Latest / Reformed Thinking / κλητός (Klētos): Effectually Called by Sovereign Grace

Transcript

κλητός (Klētos): Effectually Called by Sovereign Grace · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome along to Reformed Thinking.
0:02
This is the deep dive, the place where we get into the source
0:04
material behind key ideas. We sift through the text so you
0:08
don't have to. And today, our mission is all
0:11
about theological identity. We're digging into the words
0:15
used for the New Testament community, the church, and for
0:17
the individual Christian believer.
0:19
That's right, we're looking at two really key Greek terms,
0:23
ecclesia, which we translate as assembly or church, and clydos,
0:28
the adjective meaning called. And we're not just looking at
0:31
the Greek New Testament in isolation.
0:33
No, definitely not. Our sources trace these words
0:36
back through the Septuagint. That's the Greek translation of
0:39
the Old Testament, and then right back to their Hebrew and
0:42
Aramaic roots, things like kahal and kinista.
0:46
And the aim here is to show you that these words weren't just
0:48
picked at random. They come loaded with meaning,
0:51
carrying the whole weight of Old Covenant history.
0:53
Absolutely. There's a real continuity of
0:55
God's people being revealed here, and we want to demonstrate
0:58
that the Christian community isn't, you know, just some club
1:01
people decided to form. No, it's presented as something
1:04
divinely summoned, divinely appointed.
1:06
Exactly. And that continuity is where the
1:09
well, the authority comes from. This biblical vocabulary,
1:12
especially around salvation, it has this covenantal historical
1:16
weight that really changes things.
1:18
It turns what might look like a simple invitation into, well, a
1:22
divine decree. OK, so where do we start?
1:25
The church itself. Let's start there with the
1:28
identity of the Church, the ecclesia, by looking at its
1:31
oldest linguistic connections. Right, so Matthew 16.18 Jesus
1:35
says I will build my ecclesia. Now you mentioned Aramaic.
1:39
We have to remember Jesus and his disciples.
1:41
They weren't speaking Greek day-to-day.
1:43
That's a crucial filter. They were speaking Aramaic.
1:45
So the question becomes what Aramaic word lies behind this
1:48
Greek word ecclesia that Matthew recorded?
1:51
And do the sources give us a likely candidate?
1:53
They do the consensus points pretty strongly to the Aramaic
1:56
term Kanishta. That's KENISHDA.
1:59
Roughly, it means assembly or gathering Kanishta.
2:03
And this is where the identity claim of those very first
2:06
believers gets really fascinating.
2:09
It's because of what our sources call it's dual translation
2:13
significance. Dual translation?
2:14
What did that involve? Well, think about later
2:17
translations of the Bible into Syriac.
2:19
Syriac is a dialect very closely related to the Palestinian
2:23
Aramaic Jesus actually spoke right when those translators
2:26
worked. They used this word Kinisha to
2:28
translate both the Christian ecclesia and the Jewish
2:31
synagogue. The same word for the Christian
2:33
assembly and the Jewish synagogue.
2:35
The very same word. Now think about the term
2:38
synagogue. It literally means a bringing
2:40
together a congregation. It was the standard term for the
2:43
local Jewish place of assembly and worship.
2:46
Wow. So the people closest
2:48
linguistically to Jesus's time consciously use the same
2:51
identifier for their gatherings as the Jews used for theirs.
2:55
That's that's a massive statement.
2:57
It really is. It suggests they weren't trying
2:58
to launch, you know, some entirely new separate religion
3:01
from scratch. Instead, they were claiming the
3:03
existing space. Precisely.
3:06
The theological claim embedded in that word choice is that they
3:09
were still a synagogue, still a kinista.
3:11
But, and this is the crucial part, they were a kinista with a
3:15
unique special claim, which was that they represented the true
3:19
Judaism, the true Israel. You can imagine that didn't go
3:22
down too well with the established Jewish leadership.
3:24
Oh, undoubtedly. I mean, if you start using the
3:27
exact same name for your meeting as your neighbor, but you
3:31
declare that your meeting is the authentic 1, a real deal.
3:34
You're essentially positioning yourself as the legitimate heir.
3:36
You're saying we are the continuation?
3:38
Exactly, the sources explain this claim was radical and it
3:42
reframes how we understand the founding of the ecclesia by
3:45
Jesus, especially through this Aramaic lens.
3:48
How so? It wasn't about setting up a new
3:50
organization in a legal sense. It was fundamentally about the
3:53
act of well, separating and concentrated his specific band
3:56
of disciples, the small group of followers.
3:59
So the founding act was the gathering of the people, the
4:02
disciples, he called out, not constructing buildings or
4:06
writing bylaws. That's it exactly.
4:08
This core group, this concentrated band of disciples,
4:11
was positioned as the Divine Remnants.
4:15
Remnant like in the Old Testament prophets.
4:17
Very much so. They're presented as the crucial
4:20
element upon which the continued life of all Israel as God's
4:24
people now depended. So it's a qualitative thing, not
4:27
quantitative. It's not about size, but about
4:30
who this group is in God's plan. Precisely, it shows they saw
4:34
themselves as the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promise, the
4:37
faithful few embodying the true continuation of God's people.
4:41
OK, that Aramaic link, Venishta connects the ecclesia right back
4:45
to Jesus's immediate context. But the Greek word itself,
4:49
ecclesia, takes us even further back, doesn't it?
4:51
Into the Old Testament via this Septuagint.
4:54
Yes, the Greek word has its own Direct Line back, and the key
4:56
connector here is the Hebrew term quahal QAHAL.
5:00
Quahal and how does the Septuagint use it?
5:03
Overwhelmingly, when the translators of the Septuagint
5:05
encountered the Hebrew word quahal, they chose ecclesia as
5:09
its Greek equivalent. Almost always.
5:11
And why is call significant? What kind of gathering does it
5:14
describe in Hebrew? It's quite specific.
5:16
Quahal isn't just any craft. It's the term used when Israel
5:19
was formally solemnly assembled before God.
5:23
It implies a gathering called by God, often for covenantal
5:26
purposes. OK, so more than just a mob or a
5:29
casual meeting, it evokes something official, something
5:32
sacred, like perhaps the Israelites gathered at Mount
5:36
Sinai. That's the classic image, yes.
5:38
The assembly at Sinai is often referred to as the Quahal in the
5:41
wilderness, and guess what the Septuagint calls it?
5:44
Let me guess the Ecclesia in the desert?
5:47
You got it, tan ecclesian unta erum that linguistic continuity
5:52
directly links the New Testament church back to the most formal,
5:55
sovereignly assembled body of God's people under the Old
5:58
Covenant. Now, the sources mentioned a
5:59
slight nuance, whether the original Semitic word behind
6:02
ecclesia was the Hebrew kwal or maybe an Aramaic loanword
6:06
kwahal. Why does that detail matter?
6:08
It matters mostly for understanding the precise
6:11
historical echo Jesus might have intended.
6:13
Was he deliberately invoking the classical Hebrew term for the
6:16
Sinai assembly, kwal, or was he using a more common contemporary
6:20
Aramaic version, kwahal? But either way.
6:22
Either way, the core, meaning the semantic weight, remains the
6:25
same. It signifies a community, a
6:28
gathering of people called out by God.
6:30
It stresses that claim to be the divine community originating in
6:34
the Old Covenant. Knowing the specific route just
6:37
helps refine our understanding of the authority being claimed.
6:40
And there's an implicit modifier here, isn't there?
6:42
Even when it's not explicitly stated.
6:44
Absolutely. When you see ecclesia in a
6:47
biblical context, it almost automatically implies to Theo of
6:51
God. Ecclesia to Theo.
6:52
Right. And that meaning wasn't new.
6:54
It was already baked into the Hebrew concept of the Quihol
6:57
Yahweh, the assembly of the Lord.
6:59
This was never just a human convened meeting, it was always
7:02
understood as mandated by God's own voice.
7:05
So choosing Ecclesia wasn't just convenient, it was a profound
7:08
theological statement about continuity.
7:10
It really was. It affirms the unity of God's
7:12
plan across the Old and New covenants when Christ uses a
7:16
term so deeply tied to the Kwal Yahweh, the sacred assembly of
7:20
the Old Covenant. He's essentially establishing
7:22
the New Testament assembly, the one gathered in him as the
7:25
fulfillment of that Old Testament assembly.
7:27
Exactly. The ecclesia isn't replacing the
7:30
Cajal. It is the Qua Hall in its
7:32
promised end times reality. It's the eschatological
7:36
community God has gathered for himself.
7:38
The continuation and the completion of Sinai now centered
7:42
on the new mediator Hashtag tag tag 1.3.
7:45
Christ's efficacious call collection.
7:48
OK, so the identity is rooted in being assembled by God, and the
7:52
very word ecclesia seems related to the Greek verb, a college
7:56
meaning to call out. Yes, the name reflects the
7:59
action. The Ecclesia is quite literally
8:02
the community of the called out ones.
8:04
If the assembly exists because it was called out, then
8:06
everything depends on who is doing the calling.
8:08
That defines the whole reality and the verb khalich to call
8:11
along with its related adjective Plato's called functions in the
8:15
New Testament, often as a well a technical term.
8:18
Technical in what sense? It often specifies the actual
8:20
process of salvation or carries a very specific nuance of divine
8:24
vocation. This isn't just hearing a
8:26
suggestion, it's received leaving a divine appointment, a
8:29
Commission. And the New Testament sources
8:31
clearly place Christ himself in the role of the caller.
8:34
They certainly do, particularly in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus
8:37
of Nazareth is consistently portrayed as Hukulun the caller.
8:41
The one doing the calling. Yes.
8:42
And in doing so, he's stepping into a role that in the Old
8:46
Testament was essentially reserved for God himself.
8:49
He initiates, He separates, He appoints.
8:51
Our sources use this Latin term verbum efficacs to describe
8:55
Christ's call. Why that specific phrase?
8:59
It means efficacious word. Yes, Verbum efficacs the
9:02
effective or efficacious word. It's a critical concept.
9:05
It means the word spoken is active.
9:07
It's powerful. It accomplishes what it says.
9:09
It doesn't just convey information, it creates reality.
9:12
Unlike our words, which can be ignored or ineffective.
9:15
Exactly. A divine verbum efficacs is
9:18
described as inherently righteous and it always achieves
9:21
its purpose. It brings about both judgement
9:23
and grace. It's a word that makes something
9:25
happen simply by being spoken. When Christ calls someone using
9:29
this verbom ethic acts, that person isn't just being invited
9:32
to think about following him. No, they are being fundamentally
9:35
constituted as a called one. The call itself makes them who
9:39
they are in relation to God. It changes their status, their
9:42
identity. OK.
9:44
So if Christ speaks this effective word in the same way
9:47
God spoke in the Old Testament. Then that very act separating
9:51
out that small group of disciples, positioning them as
9:53
the true people of God. That is the founding of the
9:56
Ecclesia, fundamentally and irreversibly.
9:59
The assembly exists because his authoritative, creative word
10:05
brought it into being. Precisely.
10:07
And that divine efficacy is what guarantees the assemblers
10:11
existence, its identity, and ultimately its purpose in God's
10:14
plan. All right, we've traced the
10:15
roofs, the divine calling. Now let's look at how this
10:18
ecclesia functions practically today.
10:20
We often make a distinction, don't we, between the Big Sea
10:23
Church, the universal global body of believers, and the Small
10:27
C Church, the local congregation down the street.
10:30
We do make that distinction now, yes.
10:31
But our sources seem to indicate the New Testament writers
10:34
weren't nearly as concerned with that distinction.
10:35
They use the same word regardless of scale.
10:38
That's one of the most striking things, actually.
10:40
This lexical unity, the single Greek word ecclesia, is used
10:44
consistently for both things. The universal worldwide body of
10:48
all believers, what theologians sometimes call the universes
10:52
Christian Oram. Kudos.
10:53
The whole company of Christians everywhere.
10:55
Right. And it's also used for a
10:57
specific localized gathering in a particular city, say Corinth
11:01
or Ephesus, or even, you know, a small group meeting in someone's
11:05
house, like we see mentioned in Romans 16.
11:07
So if the New Testament itself doesn't make a formal
11:09
distinction, why did we end up with later theological terms
11:13
like church invisible versus church visible or universal
11:16
church versus particular church? Well, the sources suggest those
11:20
later distinctions, often arising from scholastic theology
11:23
or denominational needs, were developed mainly to clarify
11:26
things like church government or specific points of doctrine.
11:29
Not because the original word ecclesia was somehow inadequate.
11:33
Exactly. For the New Testament writers,
11:35
it seems the saved community was primarily conceived as the total
11:39
universal reality first, and then that same reality simply
11:43
exists or manifests in a specific local setting, a local
11:47
circumscription. The fundamental theological
11:50
entity didn't change just because you were talking about
11:52
Corinth instead of the whole world.
11:55
And we see this flexibility in how someone like the Apostle
11:57
Paul uses the singular and plural forms almost
12:01
interchangeably at times. Can you give us an example of
12:03
that? Oh.
12:04
Definitely. Look at Galatians.
12:05
In chapter 1 verse 13, Paul talks about how he used to
12:08
persecute the church. Time equation singular.
12:11
He's clearly referring to the entire body of believers as a
12:14
whole. Right, the universal entity.
12:16
But then just a few verses later in Galatians 1.22, he speaks of
12:19
the church's plural of Judea that were in Christ.
12:22
So singular for the whole plural for the local manifestations.
12:25
Yes, and the language shifts back and forth quite freely.
12:29
Some scholars even describe it as promiscuous misusage.
12:32
Linguistically speaking, the key point isn't the number of
12:35
meetings, but the fact that all those local congregations,
12:39
plural, are seen as integrated into the one single
12:42
congregation. Singular.
12:44
It's one body existing in many places.
12:47
Hashtag hashtag 2.2. Representation, not addition.
12:51
OK, this leads to a really important point about how the
12:54
local relates to the universal. It's not just addition, right?
12:58
The universal church isn't simply the sum total of all the
13:01
local local churches added together.
13:02
No, that's not quite how the relationship works.
13:04
According to these sources, it's fundamentally representative and
13:07
qualitative, not mathematical or quantitative.
13:11
Representative and qualitative? What does that mean practically?
13:14
It means the size of the gathering doesn't matter
13:16
theologically. The core idea is that the one
13:18
universal ecclesia is fully present in every legitimate
13:21
local gathering. Fully present.
13:23
So it's not like the church in Corinth is just a small piece, a
13:25
fraction of the bigger worldwide church.
13:27
That's the crucial insight. It's not a fraction, it is the
13:31
universal church as it exists and manifests itself in Corinth.
13:35
So if you have, say, 10 believers meeting faithfully in
13:39
a house somewhere, they aren't just 10 individuals out of
13:42
millions in a theological sense. They are the church in that
13:46
place. That's the profound idea.
13:48
The sources stress that local gathering isn't just a part, it
13:53
represents the total community, the church.
13:56
When Paul writes in First Corinthians 1.2 to the Church of
13:58
God that is in Corinth, we should understand that not just
14:01
as the Corinthian congregation, but more fully as the Assembly
14:05
of God, the church universal as it exists in Corinth.
14:08
Wow, it's the whole entity showing up locally.
14:11
It's the totality of God's called out people manifesting
14:14
themselves right there in that specific time and place.
14:17
OK. What are the practical
14:18
implications of that? If a local body fully represents
14:21
the universal body, that must set the bar pretty high for
14:24
behavior doctrine governance. It has to The standards must be
14:28
identical, because if the local expression fully is the church
14:32
in that place, then the standards of holiness, the
14:35
requirements of sound doctrine, the principles of godly order
14:38
and discipline that apply to the whole body of Christ, apply just
14:42
as rigorously to that local gathering.
14:44
So there's no discount for being small or remote.
14:46
Absolutely not. If discipline needs to be
14:48
exercised, for example, it's ministered by that local
14:51
assembly, but it's done as the church acting with the authority
14:55
of the whole body of Christ. There's no theological loophole
14:58
that says a smaller congregation can get away with lesser
15:01
standards of truth or holiness than a larger one.
15:05
And this unified identity, this idea that the church is fully
15:08
present locally and universally, it must flow from a single
15:13
unified source. It has to, and that source,
15:16
again, is God himself. The assembly is always
15:18
understood as being posited by God.
15:20
It's the ecclesia toil, the Assembly of God.
15:23
That divine origin is the unifying principle.
15:25
Yes, everything flows from God's action, and since in New
15:29
Testament theology God primarily acts increased to in Christ.
15:32
Then Christ inevitably becomes the center, the core, of the
15:36
ecclesia's definition. Unavoidably, and this connection
15:39
becomes even more explicit and developed in some of the later
15:42
Pauline letters like Colossians and Ephesians.
15:44
Right. Those letters use that very
15:46
powerful metaphor to describe their relationship.
15:48
They do indeed. In Colossians and and Effusions,
15:51
the ecclesia is specifically identified as the Summa Christo,
15:55
the body of Christ. With Christ himself designated
15:58
as the Kefali, the head. Exactly the head and the body.
16:02
This creates A theological bond so tight, so reciprocal, that
16:05
one of our sources makes the striking statement ecclesiology
16:09
is simply Christology, and vice versa.
16:12
You can't understand the church without understanding Christ,
16:15
and you can't fully understand Christ's work without
16:17
understanding the Church, his body.
16:20
That's the idea idea. You cannot define what the
16:22
Church is or what it's supposed to do without constant reference
16:25
to Christ, because he is both the one who effectively calls it
16:29
into existence and the one who governs it as its head.
16:32
And this loops us right back to the identity of the individual
16:35
believer. It does.
16:37
The individual Christian is a claytos, the called 1 precisely
16:41
because the assembly, the ecclesia, is made-up entirely of
16:46
those people whom God, acting in Christ, through that verbum
16:49
efficacs, calls out of the world and brings into this living
16:53
Organism, this body. So the community is defined by
16:56
that shared experience of receiving the divine summons.
16:59
That's the common denominator. That's what makes them the
17:01
Ecclesia. OK, so we've looked at the
17:03
assembly, the ecclesia. Let's shift focus now more
17:06
tightly onto the individual member.
17:08
The clay says the called one, right?
17:10
The building block of the assembly.
17:12
Now, before a word like call gets his special theological
17:14
weight, it usually has a life in everyday language.
17:18
To really grasp the significance of being klaydos theologically,
17:21
we probably need to understand how the root verb kalate was
17:25
used in regular secular Greek life first.
17:27
That's a very helpful approach. The verb kalais was incredibly
17:30
common. You'd hear it everywhere, in the
17:32
marketplace, at home, in the courts.
17:34
And when theology picks up a common word like that?
17:37
It brings all those everyday associations along with it, and
17:40
that actually makes the theological meaning even richer,
17:42
even more potent, because it contrasts with and elevates the
17:47
common usage. Hashtag tag Tag 3.1 Secular uses
17:51
of kholic the verb. OK, So what were the main
17:53
secular meanings? The sources list three.
17:56
The first one is simply to name. Seems straightforward, but why
18:00
did even this carry some weight? Well, in ancient thinking, both
18:03
Near Eastern and Greek, naming wasn't just about sticking a
18:07
label on something. It was often seen as an act of
18:09
authority, even an act that defined the essence or function
18:13
of the thing named. So calling something by a name
18:15
was almost like making it be that thing.
18:17
In a sense, yes, to be called something was often seen as
18:20
tantamount to actually being it, or at least it should be.
18:22
Think about when Jesus asks in Luke 6.46.
18:25
Why do you call me Lord? Lord and and not do what I tell
18:29
you. He's pointing out the mismatch
18:31
between the name they're using Lord implying authority, and
18:35
their actual lack of submission. Exactly.
18:37
The calling, the naming is supposed to be effective.
18:39
It's supposed to correspond to reality.
18:41
That underlying idea is important.
18:44
OK, the second secular use is probably the most common one
18:48
we'd think of to invite general. Yes, this was its bread and
18:54
butter social use. Calaic was the standard verb for
18:57
inviting someone to dinner, to a party, to any kind of social
19:01
gathering. And the guests were.
19:02
The passive form cake lemonoi simply meant the invited ones
19:06
were guests. It's a very ordinary, hospitable
19:09
kind of word. And this provides the imagery
19:11
for God's Kingdom, right? It does.
19:13
Jesus uses this imagery constantly in his parable.
19:16
The wedding feast, the great banquet.
19:18
It's an accessible picture. An invitation is being sent out.
19:21
Many are calamanoi invited. OK.
19:24
Then the third secular use gives the word its sense of official
19:27
authority to summon official legal.
19:31
This is where it gets more formal, more serious.
19:33
Caliph was used as a technical legal term meaning to summon
19:36
someone officially. Like calling a witness to court.
19:39
Or a defendant precisely. We see this usage in the book of
19:42
Acts, for example when the Sanhedrin summons the apostles
19:45
or when Felix summons Paul. And crucially, this connects
19:48
back to the word ecclesia itself, doesn't it?
19:50
It does in a very direct way. In Greek city states, the
19:54
citizens were officially summoned by the herald to attend
19:58
the ecclesia, the popular assembly where decisions were
20:01
made. Yes.
20:01
What were they called? They were specifically
20:03
designated as the Eclitoy, the summoned ones.
20:06
The toy. So the very citizens required to
20:09
show up and participate in civic assembly were the summoned ones.
20:12
That's right, And the parallel is just remarkable, isn't it?
20:15
The Christian theological term cletos takes that language of
20:18
civic duty, of authoritative summons, and applies it to a
20:22
divine reality. So the believer isn't just
20:24
someone who volunteered or drifted in.
20:27
They are like a citizen who has been officially summoned by the
20:29
ultimate authority, God Himself. Into the ultimate assembly, the
20:33
Ecclesia Tuthio, the Assembly of God.
20:36
That shift from secular summons to divine summons is profound.
20:40
Hashtag tag tag 2.2 fell. Theological specialization of
20:44
clitos. The adjective.
20:46
Right. So the theological use
20:47
definitely keys that sense of authority, of identity being
20:50
conferred by the call. But the sources stressed that
20:52
the New Testament use of Platos is highly specialized.
20:55
Oh, very much so. It's not just a general term for
20:58
anyone who's been invited to something.
21:00
In its theological context, it almost exclusively describes
21:03
those who have been effectively called by God.
21:06
Call to what specifically? Primarily it pertains to being
21:10
called to God's Kingdom, or maybe more broadly called into
21:15
the blessings of salvation. And this calling establishes
21:18
something. OK, yes, according to the
21:20
sources it establishes 2 things at once, A relationship with God
21:24
and also a task or a purpose within his assembly that
21:27
ecclesia. We see Paul using this term
21:29
quite a bit to define believers. He does think of Romans 1.7
21:33
where he addresses the believers in Rome as Klatoi Hajioi, called
21:37
Saints, or perhaps better Saints who are called by God.
21:40
Their sainthood is defined by the call.
21:42
Or Romans one point. 6 Latoya, you is Sue Christo called by
21:45
Jesus Christ? Again, the defining
21:47
characteristic is that they belong to Christ because He
21:49
called them, and this calling is explicitly linked to God's
21:53
sovereign plan, like in Romans 8.28, which speaks of those who
21:57
are called according to His purpose.
21:59
So this immediately takes it out of the realm of human
22:01
achievement or earning it. Absolutely.
22:04
It firmly establishes the call as a pure act of grace on God's
22:07
part. Second Timothy 1.9 is very clear
22:10
on this. God saved us and called us with
22:12
a holy calling, not because of our works, but because of His
22:15
own purpose and grace. Purpose and grace not works.
22:18
That's the foundation. And interestingly, Plato's isn't
22:21
only used for the call to salvation.
22:23
It's also used occasionally for a specific calling to an office
22:26
or task within the church. Like Paul's own calling.
22:28
Exactly. In Romans 1.1 he introduces
22:31
himself as Plato's Apostolus, called to be an apostle or an
22:35
apostle by calling for Paul. His apostleship wasn't something
22:38
he chose or achieved, it was a divine appointment originating
22:42
from the same sovereign God who calls people to salvation.
22:45
Hashtag Hashtag 3.3 The of invitation and election.
22:49
OK, this emphasis on divine appointment, on being claytos by
22:52
God's sovereign call, brings us to a notoriously tricky verse,
22:56
Matthew 22.16 AH. Yes, many are called, but few
23:00
are chosen or using the Greek terms, many are kalaitoy but few
23:03
are eclectoy. Right.
23:05
Why does this one verse seem to split the meaning?
23:08
It's only there were two groups, the cleotoy called invited and
23:13
the eclectoy chosen. But elsewhere in the New
23:16
Testament, don't these terms often seem to refer to the same
23:19
group of sage people? That's an excellent point, and
23:22
it really highlights the tension in this verse.
23:24
It is a standout passage, you're right.
23:26
For instance, in Revelation 17.14, believers are described
23:30
as called clay, toy and chosen, eclectoid and faithful.
23:35
There the terms seem fully parallel, describing the same
23:38
saved individuals. So Matthew 22.14 seems like a
23:41
contradiction. How did the sources suggest we
23:43
should understand it? The contradiction is definitely
23:46
there and needs to be addressed. It comes at the end of the
23:48
parable of the wedding feast, remember?
23:50
Yes, where the king sends out invitations very broadly.
23:52
Many are called, but some refuse.
23:54
Others are unqualified, and specifically one guy gets kicked
23:57
out for not having the right wedding garment.
23:59
Exactly. The verse seems to draw a
24:01
distinction based on the outcome of the parable.
24:04
Many received the external invitation, the summons.
24:07
They were cletoi in that general sense, but only a few
24:11
demonstrated they were truly chosen eclectoi by having the
24:14
right garment, symbolizing perhaps faith and righteousness
24:18
given by God. So it's like there's an external
24:21
general call that goes out widely and an internal effective
24:25
call that actually brings salvation.
24:27
That's the common theological interpretation, yes.
24:30
Our sources suggest reading this as a dialectical thought.
24:33
It's a kind of paradox, something Jesus often uses,
24:35
employing the same root concept in two different senses within
24:39
one statement to make a sharp. Point OK break that down.
24:42
The many are called part. Refers to the broad general
24:46
proclamation of the Gospel. The invitation goes out far and
24:48
wide. That's the klatoi called invited
24:50
in the first, more general sense, linking back to the
24:53
secular idea of invitation. And the fewer chosen part, the
24:56
eclectoid. That refers to those who receive
24:58
the effective call, the call that is synonymous with election
25:03
eclogo. This is the call that
25:05
sovereignly and certainly brings a person to salvation.
25:08
These are the clay toy in the specialized theological sense we
25:11
discussed earlier, those appointed by God.
25:14
So the paradox works by using called in two ways, the wide
25:17
invitation versus the effect of appointment.
25:19
Exactly. It's a way of saying that while
25:22
the authoritative summons of the gospel is genuinely offered to
25:24
many, the actual reception of that call and to salvation, the
25:28
election, is a matter of God's sovereign choice.
25:30
It highlights that the calling, the election isn't something to
25:34
be presumed or taken lightly. It remains under God's judgement
25:37
and grace. So the theological power comes
25:40
from using that authoritative language of summoning, but
25:43
making it clear that only God's sovereign grace makes the
25:46
summons truly effective for salvation.
25:48
Precisely when God effectively calls, the everyday secular idea
25:52
of just getting an invitation you could ignore is completely
25:55
transformed. It becomes a divine,
25:56
irresistible appointment. That's the shift from the
25:59
general Kalash to the specific saving Kalados.
26:02
All right, we've defined the assembly ecclesia, the cold
26:06
individual cleoses. Now let's look more closely at
26:09
the mechanism itself, the actual act or process of calling, and
26:13
its result. The sources point us to the noun
26:16
form cleasis. Yes, Cleasis.
26:19
This verbal noun, typically refers to the divine calling
26:21
itself, the vocation. It's the event or the state that
26:25
results from God's action in Christ, the action that brings
26:28
the Cleesos into the ecclesia. And this isn't just a general
26:31
term. Either no, it's quite technical.
26:33
It's used primarily by Paul and in the letters heavily
26:36
influenced by him, The Deutero Pauling letters, and
26:38
significantly Cleesus is almost always found in close connection
26:41
with other key theological concepts.
26:44
Hashtag tag tag 4.1. The nature of the vocation.
26:47
Cleesus Which concept specifically?
26:49
It's often linked directly with God's election, equigo, His
26:52
purpose, prophesis, and His grace.
26:55
So those connections immediately tell us something about the
26:58
nature of this class. Is this calling?
27:00
They define it as an integral part of God's sovereign plan,
27:03
His eternal decree, and furthermore, the kind of calling
27:06
it is gets emphasized by the adjectives used to describe it.
27:09
It's described as heavenly Anosclesius, upward call in
27:12
Philippians 3.14. It's called Holy Hagia classes
27:16
in Second Timothy 1.9 and Hebrews 3.1 speaks of believers
27:21
as partakers of a heavenly calling closest Epiranium.
27:25
Heavenly, holy, upward, these all point away from earth, away
27:29
from human origin. Exactly.
27:30
They under score that this colossus originates from God,
27:33
not from human aspiration or effort.
27:36
Let's look at that Second Timothy passage again, 1.9.
27:39
It seems to nail down the relationship between calling
27:41
works purpose and grace. It really does.
27:44
It says God saved us and called us with a holy calling Haji
27:47
Eclassus. Not according to our works,
27:49
according to his own purpose. Prophecies and grace.
27:51
Chorus. So the calling is holy because
27:54
its source is God, it's according to His eternal
27:56
purpose, not initiated by us, and it's based entirely on His
28:00
grace, not our merits or works. That encapsulates the nature of
28:03
the divine classes perfectly. From a Reformed perspective.
28:06
It's a sovereign, gracious act rooted in God's eternal plan.
28:10
OK, but if the calling originates entirely with God
28:12
based on his purpose and grace, how do we make sense of passages
28:16
like Deck and Peter 1.10? Ah yes, the call to be all the
28:20
more diligent to confirm your calling closest and election
28:24
equigo. Right.
28:25
If it's all God's doing, how can we confirm it?
28:27
Doesn't that imply it's uncertain or depends on us?
28:30
That's the practical tension, isn't it?
28:32
But the command isn't suggesting that God's calling or election
28:35
is itself shaky or dependent on our efforts.
28:38
Rather, it's saying that our human diligence, our pursuit of
28:41
the Christian virtues, Peterless just before this verse.
28:44
Like faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control.
28:48
Exactly that diligence provides the necessary evidence and
28:52
fosters the subjective assurance of that objective sovereign
28:55
reality in the believers own life and experience.
28:57
So we don't make the calling sure for God.
28:59
He's already sure. We make it sure for ourselves.
29:01
We gain confidence in it by living it out.
29:03
That's the idea. The diligent pursuit of
29:06
godliness provides the experiential confirmation, the
29:09
assurance that God's divine call and election are indeed real in
29:13
our lives. God's sovereign purpose
29:15
establishes the origin and the security of the clasus, while
29:19
our obedient response provides the evidence and assurance of
29:22
its presence. Neglecting diligence means
29:25
neglecting the resulting assurance.
29:27
OK, so clasus is God's effective word, drawing us in.
29:30
What's a characteristic response from the person who's been
29:33
called the clatus? The sources point to another
29:36
related verb, epicalish. Yes, epicale.
29:40
Epicale. It's a compound verb.
29:42
What does epicalage mean in its basic secular sense?
29:45
Literally, it means to call upon, to appeal to, or to invoke
29:49
someone, usually someone in authority.
29:51
We actually touched on its crucial legal meaning earlier.
29:54
Like Paul appealing to Caesar. Exactly.
29:56
When a Roman citizen felt they weren't getting justice locally,
29:59
they could epicale appeal to the emperor, the highest court.
30:02
It was an invocation of ultimate authority.
30:05
So how does this translate theologically?
30:07
The believer appeals. Theologically, epical comes to
30:10
mean the believer calls upon or appeals to God or Christ,
30:14
particularly in prayer and worship.
30:17
They are appealing to the ultimate divine authority.
30:20
And this usage also has deep roots in the Old Testament,
30:23
connecting back to the Quahal Yahweh.
30:25
It certainly does. The specific phrase to call upon
30:28
the name of the Lord, which in Greek is often epicalestai to
30:32
anomicuria, is used very frequently in the Septuagint.
30:35
And what Hebrew phrase is it usually translating?
30:38
It often translates the Hebrew phrase Karabeh Yahweh to call
30:42
upon the name of Yahweh. And what did that signify in the
30:44
Old Testament? That phrase, karabeh Yahweh, was
30:48
essentially A defining characteristic of true believers
30:51
of the covenant people. It designated those who
30:53
worshipped and relied upon the one true eternal God, Yahweh, as
30:57
distinct from idolaters. OK, so calling upon the name of
31:00
the Lord marked out the faithful in the Old Covenant.
31:03
How does this shift in the New Testament?
31:05
The shift is profoundly Christological.
31:08
Just like with Eclosia, the action remains the same,
31:11
appealing to the ultimate divine authority.
31:14
But the recipient of that appeal undergoes a crucial
31:17
clarification. Meaning Meaning that what was
31:19
said about calling upon the name of the curious, which the
31:23
Septuagint used for Yahweh in the Old Testament, is now
31:26
explicitly applied to calling upon the name of the curious,
31:29
ESU Christos, the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
31:31
So the object of the faithful appeal shifts, or rather is
31:34
fulfilled in Christ. Precisely the act of appealing
31:37
to the divine name for salvation, for help, for
31:40
identity, is now directed specifically to Jesus.
31:43
And this act of calling upon his name became, in effect, a way to
31:47
describe early Christians. Yes, it became almost a standard
31:50
definition. Look at First Corinthians 1.2
31:52
again. Paul addresses the letter to the
31:54
Church of God that is in Corinth, together with all those
31:57
who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
32:00
to an epic alumenon, to Anoma, to kiryo humchun ISU crystal.
32:04
So that phrase, those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus
32:07
Christ, was basically synonymous with Christians.
32:10
It functioned exactly that way. Directing prayer, worship, and
32:14
ultimate allegiance to Jesus as Lord became the hallmark of
32:17
faith in the Messiah. It confirmed that the ecclesia
32:20
is made-up of those individuals clay toy who have responded to
32:23
God's effective call classes by actively appealing to the divine
32:27
authority and person of Jesus. Epic Kalash hashtag text outro.
32:32
Well, that has been a genuinely deep dive.
32:34
We've really unpacked the identity of God's people by
32:36
tracing the linguistic DNA of Ecclesia and Claytos right back
32:41
to their Semitic roots. And the picture that emerges is
32:45
pretty clear. The ecclesia, the church, is
32:47
presented fundamentally as the divinely assemble of kahal, the
32:50
fulfilled Old Testament assembly.
32:52
Its existence isn't based on human initiative, but on the
32:55
verb of the powerful, effective Word of Christ's call.
32:59
And because of that, every local gathering isn't just a piece of
33:02
the puzzle, it's a complete qualitative representation of
33:05
that one universal body of Christ.
33:07
Exactly. And the individual Christian,
33:09
the Claytos isn't just someone who received a casual
33:13
invitation. They are someone appointed by
33:15
Dodd, brought into a special relationship, and given a
33:18
specific task or vocation based entirely on sovereign grace.
33:22
The authority packed into those word choices, moving from, say,
33:26
a general invitation or even a civic summons to a divine
33:30
effective appointment. That's what gives Christian
33:32
Identity its theological weight. And maybe as a final thought,
33:35
let's circle back to the choice the early community made.
33:38
They adopted ecclesia. They could have used other terms
33:41
for groups, even religious ones common at the time like thesos,
33:44
which meant like a private religious club or association,
33:48
or even just stuck with synergyug but distinguish
33:50
themselves some other way. But they chose ecclesia, with
33:54
its roots in the quahall and the civic assembly.
33:56
Yes. And that choice, our sources
33:58
argue, was itself a declaration. It was inherently political and
34:01
theological. By using Ecclesia, they were
34:04
signalling that this assembly wasn't just another human
34:06
society, not just one more from mystery cult among many.
34:09
They were claiming to be something different, something
34:11
established by a divine summons. Precisely a community called
34:15
into existence by God Himself, standing in continuity with his
34:19
past actions, but also implicitly standing in
34:23
opposition to the claims of the surrounding secular and
34:26
religious world. The word itself was a guarantee
34:29
of its unique, divinely originated identity.
34:32
That leads to a really challenging thought for us
34:34
today. Think about that original
34:36
secular idea of the Eclitoy, the Citizens Summit, whose presence
34:40
was required for the Assembly to function.
34:43
How many areas of our own lives may be our work, specific family
34:46
roles, our service in the church, even our prayer life, do
34:49
we tend to view as optional, as just things we choose to do or
34:53
goals we set for ourselves? Treating them like mere
34:55
invitations we can accept or decline based on our convenience
34:58
or preference, right? But what if we viewed those same
35:01
areas through this lens of God's authoritative, efficacious
35:03
calling? What if we saw them not as mere
35:06
choices, but as aspects of our divine appointment by the great
35:09
caller, duties inherent in being his clay toy, his summoned ones?
35:13
How might that change our perspective, our diligence, our
35:15
faithfulness? That shift from invitation to
35:18
appointment, from option to vocation, that's really the
35:21
essence of living out this biblical understanding of being
35:25
called. Something definitely worth
35:27
reflecting on. Thank you for joining us on
35:28
Reform Thinking for this deep dive.