Another important section of the OT for our terminology is the ' Praise of Wisdom,' Pr 1-9. Se\ cral things are noticeable here ; the loud call -Divine W'iMloni as a street preacher (8', cf. I»>) ; I 111' Milium iiliuiinis conception of the call rejected 1 1-'); till- rail u> an invitation to a feast (ch. 9). 'I'liU last ti.sai;!' (' call ' = ' invite '), while obsolete in motlern English, is found in its literal sense both in OT antl NT of our version ; e.g. 1 K V, Ju ■2- AV.
Still another group of OT passages may seem to require notice— those describing the * call ' of various prophets. The term is not so used in OT (unless IsSr-?— see above— Abraham isa ' prophet' in Gn 20' [E]). But there is a passage which would lend itself excellently to this interpretation — the tale of the call of the young Samuel, where we have three interesting parallel usages : Jehovah ' called to Samuel ' ( 1 S 3* literally), ' citlled Samuel ' (v.8), 'called . . . Samuel, Samuel' (v.'»).
There are therefore several usages of the word 'to call' in OT which we ought to keep in mind as we approach the Gospels. It means command, or it means invitation. It means a summons to special function, or it means (along with that) a peculiar mark of gracious condescension.
(6) In the (iospels, the verb may occur in the literal sense (Mt 20"). But in general a compound form is preferred for such sense ; e.g. when Jesus calls (TrpoffdoXeffd/uti-os) His disciples near Him for a short talk (Mk 10*-). We have the simple form in one iiiipiirtant jiassage when James and John are 'calKd' (.MU 1-'" I! .Mt 4-' f«i\f(rev), though the compound (irpoo-\a\erTai) is found in Mark's record of the selection of the Twelve (3"), while in the parallel in Luke (6'") wpoa^JKJiniacv is employed. It might be argued that, even here, the mere icord 'called' means no more than 'called to Himself.' Still, in view of OT antecedents, that is question- able. Anyway, as a matter of fact, those ' calls ' were commands and invitations, to 'leave all' (Mk 10=*) and follow Jesus— to take up .solemn functions in His senice. When comjwunds of KaXiu are used, or wlien (pavioi is used, we need not suspect deep religious or theological significance in the word. Yet here again the fact has to be dealt with. Jesus may simply 'call to' (^ui'tii') Barti- maMis (Mk lO*") ; but the result of the conversation (and miracle) is that he Avho h.ad been blind 'fol- lows Jesus in the way' (10*-). In two other
CALL, CALLING
CALL, CALLING
265
passages the ijroup of Pr 1-9— privile:
associated with ege rather than authority ; invita- tion, rattier than command— come to the front : ' I came not to call {KaX^aai.) the righteous, but sinners' (Mlc 2", Mt 9'^; Lk 5'^ adds 'to repent- ance'), and 'many are called (KXrjToi), but few chosen' (Mt 22"; in 20'" these words are rightly dropped by RV as not belonging to the original text).
(c) Though our concern is with the Gospels, we cannot refuse to consult the Epistles for the light they may throw on Gospel usage. They give us a cognate substantive; not 'call' but 'calling.' ' Call ' as a substantive occurs in English much earlier than our AV, but presumably the purely physical idea— the audible call— was too strongly marked in it to allow of its standing for God's address to the conscience. 'Calling,' which was preferred, reproduces the form of the Greek sub- stantive K\TJ(ns. This term is mainly Pauline (e.rf. 1 Co 1^), though it extends into Hebrews (3>) and (at least so far as the verb is concerned) into 1 Peter (1" 2"). As moulded by St. Paul, there is no doubt that the 'call' is primarily one to salvation (Ro 8^"'"), though it may also signify special (Apostolic) function (Ro 1'). The Epistle to the HeVews preserves the same twofold reference. All believers 'partake of a heavenly calling' (3'), but none may take high honour or oHice upon himself except when ' called ' by God thereto (5*). Later in the history of Engli.sh speech, the physical implications of the noun ' call ' having been in some measure rubbed otV, it came into
Scripture had used a substantive, 'calling' would have been installed by our translators in tliis phrase. The NT ' calling ' is a single definite act m the past, whether personal conversion [sometimes acceptance of Divinely imijosed duty] or the historic mission of Christ. He who 'called' us is holy (1 P 1'*). In our modern use of 'calling,' some- thing seems borrowed from the idea of a worUlhj calling, viz. habitualness. Ace. to Murray's Dir- tionary, 1 Co 7'° introduced— almost by an accident — the use of 'calling' for worldly rank, station, external surroundings. 'Hence,' it adds, ' "call- ing" came to be applied to the various means of bread- winning.' [The exegesis of the verse is dis- puted, but the view the Dictionary proceeds on seems to be right. It is not, of course, pretended that ' calling ' in 1 Co 7-" means e.nictbj trade or profession. St. Paul would ne\er make it matter of conscience that a Christian should refrain from changing his trade]. Botli these senses — viz. (1) station, and (2) trade— are often (unwarrantably, the Dictionary seems to think, as far as ety- mology goes) regarded as Divine vocations. This is surely obscure. If 1 Co 7-" taught so little, can we hold it responsible for a twofold set of meanings ? May not professional ' calling ' rather mean, in the first instance, ' what I am called ' — William [the] Smith, John [the] Tailor ? a still humbler etymo- logy. However that may be, the idea of Divine vocation in daily concerns could not be ruled out from Christian thought. Thus inevitably Chris- tians have been led to formulate the idea of a lifelong Divine vocation, covering all externals, but centring in the heart. It may be repeated that ' calling ' (the substantive) is not found in the Gospels ; of course the word is not found anywhere in the EV in the sense of ' trade.'