, Martin G. (2009). Creation in the Prophetic Literature of the
Old Testament: An Intertextual Approach. Journal of the
Adventist Theological Society, 20(1–2), 19–54.
Knobloch, Frederick W. (1992). Adoption. In David N. Freedman (Ed.),
The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vo. 1, pp. 76–79). Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
Koehler, Ludwig, & Baumgartner, Walter. (2001). The Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Revised by Walter
Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm with assistance from
Benedikt Hartmann, Ze’ev Ben-Hayyim, Eduard Yechezkel
Kutscher, and Philippe Reymond; M. E. J. Richardson, Trans. &
Ed.). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill Academic.
Lindhagen, Curt. (1950). The Servant Motif in the Old Testament: A
Preliminary Study to the “Ebed-Yahweh Problem” in Deutero-
Isaiah. Uppsala, Sweden: Lundequist.
Marfo, Elisha K. (2017). An Exegetical Study of ‫ ֶעבֶד‬in 1 Kings 12 and
Its Leadership Implication. Valley View University Journal of
Theology, 4, 28–44.
Martin, Francis. (2001). Marriage in the Old Testament and
Intertestamental Periods. In Glenn W. Olson (Ed.), Christian
Marriage: A Historical Study (pp. 1–49). New York, NY:
Crossroad.
Mendelsohn, I. (1959). A Ugaritic Parallel to the Adoption of Ephraim
and Manasseh. Israel Exploration Journal, 9(3), 180–183.
Miley, John. (1892). Systematic Theology. New York, NY: Hunt &
Eaton.
Moule, C. F. D. (1962). Adoption. In Keith R. Crim and George A.
Buttrick (Eds.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 1,
pp. 48–49). Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Nida, Eugene A. (1979). A Componential Analysis of Meaning: An
Introduction to Semantic Structures. New York, NY: Mouton.
Nowak, David. (2005). Jewish Marriage: Nature, Covenant, and
Contract.” In John Witte, Jr., and Eliza Ellison (Eds.), Covenant
Marriage in Comparative Perspective (pp. 26–52). Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans.
Paul, Shalom M. (1979–1980). Adoption Formulae: A Study of
Cuneiform and Biblical Legal Clauses. Maarav, 2(2), 173–185.
Payne, J. Barton. (1962). The Theology of the Older Testament. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Preuss, Horst D. (1995). Old Testament Theology (Leo G. Perdue,
Trans.). Louisville, TN: Westminster John Knox.

24 Elisha Kwabena Marfo

Rogers, Robert G. (1969). The Doctrine of Election in the Chronicler’s
Work and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rowley, Harold H. (2009). The Biblical Doctrine of Election. Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock.
Ryken, Leland, Jim C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III. (Eds.).
(1998). Image. In Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 30.
Shafer, Byron E. (1968). A Theological Study of the Root ‘bhr’ in the
Old Testament and Post-Biblical Jewish Literature, B.C.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Shafer, Byron E. (1977). The Root bhr and Pre-Exilic Concepts of
Chosenness in the Hebrew Bible. ZAW, 89, 20–42.
Sohn, Seock-Tae. (1991). The Divine Election of Israel. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans.
Soskice, Janet M. (1987). Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford,
UK: Clarendon.
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2002). Metaphor. Chicago, IL:
Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Tsalijini, Efeaterini G. (2012). ‘Election’ and the ‘People of God’: An
Orthodox Theological Perspective. The Ecumenical Review,
64(1), 14–26.
Wiley, H. Orton, and Paul T. Culberton. (1946). Introduction to
Christian Theology. Kansas City: Beacon Hill.
Wright, George E. (1968). The Old Testament Against Its Environment.
London, UK: SCM.
Wright, George E. (1969). The Old Testament and Theology. New York,
NY: Harper & Row.

AAMM, Vol. 22, 25