The earliest reflections on election in the Old Testament appear in the prophetic book of Amos. Dated to the mid-8th century BCE with a possible exilic or post-exilic redaction, Amos connects two core ideas that together convey a key message: divine election cannot be presumed upon (Snyman 2012).

In Amos 3:1–2, the prophet recalls the Exodus. YHWH has led his people out of Egypt and through the wilderness into the Promised Land (cf. Am 2:10). This salvific event continues to define the contemporary recipients of the book, as the prophet addresses ‘the whole family I brought up out of Egypt’ (Am 3:1: כל-המשפחה אשר העליתי מארתץ מצרים). The prophetic speech begins with a strong assertion of Israel’s unique relationship with God: ‘You only have I known of all the families of the earth’ (Am 3:2: רק אתכם ידעתי מכל משפחות האדמה). Most commentators rightly interpret this statement as a reference to God’s election of Israel (Eidevall 2017:122–123; Van Leeuwen 1985:99–103; Wolff 1969:214–216).

Although Amos does not use the root בחר – the explicit term for election – the use of ידע conveys a similarly intimate and selective relational dynamic. Amos understands YHWH’s historical dealings with Israel as an expression of grace and uses this history as a foundation for his message of judgement (Eidevall 2017:122; Snyman 2012). Amos 3:2 both affirms Israel’s election and stresses that this election carries obligations. When those obligations are neglected, they become the basis for divine judgement (Barton 2012:71).

This tension intensifies in Amos 9:7, where the prophet declares:

Two implications arise. Firstly, Israel’s election is not grounded in any intrinsic superiority (Van Leeuwen 1985:331). We will return to this point. Secondly, election is conditional (Am 9:8a; Snyman 2012). If God’s people live in opposition to his will, their chosen status is relativised, reduced to the same level as his dealings with other nations. Nevertheless, the election is not annulled entirely – there remains a remnant of the house of Jacob (Am 9:8e; Timmer 2015:50–53; contra Barton 2012:74).

Thus, Amos emphasises that election is foundational to Israel’s identity, yet not a guarantee of security. As Barton (2012:103) puts it: ‘Israel’s privileged position as YHWH’s people was a matter of choice on his part […] and is maintained only as long as Israel keeps its side of the bargain.’

The gracious nature of divine election, already implicit in Amos 9:7, is a recurring emphasis in other Old Testament texts. Election is not merited by Israel’s virtues but is rooted entirely in God’s love and mercy.

Deuteronomy 7:7–8 offers one of the clearest and most foundational affirmations of this gratuitous character of election (Versluis 2017). After affirming Israel’s status as God’s ‘treasured possession’ (Dt 7:6: סגלה), the text explicitly denies that this choice was based on any inherent greatness: they were ‘the smallest among all peoples’ (Dt 7:7: המעט מכל-העמים), a reference to the size of the Canaanite nations in verse 1. Instead, the basis for election lies solely in YHWH himself – his love, his faithfulness, and his covenant with the patriarchs (Dt 7:8; cf. 4:37–38; 10:15). ‘The smallest people may know that they have the mightiest God’ (Labuschagne 1987:125).

The 8th-century prophet Hosea likewise underscores the unearned character of Israel’s election (Kwakkel 2012). God’s care for his people was not a response to their obedience but the outworking of divine initiative. YHWH created his people (Hs 8:14), found them in the wilderness (Hs 9:10), adopted them in his household as his child (Hs 11:1), and nurtured them as a father (Hs 11:3; Kakkanattu 2006:44). The relationship between YHWH and his people is very special (Oeming 2018:264). The response expected of the people is simple: to acknowledge and honour YHWH alone (Hs 13:4). Yet instead of gratitude, Israel turned away (Hs 11:2) – acting like a prostitute (Hs 5:3–4; 9:1), becoming detestable in God’s sight (Hs 9:10; Kakkanattu 2006:104). Judgement is pronounced, but never without hope. God’s love remains steadfast (Hs 14:5 MT). This enduring love defines God’s election as radically distinct from human choice – it is faithful, covenantal, and irrevocable (Hs 11:9; Grindheim 2005).

In both Deuteronomy 7 and Hosea, election is portrayed as an unmerited gift rooted solely in God’s covenantal love and faithfulness. Israel cannot claim any merit for their status; God chose it for reasons that lie entirely within himself. To borrow a phrase from the Dutch Experiential-Reformed theology: God had ‘reasons within himself’ (redenen in zichzelf) for electing his people.

The previous texts have shown that election in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic literature is not confined to a single event in history. Although God did indeed choose Israel at specific points – such as the calling of Abraham (Neh 9:7) or the Exodus – election remains vulnerable when God’s people go astray. In this theology, election is not a sealed status but a living relationship that must be continually embodied in covenantal faithfulness (Timmer 2024:61).

Two examples illustrate this dynamic nature of the election. In Deuteronomy 10, God’s love for the patriarchs is extended to their descendants: YHWH has chosen the addressees (Dt 10:15). This present and active election calls for a response. The people are exhorted to ‘circumcise the foreskin of your heart’ (Dt 10:16: מלתם ערלת לבבכם), love the stranger, and serve YHWH (Dt 10:19–20). Election is thus not merely a historical claim – it is something to be actualised through moral conduct.

Deuteronomy 30 revisits and deepens this theme in the context of exile and promised restoration (Dt 28–29). Here, YHWH is the one who will circumcise Israel’s heart (Dt 30:6), enabling them to love him fully. The renewal of the covenant and the restoration of Israel’s election are tied to obedience (Dt 30:16). The addressees are given a solemn choice: life and good (Dt 30:14, 16), or death and evil (Dt 30:17–18). This is not a friendly suggestion but a covenantal imperative: life, as the goal of election, must be chosen and enacted (McConville 2002:430). Yet this call to obedience is not symmetrical with God’s initial election. Divine choice precedes human response, and even the ability to choose rightly is attributed to God’s work in the people (Dt 30:6). In this theological framework, obedience is both a fruit of divine initiative and the confirmation of election (Otto 2017:2017).

These texts clarify that election is not a once-for-all declaration but a relational and moral dynamic. God’s choice initiates the covenant, but the lived expression of that covenant – doing the will of YHWH – is essential to maintaining the relationship. Election, then, is not merely a past event but an ongoing calling into holiness and faithful practice.

The preceding discussion has emphasised the dynamic nature of election in Deuteronomistic theology. This naturally raises a pressing question: can Israel forfeit its election?

This question becomes particularly urgent in the so-called Book of Comfort in Jeremiah (Jr 30–33). The historical books of the Old Testament portray a consistent pattern of Israel deviating from YHWH’s Torah, with exile representing the culmination of divine judgement. In exile, deep doubts arise about the nature and permanence of God’s covenant with his people. Despite the exile, YHWH reaffirms his enduring love for Israel (Jr 31:3). He remains the Father who promises to lead his children home (Jr 31:9). However, the form of the covenantal relationship undergoes a fundamental transformation. The earlier covenant has been broken (Jr 31:31–32), but YHWH promises a new covenant – marked not merely by external obligation but by internal transformation. He will write his Torah upon their hearts (Jr 31:33–34), ensuring that they truly know him. This covenant is not only new but everlasting (Jr 32:40). Importantly, exile does not signify the annulment of divine election. Although Israel may feel abandoned, YHWH declares that his choice remains firm (Jr. 33:24–26). The promise of restoration, including return to the land, is grounded in God’s unchanging commitment to his elect people (Sanders 1985:289–298; Staples 2021).

The covenant, as the formal articulation of the chosen relationship between YHWH and his people, has indeed a fundamentally different and discontinuous character since the exile. God’s election persists – redefined but never renounced (cf. Lv 26:44; Oosterhoff 1987). This assurance and the broader dynamics of the election form the theological matrix within which the Gospel of Matthew reconfigures the concept of election.

Matthew 7:21 appears within the broader pericope of Matthew 7:15–23, which addresses the presence and discernment of false prophets (Davies & Allison 1988:693–694). This unit is immediately preceded by the programmatic warning in verses 13–14, which emphasises the urgency of choosing the path that leads to life, echoing Deuteronomy 11:26–28 and 30:15–20 (Culpepper 2021:155). In matters concerning God and his commandments, ‘there are no options’ (Davies & Allison 1988:699). The narrow road of obedience to God – a way marked by discipline and suffering – is chosen by few. Many, both inside and outside the covenant community, prefer the easier road that leads to destruction. These warnings could reflect the lived experience of Matthew’s audience, who, according to later passages (Mt 24:9–14), are anticipated to endure suffering for their faith (Culpepper 2021:156).

The afflictions of the elect, however, are not caused solely by external persecution. Within the community itself, there are dangers. Jesus warns his followers against false prophets (Mt 7:15–23). Verses 15–20 focus on the deceptive nature of their behaviour; Matthew 24:3–8 later expands upon the content of their false teaching. Although they appear to belong to the faithful remnant of Israel – God’s flock (Mt 9:36; 10:6; 15:24) – they do, in fact, ‘destroy the community’ as wolves (Culpepper 2021:157). Their influence deters others from walking the narrow path to eternal life (7:13–14). The elect is urged to exercise discernment and evaluate these individuals ‘by their fruits’. In the Matthean theology, faith and works are inseparable: a good tree bears good fruit; repentance produces visible acts of righteousness (Mt 3:8).

Matthew 7:21 marks a pivotal transition in the pericope. The focus shifts from outward deeds to verbal claims, and from communal discernment in the present to divine judgement in the eschatological future (Davies & Allison 1988:711). The verse contains various noteworthy theological elements.

Firstly, the speakers address Jesus as Lord, a sign of the high Christology of Matthew and his addressees. The work of Jesus is synchronous with the work of the Father (Konradt 2022). Secondly, the relationship between Jesus and God is expressed in familial terms: Jesus is the Son, and God is the Father. This signals intimacy, hierarchy, and the authority to reveal and enact the will of the Father (cf. Mt 11:27) and to recognise God’s children (Mt 7:23). Thirdly, Jesus is depicted as the Judge. He not only recognises who belongs to him (Mt 7:23) but also grants or denies entry into the kingdom of heaven. Christ is thus portrayed as the decisive figure in identifying the elect. Through Jesus – the Saviour (Mt 1:21; 20:28) and Judge – believers gain access to the Father and are confirmed as God’s children (Mt 6:9; Luz 1985:406).

The criterion for judgement is doing the will of God. Just as false prophets are judged by their fruit, so too all believers will be evaluated according to their conduct. Matthew makes a clear distinction between membership in the visible community and true election. Orthopraxy – faithful obedience – is the key marker of the elect (cf. Mt 13:24–30). Faith, for Matthew, is not merely internal assent but is evidenced through external deeds (Hagner 1993:187).

Even those who claim to have acted in Jesus’s name (Mt 7:22) are rejected if their works were not grounded in an authentic relationship with him (Mt 7:23) or built on the solid foundation of obedience (Mt 7:24–27). Their charismatic acts are a continuation of what Jesus and his disciples themselves were doing (Mt 4:24; 11:4–5). Nevertheless, Jesus does not imply that salvation is earned. Hagner (1993:188) summarises it aptly: ‘These persons are thus not criticized for their charismatic activities but for their dependence on them as a substitute for the righteousness taught by Jesus.’ Entrance into the kingdom remains a gift of divine grace (Culpepper 2021:158; Luz 1985:410–411).

Matthew 7:21 thus resonates with the Deuteronomistic conceptions of election. Being part of God’s covenant people does not guarantee salvation – ‘belonging’ is not equivalent to ‘believing’. Election remains an eschatological gift of grace. It is not a static, past event but a dynamic identity that manifests itself in present obedience and future vindication. Matthew diverges from Deuteronomic tradition in his Christological focus: election is now decisively mediated through Jesus, who reveals God’s will, grants salvation, and renders the final judgement.

As previously shown, the concept of election in Matthew 7:21 intersects with the broader themes in the Gospel of Matthew – particularly the validity of Israel’s election and the Christological interpretation of Torah observance. The following section will explore these two themes and conclude with a synthetic reflection on Matthew’s overall theology of election.