“The Chosen” – Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?

 What is “The Chosen”?

According to gotquestions.org, “The Chosen is a television show about the life of Christ. Season 1, released in 2019 (with a pilot episode on the birth of Christ released in 2017), garnered attention for several reasons: it is the first TV show of its kind, presenting the life of Christ over multiple seasons (it plans seven seasons total); it was crowd-funded, bringing in more donations (over $40 million as of 2023) than any other media project ever; it is the first series to be launched in every country simultaneously via its own app (with over 108 million views so far in 180 countries); and it is being praised for its engaging storytelling.” https://www.gotquestions.org/The-Chosen.html

According to imdb.com, “The Chosen is a historical drama based on the life of Jesus and those who knew him. Set against the backdrop of Roman oppression in first-century Israel, the series shares an authentic look at Jesus' revolutionary life and teachings.” 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9471404/

Why and How do Many Promote “The Chosen”?

Again, from that same source: “As with all storytelling based on historical events, some artistic license is evident. In The Chosen, there is often a tremendous amount of artistic license. In retelling the gospel accounts, the writers have inserted or modified some characters, storylines, and details of the inspired original. The changes are designed to give each episode a feeling of being grounded in real life.

“One example of these artistic choices is that the disciple Matthew is depicted as a young man on the Asperger’s/autism spectrum. There is no direct biblical evidence that Matthew had this disorder, but it is a plausible detail, so the writers felt comfortable using artistic license to insert this additional trait to Matthew’s character.

“Since no one is claiming that the show is God’s Word or that it is on par with the Bible, the creators of The Chosen believe such license is acceptable, and even expected in a medium such as television. As long as viewers remember that what they are seeing is art and not real life—and they compare what they view with Scripture—there is no danger of confusion. We should all know intuitively that, for all its historical accuracy and attention to cultural context, The Chosen is simply one idea from one group of people about what they think it might have been like to be near Jesus.

“Dramatizations of biblical events such as are presented in The Chosen provide an opportunity for sharing the gospel with those who otherwise might not be exposed to the Bible. For believers, such dramatizations can promote spiritual growth, reminding us that the Bible is more than just a story—it relates actual events in the lives of real people who had emotions, relationships, and concerns similar to ours.”  

https://www.gotquestions.org/The-Chosen.html

Movieguide.org reports the show’s description as given by Dallas Jenkins, the creator/producer of the series. “[The Chosen] starts working through the storyline of how Nicodemus attempts to exorcise Mary Magdalene’s demons and fails. Then he comes across her later and sees that she is a different person, and so we’re like, what are some of the things he would say and how would she describe it,” Jenkins said.

“What we try to do with The Chosen is not only give you these moments from scripture but set them up in a way that when they happen, they really make sense and they really have an emotional resonance in addition to spiritual resonance,” Jenkins added.

Jenkins believes that this emphasis is what makes The Chosen good TV rather than a Bible narrative that has little reach outside of the Christian audience.

“In TV and movies, if all you’re doing is just reenacting a historical moment that you know about from history, or from the Bible, it might be interesting to watch but it probably won’t emotionally resonate because you don’t have a connection to the characters. You don’t know the why of what they’re doing,” he explained. “If you can help [audiences] understand what the stakes are for each of the characters in the scene, it makes it even more personal.”

https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/what-the-first-line-ever-written-for-the-chosen-tells-fans.html

Why be Concerned About “The Chosen”?

According to Dallas Jenkins, the added elements in The Chosen cause the actual scriptural events to “make sense” in a way that they would not if one simply read and studied the four gospel accounts. These non-biblical inventions provide an “emotional resonance” that is lacking in inspired scripture. They make the true accounts of Jesus’ life “even more personal.”

When a biblical “dramatization” is primarily fictional in content, there are, to me at least, some serious implications. One is that the four inspired gospels themselves are lacking something. They need enhancement and improvement in order to make Jesus more real, more personal, and more authentic. God’s inspiration needs man’s imagination to be truly effective. The gospel’s uniqueness is minimized.

The supportive statements quoted above suggest that the fiction in The Chosen serves to enhance and improve the non-fiction of the gospels. Simply retelling the material in the Spirit-given gospels would have “little reach outside of the Christian audience.” Think about that! Adding man-made ideas, thoughts, background and characters makes the life of Jesus more attractive and more interesting to non-Christians.

Let's say we want to make Jesus more "relatable," and we know that many people have family members with autism. How can we connect these people and families to Jesus? The solution in The Chosen is to choose an apostle, Matthew will do, and depict him as autistic. And for added emphasis, have Jesus involve Matthew in His preparation of the Sermon on the Mount. That may be interesting, but is it true? Do we need fictional material to add dimensions to Jesus' life and the lives of others in order to attract those in our world who do not know the biblical Jesus?

How much extra fictional material, one may ask? Jenkins stated without apology that, as of July, 2022, “Those extra-Biblical portions comprise 95% of what's been in the show thus far.”

https://www.christianfilmblog.com/post/harsh-criticism-of-the-chosen-draws-emotional-response-from-dallas-jenkins

Again, to Dallas Jenkins, the overwhelming portion of made-up stuff – 95% – is a good thing, to the show’s credit, because the made-up stuff makes Jesus more appealing.

A second concern has to do with the resulting confusion as to what is true (biblical, the 5%) and what is untrue (fiction, the 95%). When one who is new to the Bible sees a scene in The Chosen that really “speaks to their heart,” and then asks me, “Is that true? Where is that in the Bible?” I would have to say, “No, it’s pure fiction, and it’s not in the Bible.” The newcomer may then ask, “Well, what about this … or that … or the other?” Time and again, I would have to respond, “No, it’s not in the Word of God. It’s just something that human scriptwriters thought would make Jesus more real, authentic, and personal.” From that point on, the newcomer may be more devoted to watching The Chosen than to studying the truth about Jesus in scripture.

In our age, video with sights and sounds can seem more engaging than printed materials. Many of us would rather see a movie than read the book on which that movie is based. Television is a powerful medium, and we would do well to recognize its influence.

Another implication is that viewers may decide to follow a filtered Jesus, one who is seen, edited, and interpreted by modern scriptwriters. Of course, our goal is for each person to meet the real Jesus, unedited and unfiltered, as seen and described by the original, first-century eyewitnesses. The old, reliable question, “Have you studied the Bible?” gives way to the new, exciting question, “Have you watched The Chosen?”

Let’s ask some more specific questions.

Think of the details added to the gospel accounts. Should it bother us, for example, for people to be taught that Nicodemus attempted to exorcise Mary Magdalene’s demons but failed? Or that Nicodemus’ wife was named Zohara? Has anyone ever told you that Jesus’ disciple Thaddeus was a stonemason … that “Little James” (James the son of Alphaeus) was a member of the “288 Jerusalem Temple Choir” … that Thomas (the doubter) was a caterer … or that Ramah was a former winemaker from Tel Dor, the deceased partner of Thomas, and one of the women helping Jesus's ministry?

Should others be told that Eden was the wife of Simon Peter, the daughter of Dasha … that Nathanael was a former architect … that Judas Iscariot was a former business apprentice … that the healed paralytic in Capernaum (Mark 2:1-12) was named Ethan … or that this same Ethan had an Ethiopian friend named Tamar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Chosen_characters

Would it be okay to show Jesus needing to take time to write down and rehearse the Sermon on the Mount … or Jesus asking for Matthew’s assistance with it … or Matthew himself as a person who was actually on the Asperger’s/autism spectrum? The claim is that Matthew’s autism makes Jesus more “relatable,” but does that justify adding it?

https://www.christianfilmblog.com/post/harsh-criticism-of-the-chosen-draws-emotional-response-from-dallas-jenkins

Has This Kind of “Improvement” Been Offered Before?

Actually, using pure human fiction to “fill in the gaps” in Jesus’ life is not new. Since the gospels provided no details about Jesus’ youth before age 12 or His life between ages 12 and about 30, others stepped in to complete what was seen as lacking, using their imagination as to what they thought “might have happened.”

Way back in the second century a fictional work appeared, called The Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It describes Jesus as a child having a dialogue with his teacher in front of other pupils about the nature of the Greek alphabet. In one episode Jesus makes clay birds, which he then proceeds to bring to life. There are other miracles, in which Jesus carries water on cloth, produces a feast from a single grain, and stretches a beam of wood to help his father finish constructing a bed. In this fictional writing, Jesus heals James from snake poison, resurrects a child who died of illness, and resurrects a man who died in a construction accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

If one were to publish The Infancy Gospel of Thomas or another ancient apocryphal book and suggest it be added to the Bible, of course it would be flatly rejected by most Bible-believing people. Why? Because it’s uninspired fiction, of course!

If promoters argued that such a book made Jesus more real, relatable, authentic, or personal, such an argument would not change the fact that it was of human origin.

How Can “The Chosen” Advance the Gospel?

People are talking about “The Chosen!” You can easily ask your friends if they have seen it. If they have, then ask them what you like about it. Explain to them its nature (fiction) and its purpose (to arouse interest in Jesus). Perhaps offer to watch a couple of episodes with them to see what’s in it and what they like about it.

Ask them if they want to know more about Jesus.

Then ask them something like this. “Wouldn’t it be fascinating to learn about Jesus from the eyewitnesses, those people who knew Him, who watched Him, and who followed Him in person? Let’s pick either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John and begin reading and studying about Jesus from those who were there with Him!”

 

Shocking News You've Never Heard!

It's one of the greatest stories never told. Though it is true, and perhaps because it is true, you will not hear it in any news reports or read about it in most history textbooks. It is never mentioned by any modern politician, in any political party, at any level of local or national leadership. The silence is deafening.

Let's begin with a question. What did our great nation’s original states say about the Christian faith in their founding documents? What did they require of their lawmakers religiously?

You haven’t heard? You don't know? Get ready for a surprise.

Andrew Schwartz wrote the following article, from which I will quote directly. Using a broad definition of the term “Christian,” he has compiled this information from the state constitutions of our nation’s foundational thirteen colonies.

If you have not seen this before, probably neither have others in your family and in your circle of influence. They likely do not realize how the nation began and what the colonies once required of their lawmakers. Consider forwarding this link to them so that they will be informed. Now get ready. Here's the shocking news you've never heard. Pass it on!

---

Delaware—1776—On legislators’ required oath of office: Delaware is explicitly Christian, requiring an oath or affirmation of faith in the Trinity and acknowledging the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture—both the Old and New Testaments. Article 22 reads, “I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Pennsylvania—1776—On legislators’ required oath of office: Similar to Delaware, Pennsylvania requires an oath unto God (although leaving out the trinitarian formula) and the acknowledgement of the divine nature of Holy Scripture. Pennsylvania uniquely affirms God as the consummate governor, reminding lawmakers of their due submission unto him and his word. Section 10 reads, “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.”

New Jersey—1776—On qualifications for legislative office: New Jersey goes a step beyond Pennsylvania, requiring not simply a profession of faith in God as part of the universal church, but more specifically a belief in any Protestant sect, in order to meet the requirements for public office, as well as to be protected in their civil rights. Article 19 reads,

[T]here shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.‍

Georgia—1777—On qualifications for legislative office: Georgia, too, explicitly required Christian Protestantism as a staple for public office. Article 6 states, “The representatives… shall be of the Protestant religion, and of the age of twenty-one years, and shall be possessed in their own right of two hundred and fifty acres of land, or some property to the amount of two hundred and fifty pounds.”

Connecticut—1818—On preference of worship and civil rights: Connecticut guarantees religious liberty for “any christian sect,” and guarantees equal rights,
powers, and privileges for “each and every society or denomination of christians.” But it does not guarantee religious liberty, nor even equal rights and treatment,
to non-Christians in the state. Article 1.4 reads, “No preference shall be given by law to any christian sect or mode of worship.” And Article 7.1 says, “each and every
society or denomination of christians in this state, shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights and privileges.”

Massachusetts—1780—On religious rights: Like Connecticut, Massachusetts establishes equal protection of the law only for denominations of Christians. Likewise, those who did not profess Christianity were disqualified from public office. Part 1, Article 3 states, “every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to an other shall ever be established by law.” Part 2, Chapter 2, Article 2 declares, “no person shall be eligible to this office [of governor]… unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.” Lastly, Part 2, Chapter 6, Article 1 proclaims, “Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative…shall…make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.: ‘I, A.B., do declare that I believe in the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth…”

Maryland—1776—On religious liberty: Though historically Roman Catholic in culture, the state of Maryland generalized its protection of religious liberty to those “professing the Christian religion,” but did not grant that same protection to those who did not make the same profession. Declaration of Rights, 33 reads, “That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty… the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax for the support of the Christian religion.”

South Carolina—1778—On the establishment of a religion: South Carolina is as explicitly Christian as any of the original states. The introduction below speaks for itself, but the entire resolution in Article 38 is even more prescriptive in its state Christianity. Article 38 declares,

“[A]ll persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated. The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State. That all denominations of Christian Protestants in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.”

New Hampshire—1792—On the support of religion for the security of government: New Hampshire again sponsors equal protection of the law, but only for denominations of Christians. New Hampshire also grounds its civil and moral philosophies on evangelical [i.e., gospel] principles, and authorizes the legislature publicly to support only “protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality.” Article 6 states,

As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as a knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes the people of this State have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the legislature to authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State, to make adequate provisions, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality…[E]very denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves quietly and as good subjects of the State, shall be equally under the protection of the law.

New Hampshire is explicitly Protestant Christian and evangelical (Christian gospel), and it does not authorize the legislature to support non-Christian religions.

Virginia—1776—On religious liberty: Virginia is the first state on our list (in state order) that does not explicitly make itself a Christian state. While it does apply an obligation of religion to “our Creator,” it also goes out of its way to place “reason and conviction” and “the dictates of conscience” as the governors of that duty. One can infer an implicit call to Christianity at best in the Declaration of Rights. Section 16 reads, “it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” We can conclude that this was not explicitly Christian.

New York—1776—On religious liberty: Similar to Virginia, New York protects religious liberty, while never calling for a Christian preference in worship or establishment. It does briefly allude to traditionally Christian virtues, but also calls the state to guard against “the bigotry of weak and wicked priests,” and calls Christian preference “repugnant to this constitution.” New York was explicitly not a Christian state. Article 38 reads, “this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.”

North Carolina—1776—On qualifications for office: While not as explicitly establishmentarian as her Southern Sister, North Carolina similarly holds Protestant Christianity in legal preference, requiring its affirmation for public office. Article 32 states, “That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”

Rhode Island—1843—On religious liberty: Rhode Island, our thirteenth state, is a strange case, since it didn’t formally adopt a constitution until 1843. Their charter of 1663 is explicitly Christian, and they were technically governed by this charter even after independence in 1776, but it is questionable whether that religious governance was in practice or in name only. In its 1843 constitution, it turned decidedly a-Christian, requiring no religious test for public office, and speaking only of a general God, rather than a Christian or Protestant God. Article 1.3, Section 3 states,

We, therefore, declare that no man shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of his own voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; and that every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain his opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect his civil capacity.‍

So, of the thirteen original states to ratify the Constitution, ten states were indisputably and explicitly Christian states either at the time of ratification, or shortly thereafter. Hypothetically, had they bullied their position, they as states could have amended the federal Constitution to provide equal protection only to Christians, and required adherence to Christianity as a qualification for office.

---

Again, my sincere thanks to Andrew Schwartz for compiling and publishing this vital information. Let us not merely bemoan what once was. Let us show up, stand up, and speak up for what one day may be!
‍

The Afterlife: Lazarus and "Abraham's Bosom"

Luke 16:19 “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 “And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 “Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.”

In a previous post, titled “The Afterlife: Union with Christ at Death,” I presented the biblical basis for my conviction that a Christian goes to be with the Lord at the point of death. Please read that article before continuing with this one, because it discusses the three uses of the term “paradise” in the New Testament and other related matters.

After reading that earlier post, a friend asked me, “What happened to Lazarus, whom the angels carried away to Abraham’s bosom? Where did he go when he died?”

The Lazarus whom Jesus described in Luke 16:19-31 was not the same as the Lazarus noted in John 11, whom Jesus raised from the dead. One obvious difference is that this Lazarus in Luke 16 was not resurrected and so did not return after his death.

Some discuss whether Jesus was telling a parable or not in Luke 16:19-31. In either case, everything that Jesus taught was always accurate. Either this did happen or could have happened. Since Jesus named the man, it’s plausible that He had a specific person in mind. By the way, “Lazarus” is taken from the Hebrew “Eleazar.” The name means, “God is [my] helper.”

Let’s go back now to our question, “Where did Lazarus (of Luke 16) go when he died?”

Some have thought and taught that Lazarus went to some kind of a waiting place and that he would not actually be with the Lord until after the final Day of Judgment. Some have believed that “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 19:22) was a reference to this kind of side-room waiting place. It was the pleasant side, if you will, of the unseen Hadean realm, but it was not actually in the presence of the Lord.

I remember hearing this interpretation in my earlier years. A man whom I respected greatly was preaching, and he showed us a large chart with circles and arrows. He said that Lazarus went to a waiting place, and he implied that Lazarus would not be with the Lord until after the Day of Judgment. I pictured Lazarus and all faithful Christians in a room off to the side, the kind of room where people might wait until being summoned to meet a great dignitary. I have heard and seen this viewpoint presented several times since.

Let me be quick to say that there are fine, faithful Christians who hold this view. With respect for all who love and study the scriptures, I am presenting here what I have inferred from the Bible's teaching.

In my understanding, that "waiting-place" approach contradicts the scriptures discussed in the previous post, noted above. If, based on that understanding of Luke 16, one therefore proposes the idea that Christians today do not go to be with Christ when they die (Philippians 1:21), that presents a serious conflict. It was that apparent conflict which caused my friend to ask me his question about Lazarus. “If we go to be with Christ when we die, what about Lazarus and Abraham’s bosom?”

Thankfully, a bit of research in the Gospels may help us understand “Abraham’s bosom.” In ancient times, when guests would recline at a table to eat, each one would lie next to the bosom (breast or chest) (Greek, kolpos) of another person.

We see a clear example of this at the Last Supper, the night before Jesus died. On that occasion the beloved disciple, probably John, “reclined on Jesus’ bosom.” That is, he lay on his side right beside the Lord. He was “on Jesus’ bosom” or at Jesus’ side.

John 13:23 There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24 So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, “Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking.” 25 He, leaning back thus on Jesus’ bosom, said to Him, “Lord, who is it?”

Because the literal phrase, “in one’s bosom,” sounds unusual to modern readers, the ESV substitutes the words, “at one’s side.” See Luke 16:22 and John 13:23-25 in the ESV. Yet the actual phrase “in or on one’s bosom” can refer to the position of one person reclining at a table next to another, perhaps the guest of honor. Understood this way, the phrase “Abraham’s bosom” indicates that Lazarus went to be beside Abraham.

We may also note that the Bible describes the Word (God the Son, Jesus Christ) as being “in the bosom of the Father.” The ESV translates this phrase as “at the Father’s side.” In other words, the Father and Son are together, side by side, in perfect unity, as if the Son is leaning on the Father’s chest.

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

That leads to the question, “If Lazarus is leaning on Abraham’s chest, just where is that? Where is Abraham?” Jesus answered that question! He indicated in His teaching that Abraham is, in fact, seated at the table at the heavenly banquet. He affirmed that Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets are there as well.

Luke 13:28 “… when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out. 29 “And they will come from east and west and from north and south, and they will recline at the table in the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 8:11 “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; 12 but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

So, as I understand it, Lazarus did not go into some off-site waiting place, away from the Lord. Rather, the angels carried him to be next to Abraham, in or on his bosom or chest, reclining next to him at the heavenly banquet table.

What a beautiful, comforting, encouraging description of the blessings one receives at the point of death! May every meal we enjoy here on earth remind us of the blessed feast that we shall relish on the other side forever!

By the way, Jesus also used this imagery when He related the “Parable of the Marriage Feast” (Matthew 22:1-14). A well-known hymn, based loosely on that parable, exhorts every hungry, starving soul to come to the Lord to be fed.

Are you a Christian? Have you responded to His invitation in faith, repenting and being baptized for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38)? Read the words of this hymn as if they were written to you.

All Things are Ready (come to the feast) – Chas. H. Gabriel, 1856-1932

“All things are ready,” come to the feast!
Come for the table now is spread;
Ye famishing, ye weary, come,
And thou shalt be richly fed.

Hear the invitation,
Come, whosoever will;
Praise God for full salvation
For whosoever will.

“All things are ready,” come to the feast!
Come, for the door is open wide;
A place of honor is reserved
For you at the Master’s side.

“All things are ready,” come to the feast!
Come, while He waits to welcome thee;
Delay not while this day is thine,
Tomorrow may never be.

“All things are ready,” come to the feast!
Leave every care and worldly strife;
Come, feast upon the Christ of God
And drink everlasting life.

What about you? Have you accepted the Lord’s invitation to come to His feast? Are you confident that a place of honor is reserved for you at the Master’s side?

For further reading: Are You a Christian? Are You Saved? Are You SURE?

For further reading: Good News! An Evangelistic Bible Study Based on Acts 2