Many Called, Few Chosen
QUESTION
Could you explain, “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen"? (Anonymous)
ANSWER
When dealing with the Lord’s words in Matthew 20:16, I think it is helpful to start by recognizing that, “Many be called, but few chosen,” seems enigmatic in the context of the preceding 15 verses. I point that out because, in my experience, people often project what seems to be an evident meaning onto that text, something like, “MANY people are CALLED by the gospel message, because it is indiscriminately proclaimed before men, but FEW are CHOSEN before the foundation of the world in election.” I’ve heard this interpretation from respected bible commentators like John Gill as well as from numerous contemporary Christian ministers. I do not oppose the idea that more men hear the gospel than are converted by it in the New Testament era, nor that this truth is consistent with MANY vs FEW in a relative sense. That said, to interpret Matthew 20:16 in that way disconnects it from the preceding 15 verses and from the statement made in the first half of verse 16.
Parable of the Kingdom
The parable of the laborers is about the Kingdom. It is dealing with matters WITHIN the Kingdom of God, not with matters OUTSIDE the Kingdom of God. All the “calling” and “choosing” in this parable takes place WITHIN the Kingdom of God and the laborers therein. It strains credulity to suggest that the parable’s summary (20:16) references something OUTSIDE the kingdom of God, like the declaration of the gospel to the non-elect, when the parable isn’t addressing non-citizens of the Kingdom at all. In other words, I see no reference to any laborers who were called into this Kingdom labor, who said, “No way, man. You gotta pay me more than that to get me to work in the vineyard. I’ll pass.” If this group was included then the “gospel-called but not chosen in election” interpretation of the parable that many suggest would be more credible. But I don’t’ see this anywhere in the parable at all. That is why I believe the aforementioned, common interpretation is not a valid interpretation of THIS parable, even though it expresses a theological truth.
THE CONTEXT IS “IN THE KINGDOM”
The advantage of the common interpretation is that it quickly dispenses with the interpretive dilemma, albeit at the price of dismissing the context of the passage. That escape hatch is seductive, especially for ministers who like to have quick answers for every passage they are asked to explain. On the other hand, if we remain dedicated to interpreting scripture in keeping with its context, we must interpret the “called” and the “chosen” in this passage such that both refer to laborers in the Kingdom – in other words, they are both part of the elect family of God. Indeed, do they not both receive Kingdom wages for their labors therein? What non-elect person will receive Kingdom wages for his efforts in the Lord’s vineyard? Those sorts of questions make it apparent (at least to me) that our interpretation of “called” and “chosen” must both apply to God’s elect.
CALLED UNTO SERVICE
The statement seems to model a Hebrew parallelism in that it restates the preceding phrase: “So the last shall be first, and the first last.” (20:16a). As such I believe the “call” deals with all who labor in the Kingdom, and the “chosen” deals with God’s decision to determine the extent and duration of one’s service and contribution in the kingdom. Consider this: the apostle Paul was someone who might be said to be “chosen late” as a laborer in the vineyard. In this parable he would be someone who was previously setting fire to the vineyard until the Lord revealed him as the chief foreman of vineyard labors. People might object, saying, “Paul was burning our vineyards down for years. Some of our laborers were killed in the fires he set, and now he’s the foreman!?!” Yes. He was chosen to a different extent and duration of service than the others. Indeed, relatively few among the Lord’s flock are chosen to a greater level of service in the Kingdom in the form of Elders, for example.
That is how I interpret this enigmatic statement. Perhaps it is a less satisfying interpretation than the more common one I mentioned, but it has the advantage of considering the Kingdom context that the more popular interpretation ignores.
- Elder Daniel Samons