In my recent studies I noticed a little word in Mt 22.14.

NAU Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

The word is ‘called‘. Why the distinction of the ‘many’ who are ‘called’ and the ‘few’ who are ‘chosen’?

Tom Constable says “Not all whom God has invited to the kingdom will participate in it. Only those who respond to God’s call and prepare themselves by trusting in Jesus will.” [See Note 1 below.]

The adjective ‘called’ is used ten times in the New Testament. Most of the time it delineates the saints of God or someone called to a special task. Paul is called to be an apostle in Rm 1.1 and 1 Cor 1.1. Paul calls the Romans ‘the called of Jesus Christ’ in Rm 1.6. In Rm 1.7 they are ‘called as saints’. In Rm 8.28, the well known ‘all things’ work together for good to all who ‘are called according to His purpose’. In 1 Cor 1.2, the Corinthians are ‘saints by calling’ and in 1 Cor 1.24 Paul distinguishes between the Jews and the Greeks and ‘those who are the called’. Jude writes to ‘To those who are called’ in Jude 1.

The only other use of called is Rev 17.14:

NAU Revelation 17:14 “These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.”

In this verse likely the three terms are likely in apposition to one another. While one could imagine some who were called not being chosen, it is hard to imagine those being ‘with Him’ on this occasion as being a further subset of the chosen called ‘the faithful’.

Thus, in every case but the first instance the term either refers to one called to be an apostle or to saints who equal the called. Why then does the Lord say, “Many are called but few are chosen”?

The answer appears not to lie in an examination of usage but in the context. In the parable for which this statement is the conclusion the a king invited guests to the marriage supper of his son, but they would not come. Then he sent his servants after them and they went off on their own pursuits and misused them. Some of them they killed. The king was angry and sent his soldiers to destroy the murderers and burn their city. All of this is a picture of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Then the Lord sent his servants to invite bad and good from the highways to fill his banquet table. This they did until the banquet hall was filled. This parallels the preachign of the gospel to the entire world, filling the kingdom with citizens of every race and tongue.

One among these came to the supper without a wedding garment. The king rebuked him, and sent him out to outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the Lord says: ‘For many are called, but few are chosen.’

Clearly the many included Israel and they include the man without the wedding garment. What is the difference between the guests who remain and all these? They responded to the invitation and they clothed themselves appropriately.

While I suppose we cannot build a doctrine solely on one parable, it appears that the meaning of this passage is that the gospel invitation goes to many (and in scriptural context we would say this means ‘all’) but only those who respond appropriately are the ‘chosen’. Thus in this parable and passage we see the doctrine of the unlimited atonement and conditional election.

I have many friends who are not comfortable with my views here, but how else to explain the Lord’s words?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Note 1: Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Mt 22:14). Galaxie Software.

In our NT study, we are now to the place on the Tuesday (presumbably) of the Crucifixion week where the various Jewish parties have conspired together to catch the Lord in an embarrasing question. I am presuming that this occurred in the early afternoon, but it could have been earlier in the day. My proposition for this message was: It is utter folly for men to attempt to ‘match wits’ with God.

The attack begins with a political question, is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. They are hoping for a straight yes or no answer, either one of which could cause problems for the Lord, with the crowd or with the Romans. The Lord artfully answers ‘Yes’, but in such a way that no one could object to the answer. The Lord will not be trapped with such an easy question as this.

The second attack comes from the Sadducees with the theological question about the woman with seven husbands, all brothers. Who will have her in the resurrection? They have invented this sophistry as a means of mocking the doctrine of the resurrection. The Lord corrects their understanding of the human condition in the resurrection, then deals their doctrine a devastating blow by arguing from the tense of God’s statement to Moses from the burning bush: ‘I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’ Not ‘I was…’ but ‘I am…’. The present tense establishes the fact of the resurrection. The fact is that mockers will think they can pose a problem so hard that God can’t be the answer – I once had a friend who couldn’t believe there was a fish so big it could swallow a man and spit him up three days later alive. My answer to him: ‘How big is God?’ People today want to say that science has disproved the Bible. My answer: ‘How big is God?’ The observable facts of creation are completely explained by a true and living God – those who find them mounting insuperable arguments simply don’t want to accept God as the answer.

The third question is a mild test of a legal question, but also an ‘almost, but not quite’ statement of kingdom faith. A scribe asks Jesus which is the great commandment and the Lord points him to the Shema (Love God with whole heart, mind, strength), and to the secondary commandment of loving neighbour as self. The thoughtful scribe responds that these two commandments are weightier than ALL burnt offerings and sacrifices. Jesus says that this man is not far from the kingdom. What he needs to get into the kingdom is to acknowledge the King, but this he doesn’t dare to do, as the opponents of Christ leave off questioning him. One finds himself hoping that this man was one of the three thousand on Pentecost.

Now it is the Lord’s turn, and he asks an unanswerable question. That is, it is unanswerable if you don’t like the answer. Jesus asks how David can call his son, Messsiah, Lord in Ps 110.1 ‘The Lord said unto my Lord…’ This question precisely zeroes in on the weakness of the Lord’s opponents. They will not admit his obvious identity – they will not accept his superiority – they will not confess that he is the God-man, the only son of God, come in the flesh.

As we see these questions, one has to wonder what the Lord would ask of me if he were to come and have an interview with me tonight. What lurking unbelief would he reveal with one simple soul searching question?

One also wonders how it is men think they can match wits with God. The answer? They don’t believe Jesus is God. That is why men dare to mock today. They question God’s word at many points, sounding very learned, but they have little faith in the God of the word. Their questions reveal it. Our lives can reveal it as well. How much faith do we have in the God of the Word?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Sermon notes here.

In Canada, Thanksgiving occurs on the second Monday of October. A few years ago I did some research on Thanksgiving to find out the differences between the American and Canadian versions. I think that the date difference has to do with an earlier harvest in our northern climes. And, of course, there are Canadians who claim that ‘we’ celebrated Thanksgiving ‘first’, before the Plymouth Pilgrims. Part of the Canadian psyche is an incredible inferiority complex towards the USA. We are founded on a negative principle, “We don’t want to be Americans.” From that flows all of our tortured way of thinking up here.

Well… whatever…

Sometimes it gets a bit painful to keep up the Canadian facade.

In any case, yesterday was Canadian Thanksgiving (and my brother’s birthday). In our church we have often celebrated Thanksgiving with a traditional Thanksgiving meal together with as many of our church people as have cared to come. Many of our folks are somewhat ‘disconnected’ – no immediate family in the area, or very limited relationships with the family that is here. So we are their family. When we started this, my wife and I lived in a half duplex and we could have the whole church over in our dining room, all ten of us. Thankfully, the crowd is a bit bigger now and we have a church building to hold it in.

Yesterday we invited my brother and his family ‘down-Island’ to provide music for our service and allow my brother to ‘sing for his supper.’ (I even made him give me the note to start ‘Happy Birthday’, since I am decidedly unmusical.) We had a crowd of about 50 people, including several lost family members of our church members. For one couple, it was the first time they had darkened the door of our church, although they only stayed for the meal and not for the service. I hope that the contact will allow future contacts and that they will respond to the gospel someday.

For the message, I was working my way through the passages in the Synoptics that cover the cursing of the fig tree, the cleansing of the temple, the challenge of the priests and elders (‘by what authority do you do these things’), and the three parables the Lord gives in response. Fortunately, the last parable was “The Wedding Banquet” so it fit in nicely with Thanksgiving. In the message I pointed out the theme of invitation in the Banquet parable. Those first invited refused, and even killed some of those sent to invite them. The response was wrath and destruction. From there, I turned to the cursing of the fig tree, the cleansing of the temple, the parables of the two sons (“I go, sir” but he didn’t go; “I won’t go” but he did go), and of the landowner whose tenants killed the landowner’s son. Each of these are either a spoken or an acted parable of the relation between God and Israel, the nation first invited to the banquet, but in denial and refusal to come. God then sends his servants on the highways to invite all to the feast. Those highways lead around the world, ending in Victoria, BC, and with many ports of call in between. The banquet hall will be filled, and the work of the invitation is ongoing. A final warning is given in the parable concerning the man who is improperly clothed. If you will enter the banquet hall, you will enter God’s way, not your own way.

Our proposition was this: “The invitation that many have rejected is still open to you.”

No one made any visible response, but we do pray that the word of God will have an effect. There were lost people in the service yesterday, so may God’s word speak with power to their hearts.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I deleted a post I sent out earlier today. On further reflection, I decided that it was ‘not ready for prime time’. My goal in posting anything is to post articles that reflect my point of view to the best of my abilities. This particular post has some things in it that I felt were vague and inconclusive (even though I thought it contained some good stuff as well). I gave a hand at clarifying my views in another post, but gave up. I think I need to think this one through more clearly, so out it goes.

Given that the readership of this blog is pretty limited, I suppose not much harm is done. But it serves to illustrate a cardinal rule of good writing: good writing comes from good rewriting. Better to wait, revise, and think through before publishing. The instantaneous publication of blogs presents a severe temptation to publish thoughts not fully formed, poorly articulated, or both.

So back to the salt mines to try again.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Another online friend writes on this topic here, and I think I agree with him. (Good to be on the agreeing side, eh, Ben?)

I was prompted to add a few comments on this subject because in my e-mail inbox today was an e-mail from a ministry that I am sure means well, but… But here is the subject line of the e-mail:

This Fall, Keep the First-Time Guests You Reach

The e-mail is from a ministry called www.ChurchLeaderInsights.com. The man behind this ministry is called Nelson Searcy. I see he went to school at Gardner-Webb University, a school in a town where I used to serve as a weekend youth pastor. I made lots of mistakes on North Carolinians! He has taken subsequent education at two SBC seminaries. The bio on his sight reads this way:

In 2002, Nelson Searcy started The Journey Church of the City in New York, NY. The congregation has grown from a handful of people to over 1100 in four Sunday worship services and over 1200 in 95 small groups. The Journey is an innovative, multicultural church in Manhattan. An experienced strategist, coach and speaker, Nelson serves as a regular consultant to churches across America. He is the author of over 20 articles and 30 training resources on leadership, evangelism, church planting and church growth. Before coming to NYC, he served as the Director of The Purpose Driven Community at Saddleback Church.

Here is the promotional blurb for the Assimilation Seminar, which is what the e-mail I received was advertising. You can find the site here. (Somehow it slipped through my ever vigilant spam filter.)

It’s not enough to just attract first time guests –
you must learn how to keep them! This seminar on
Assimilation discusses practical steps that will help
you create an inviting environment for your first-time guests- one that they will want to come back to time and time again! 2 Teaching CDs plus a Resource CD

Resource CD Includes:

25+ page Assimilation Strategy used at The Journey
Sample Emails
Sample Surveys
Greeter and Usher Overviews
Sample Follow-Up Letters
Sample Communication Cards
Plus much more!

Return and Exchange Policy

About The Teachers:
Nelson Searcy and Kerrick Thomas are Teaching Pastors at The Journey Church of the City in New York, NY. The Journey is an innovative, multi-cultural, multi-site church in Manhattan and is one of the fastest growing churches in the Northeast. The church is recognized for its creativity, media and relevant approach to life changing teaching.

Well, I don’t know. Am I responsible to keep those who come? Am I responsible to make them comfortable? I guess so, in a way. I mean I shouldn’t be rude to them or unfriendly or make them feel unwelcome as PERSONS, that wouldn’t be following the way of Christ.

But if I preach the truth that all without faith in Jesus Christ will spend eternity in HELL, and deserve to be there, would that make them uncomfortable? If that kind of preaching is true, I wonder when I should get around to it after I have made my visitors comfortable. I wonder if I will keep them if I do get around to it.

The concept is curious. It might be interesting to get the materials to see what they have to say and the CD advertised is only $37, so not a great cost. But… my philosophy is pretty well set on this and I don’t think I will bother. Too many other things to do and read. My curiousity level isn’t stirred high enough to even part with $37.

I hope the visitors we do have will come back because they have been stirred to do so by the Holy Spirit from faithful preaching of the Word of God. I don’t know any other way to build a church.

I also found the return policies of this ministry to be ‘interesting’, that is, if this really is a ministry. Very curious. I wonder if the Lord who overturned tables in the temple would have any thoughts on it at all.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

The ministry has always been full of difficulty, but I wonder if there are some difficulties that are more the symptom of our time and place than perhaps at any other time in history. One of the most difficult problems I have faced is the intractability of professing Christians. There is a claim of faith in Christ, but many of those making the claim will not accept direction from the spiritual leader God appointed for them, the pastor of the local church.

By making this observation, I want to be clear that I don’t take the position that the pastor is the dictator of every aspect of the congregant’s life. But I do believe the role pastor carries some authority, especially in spiritual matters. The Lord established the church and he gave certain gifts to the church, apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastors (Eph 4). These gifts are for the purpose of building the church, equipping the saints for their own ministry.

The metaphor of building implies that the one doing the building has some authority over the construction process. That brick will go there, this beam will go here, etc. We are of course dealing with souls with wills, not with bricks and beams with no wills, so the analogy does break down at some point, but I think that the church would do better if it would break down less.

A recent difficulty with an individual got me to thinking about the problem. This individual is in constant conflict with people around him. He claims to be a Christian, but fights with everyone who attempts to exert any authority over him, whether it be a secular authority, Christian authority, family authority, government authority, you name it, he fights it. He is an extreme example, but I think that the conflict with him helps to define a much more widespread problem in the church at large.

This individual sees himself as an equal with the pastor (or any other authority he encounters). As such, he will not accept direction, and he will only accept counsel if it is given in such a way as to make him think he thought of it. In other words, the only way to affect any change with him is to manipulate him into it. He mainly wants authorities to let him do what he wants and to make him feel good. Most authorities aren’t interested in either of those two options, so conflict ensues.

This individual illustrates in a vivid way a more widespread problem that exists in the church. The pastor is seen as ‘the Bible teacher’, but not as the ‘overseer’. He is there to ‘feed me’, but he is not there to ‘lead, guide, direct, or otherwise interfere with me’. Some churches use the term ‘teaching elder’ to describe him. What an anemic title! What a ‘kept man’! The term reminds me of the man named Micah in the book of judges who kept a priest for himself (Jdg 17), a Levite, possibly the grandson of Moses, who officiated at the little shrine that Micah made for himself. A kept man. Later, the tribe of Dan discovered this Levite and hired him a way as the ‘kept man’ of the whole tribe, so that they could have their own priest in their own locale. How could such a man lead people spiritually? He was just there to provide those who hired him with religious services. He was not there by the call of God, not able to utter a thus saith the Lord!

In the church today, many people view themselves as the equal of the minister. They will defer to his Bible knowledge and enquire of him regarding Bible trivia, but there is little submission to his spiritual direction. His opinion is one among many and if it doesn’t match mine, he is a control freak, a bigot, a racist, or what have you. You name it, his voice is merely an option (at best), and certainly not authoritative.

In the meantime, personal lives and families of many professing Christians are falling apart. The pastor may lead an exemplary life, be reproducing himself in the lives of his children (the only people in the church he can really train to accept his authority), be a man of impeccable credentials in the surrounding secular world, but still, he may not tell me how I ought to live!

Well, how do we win in the pastorate with such a spirit as that?

I wish there was an easy answer. I am afraid the answer is the one that our Lord gave the disciples when they were frustrated with their own inability to exercise authority: “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.” (Mk 9.29)

That answer may not be very satisfying to us. We would like a magic bullet that we could use to just say the right thing to people to get them to change. I think we have to accept the fact that people are rebels and there is nothing WE can do to make them change. But we can pray. And we can trust in God. And God CAN do something to make them change.

It is frustrating to minister to people, especially rebels who refuse to accept any authority. Thank God there are some disciples who do encourage you by their willingness to truly receive spiritual counsel.

But the man of God must truly be a man of God. The place of leadership must drive him to prayer, because “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.” The place of leadership must drive him to the Book, because the Book is his authority, not himself or his own opinions. The courage of Christian leadership is obtained only by complete dependence on Christ. We aren’t here to win debates or argue people into the kingdom. We are here to cry to God for direction and strength, and see if he won’t do the mighty work of changing lives.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

For our monthly men’s meeting, I am doing a historical/theological survey of fundamentalism to equip them with a better understanding of who we are and why we are what we are.

For today’s meeting, I was perusing Beale’s In Pursuit of Purity. The first sentence gives a definition of fundamentalism that I find quite satisfactory.

“Ideally, a Christian Fundamentalist is one who desires to reach out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness.”

Is there anything missing from this definition? Beale doesn’t use the word ‘militant’ or its derivatives and he doesn’t mention ‘separation’, but he does say ‘defends’ and use the phrase ‘committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness’. Are these terms sufficient to carry the meaning of the term Christian fundamentalist?

My daughter’s music teacher sent home a video recording of an amazing concert in Moscow, April 20, 1986, when Vladimir Horowitz was 81 years old. We took the time to watch and listen this evening. Horowitz was an incredible musician, marvelously skilled. Reviews I have read say some of the performances at this concert were his best ever. The pieces he played were these:

1. Sonata for keyboard in E major, K. 380 (L. 23) “Cortège” Composed by Domenico Scarlatti
2. Piano Sonata No. 10 in C major, K. 330 (K. 300h) Composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
3. Preludes (13) for piano, Op. 32 No 05, Prelude in G major Composed by Sergey Rachmaninov
4. Preludes (13) for piano, Op. 32 No 12, Prelude in G sharp minor Composed by Sergey Rachmaninov
5. Etude for piano in C sharp minor, Op. 2/1 Composed by Alexander Scriabin
6. Etude for piano in D sharp minor, Op. 8/12 Composed by Alexander Scriabin
7. Soirées de Vienne, valse caprice for piano No. 6 (I; after Schubert D. 969 & 779) S. 427/6 (LW A131/6) Composed by Franz Liszt
8. Sonetto del Petrarca No. 104 (Pace non trovo; II) for piano (Années II/5), S. 161/5 (LW A55/5) Composed by Franz Liszt
9. Mazurka for piano No. 21 in C sharp minor, Op. 30/4, CT. 71 Composed by Fryderyk Chopin
10. Mazurka for piano No. 7 in F minor, Op. 7/3, CT. 58 Composed by Fryderyk Chopin
11. Kinderszenen (Scenes from Childhood) for piano, Op. 15 Traumerei Composed by Robert Schumann
12. Characteristic pieces (8), for piano, Op 36 No 6, Etincelles: Allegro scherzando Composed by Moritz Moszkowski
13. Polka W.R., for piano in A flat major, TN ii/18 Composed by Sergey Rachmaninov

The thing that struck me as I listened to this performance is that to enjoy this kind of music you must be patient. Each piece takes time to develop and to say what it is going to say. As the concert began, I found myself longing for a commentator to break in after a few minutes to tell me what is going on. I expect this is because we live in such a fast paced ‘sound bite’ culture. We can’t sit still long. The music can’t hold us, and we won’t be held.

By the time the concert reached the mid-point of the first half, that sensation of impatience disappeared. The music unveiled itself at its own pace and seemed over all too quickly by the end. The entire video, including some interview footage with Horowitz, lasted an hour and 51 minutes.

Our midweek service was devoted to Matthew 18. Immediately when you announce this text, the mind of the well trained disciple goes to the process of discipline outlined in vv. 15-17. This is what Matthew 18 is about in the mind of many. In fact, we often refer to these three verses simply by announcing the chapter, “Matthew 18”.

Tonight we wanted to get at the context for a full understanding of God’s directions for us here. The sermon apparently occurs in a house in Caperaum (see Mk 9.33-34), possibly Peter’s house. The child used for an object lesson might be Peter’s child. The sermon follows hard on the heals of a dispute on the way down from Mt. Hermon, the mount of Transfiguration, to Capernaum. The Lord asks (in Mk), “what were you discussing on the way?” Silence ensues. At last, someone asks (Mt 18.1), “Lord who is the greatest in the kingdom?”

The Lord proceeds to adjust the disciples thinking concerning greatness in the kingdom. First, the kingdom is entered by turning around from self-centered pride to humble admission of personal inability. The issue of greatness in the kingdom is settled the same way, by humility. Having said that, the Lord rachets the discussion up a notch, to teach what it means when we as disciples argue and struggle with one another.

The Lord points out that anyone who receives a disciple (one such child) receives me, but anyone who becomes a stumbling block for a disciple (causes to sin), it would be better that he should be drowned ahead of such an event. He points out that the world is under a curse for such temptations, so the disciple should be extreme in cutting off those necessary things that might lead him to sin. He needs to be radical in avoiding sin. The Lord then proceeds to highlight the value of any individual disciple by telling the parable of the lost sheep — this is the value of the disciple in God’s eyes.

It is in this context that the steps of discipline are offered, not as a new law to be exactingly followed in every case of sin, but in particular in the matter of offenses between disciples, one should follow wise proceedures in seeking to bring about reconciliation. The process may involve the whole church, but it most certainly should be pursued. The Lord takes such matters seriously: the judgements of the church are bound in heaven, the affirming presence of Christ occurs in every such gathering.

The passage concludes with the parable of the unforgiving steward, who, though forgiven much, refuses to forgive. The Lord offers this as a warning to those of us who will jostle and struggle in the kingdom to be seen and heard. We would do well not to trample our brethren under our feet in our efforts for preeminence.

‘Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.’ (Phil 2.5).

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Today’s mail brought my latest purchase, The King James Bible Translators by Olga S. Opfell. I have long had this book on my want list at ABE Books, a local Victoria BC operation. Over the last few years I have received notifications of this book being available somewhere for $45-50 US. Too rich for my taste. Last week, I was notified of a copy showing up at Zubal Books in Cleveland, OH for only $9 USD. I swallowed hard on the shipping charge $12 USD, but given the overall price, thought I would live with it. Total: $21 USD, about $23.50 Cdn.

The book is hardcover, in very good condition. A former owners name is inside the cover, but no other apparent markings.

My first glances make this one look promising. A fairly lengthy bibliography and a pretty good index in the back (this is a huge failing in many books, what is so hard about this, especially for newly published books?) The book has chapters on the various companies of translators, some chapters on attendant circumstances to the translation, i.e., “The Printing”, “The Reception”, “Some happenings and contemporaries” and a closing one on “The Influence”. It also has four good Appendices: A list of translators, Bancroft’s Rules to Be Observed in the Translation of the Bible, the Epistle Dedicatory, and The Preface to the King James Version.

All in all, I am quite pleased with this addition to my son’s inheritance! (There won’t be much money boys, so you’ll have to be glad for the books!)

Some purchases don’t look so good on first glance, and even worse after reading them. (Does the name Piper ring any bells???) Solomon said, “of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” Eccl 12.12. I have found this to be true in my life.

But books are necessary for the preacher. They contain the stimulus and stuff of sermons, the wisdom of counsel, and food for the soul. One of my professors advised me to stay away from the popular preachers books. You read them once, then set them on the shelf and never consult them again. He was right. I wish I had followed his advice more carefully. This particular purchase looks to be in the other category: reference books. It appears to be carefully researched and provides links to other resources as well as valuable reference material in itself. This kind of book is most helpful.

Time will tell, of course. You will find out what I think of this book if I start blogging about its contents. I have been reading a book by Marvin Olasky lately. I should be putting up a couple of pieces from that one shortly. It, too, is a worthy book, a brief history of charity work in America well researched and full of information. (He uses endnotes, though, a plague from the pit!) The book is called The Tragedy of American Compassion. I don’t own it, I got it out of the local library, will wonders never cease. (We live in a very liberal town.) It’s worth owning, but probably will not be added to my library unless I find a good deal used somewhere.

Books and more books… the stuff of a preacher’s life.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3