Strait Gate
Strait Gate
This was taken from the parable about the strait gate and the broad way.
"Enter in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there be which go that way. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there be that find it" Matthew 7:13,14.
... Few there be that find it, because few there be that seek it...
An often used, but misunderstood and cast as a
shibboleth for anyone who thinks he or she has some special knowledge that the rest of us better pay attention to; all contrary to Rev. 7:9, of course. :AMR:
We should avoid two errors:
first, that all men shall be saved;
second, that only few men will be saved. The preponderance of Scripture teaches the universal spread and acceptance of the Gospel at some point in history. Folks with this view appeal to Matt. 7:13, 14; 20:16; 22:14; Luke 13:23, 24. The passages in Matthew 7 and Luke 13 are parallel passages and already contain much of the answer in their contexts.
Matthew, moreso than Luke, emphasizes the wideness of the way to destruction; Luke mentions only the narrow, or strait, gate.
This is a warning contrasting Christianity with other approaches to God. The word translated "
broad" in Matthew 7:13 means "
spacious" or "roomy" and carries with it the idea of living comfortably and without troubles. The words "
narrow" and "
wide," describing the gates are relative terms.
In other words, these only derive meaning in contrast to one another. There are two paths, and the two gates, or doors, standing at the head of each, the straight and narrow and the comfortable and wide. In Luke's account, he uses the same word for "gate," as John uses in 10:9 to give a metaphorical description of Jesus, "door." So,
Jesus is contrasting salvation through him with other paths of salvation. It is through much tribulation we enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22).
There are two other contrasting terms used in these passages, "
many" and "
few." Again, these are relative terms and give no real information as to the actual number of those saved. In Luke's account (which is the chronological Gospel, see Luke 1:3 and forward, he writes "
in order"), this question is raised immediately after we are told that Jesus taught that the kingdom of God would fill the earth. Yet, at the time Jesus spoke, the church was still a "
little flock" (Luke 12:32) waiting to receive the kingdom. In Matthew, the warning has been placed in a block of teaching expressing the difficulty of being saved and the ease with which men deceive themselves in this matter.
The warning is for men to avoid taking the path that attracts the most and easiest attention of men.
At the time that Jesus spoke these words, it was historically true that neither had most of mankind been saved nor would most of the Jews to whom he preached then be saved. However, it shall always remain true that the preaching of Christianity will be wider than its reception.
The passages in Matt. 20:16 and 22:14 both rely upon the previous teaching. However, in these passages, there is an explanation offered. "
Many" are called but "
few are "chosen." The difference between the many and the few is that between calling and election (no matter how you specifically view "election"). The
call of the Gospel is always wider than its
reception. Hence, the contrast.
The reason is because not all who hear the outward preaching are elect of God. The Greek literally reads, "
many are called, but few are elect." Throughout most of history, the contrast between the "many" and the "few" has been numerically significant. Yet, the contrast is what we might express by the words "more" or "less." More people are called, or bidden, less people are chosen.
If you consider that there are more people alive today than throughout all of human history and, presumably, this will continue to be the case during the millennium, then, if most people living during the millennium are saved, most people in history will be too. One thousand years of ever increasing mankind numerically being brought to faith is layering of twenty generations of men, each larger than the previous, being redeemed. Thus, in heaven, the number of the elect is a number no man can number (cf. Rev. 7:9).
Even during the millennium, though the vast majority of men will be saved, the hearing of the Gospel will still be wider than the election of God. The difference is that during the millennium, though fewer will be elect than hear the Gospel, the number of the elect will be greatly increased so as to fill all the world. "The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (i.e., everywhere).
More always
hear than are
saved. This is not, however, a concept that necessitates thinking the final number of the saved will be few. Less will be saved than
heard the Gospel but, in the end, the overarching theme of Scripture is that Christ came to save the world not just a few scattered individuals. Just as all die in Adam, so all are made alive in Christ. Paul's point challenges credulity if he meant by "all" a number so significantly smaller than the number of people who ever shall exist that the mass of mankind is reprobate and counted for naught. It is clear the tree of humanity is to be pruned of its diseased branches but pruning does not entail cutting off the vast majority of the branches of a tree.
The divine intention is stated throughout Scripture to save innumerable multitudes.
Christ did not die for each and every individual of mankind but He most certainly evidently died for a large enough portion of mankind that it could be considered the "all," "the whole world," "all men," etc. While it is true less will be saved than hear, or even profess the true religion,
that does not mean the number of saved will be small or even smaller than the total number of the lost.
For example, it appears that no more than one third of the angels fell (Rev. 12:4 and following; it may be less, this may not refer to the whole). Should we suppose that God, who made man in his own image, and the Son of God, who took upon himself not the nature of angels but the seed of Abraham, should have purposed to redeem
a lesser percentage (one-third) of men than angels were kept from apostasy? This seems to misrepresent the claim that God's redemption of men is more exalted than his upholding and confirming of the elect angels (1 Pet. 1:12 and forward).
AMR
opcorn:
