Archives for October 2006

Today was one of those highlight reel days of the ministry. We had a work day at the church, attended by most of our men. The only ones that missed were those who are too feeble or those who had other unavoidable commitments.

We had two projects today: cleaning the gutters and removing a chain link fence on two sides of our property. The gutters are just maintenance, but the fence came up because of a new development behind us. In the property next to ours, we have been watching 14 townhouses go up over the last year or so. They are just finishing up now, and put up a new fence behind the townhouses. The fence was 10-20 feet away from our fence, so I asked the developers what was up with it. He said the fence was on the property line! I was surprised that so much property back there actually belonged to our lot. Of course, before the developers came along, there was a gully back there which carried a winter stream. So our fence was built on the ridge of the gully instead of on the property line.

Well, I could just see that area between the two fences becoming a tangle of weeds if we lef the fence up, so we decided to take it down. That meant contending with blackberries, broom, and other brushy types of plants that had invaded from the former gully and had intertwined themselves with our fence. What a job!

After the chain links and connecting poles were removed, it was time for the posts. Jack-hammer time, my first experience with such a machine. The guys who built our church building way back when were excellent builders. They did everything top notch, which is to say, very, very, very solid. The corner posts were encased in two pours of concrete. The rest of them had a pretty skookum amount as well. [The top picture is me using the jack hammer on a corner post – notice the name of the machine – I called the pic ‘brute on Brute’. My wife and daughter are supervising in the background.]

Well, we all took turns on the hammer, and managed to get all the posts out. Some of them are even still intact. Our property now looks strangely open and inviting. We probably should have done this a long time ago!

My wife brought over lunch for us all. She’s a good girl, I guess we’ll keep her! After we finished the job, we sat around in the fellowship room and just talked. What a great time. These guys are the highlight of pastoral ministry. I wrote recently about some of the challenges, but this kind of day is filled with God’s good grace and his blessedness in working in the hearts of men.

And tomorrow is the day of worship! I think we are ready this week!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

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