Category: Devotional Grist

Blessed Magnificent Dread God, we are not deserving of your favor and your judgments against us are altogether true, but out of thy great love and mercy for your Son and His brethren would you not raise up another generation of Lees and Jacksons, Dabneys and Palmers, Stephensons and Breckinridges, for thy cause and thy people? Would you not fill us again with the desperate desire for liberty? Would you not cause us to once again connect the dots between being owned by no man save you and being free men. Benevolent Father, we pine for leadership. Send forth thy Spirit to renew us and raise up again, we beg of thee, a faithful band of men and women who, confident of your faithfulness to them for the sake of Christ alone, fear nothing.

“And He (Jesus) is propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only; but also for the whole world.” I John 2:2

Here we have a text that has often been used by non-Biblical (i.e. – non-Reformed) people to teach the essentially Arminian idea of a hypothetical universal atonement. Now, clearly if the passage is to used as the basis of any wrong teaching it would have to be the wrong teaching of ‘Universal Atonement’ since a non-contextual reading (context being the book of I John, The epistles of John, The writings of John, The New Testament and finally the whole of revelation) would lead one to conclude that Jesus provided propitiation in a universal sense. Still, non-Reformed people have forever appealed to this passage as a bulwark to support hypothetical universal atonement which teaches that Jesus died for each and every person who ever lived and the reality that each and every person who has ever lived isn’t saved is due to individuals refusing Jesus propitiatory death.

B. B. Warfield following John Owen lanced this kind of reasoning,

“Is not the rejection of Jesus as our propitiation a sin? And if it is a sin, is it not like other sins, covered by the death of Christ? If this great sin is excepted from the expiatory [effectual covering] of Christ’s blood, why did not John tell us so, instead of declaring without qualification that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the whole world? And surely it would be very odd if the sin of rejection of the Redeemer were the only condemning sin, in a world the vast majority of the dwellers in which have never heard of this Redeemer, and nevertheless perish. On what ground do they perish, all their sins having been expiated?”

John Owen who wrote exhaustively on this issue of “world” and wrote sarcastically about his opponents,

The world, the whole world, all, all men! � who can oppose it? Call them [the modified Calvinists] to the context in the several places where the words are; appeal to rules of interpretation; mind them of the circumstances and scope of the place, the sense of the same words in other places; . . . [and] they. . . cry out, the bare word, the letter is theirs: “Away with the gloss and interpretation; give us [the modified Calvinists] leave to believe what the word expressly saith.”

Now historically there have been different ways to handle I John 2:2 with its ascription of universality to the propitiatory work of Christ and most of these different approaches have focused on how to understand the phrase ‘The Whole World.’ Some have handled this passage in such a way as to say that the propitiatory work of Christ affected something like the benefits of common grace that all men receive, while still holding out that the propitiation of Christ still has unique reference to the elect in terms of turning away the Father’s personal wrath from them and them alone. Now, while we might admit that the benefits of common grace that the unbeliever receives is in some way related to the Cross work of our benevolent Savior, we would have to insist that such a teaching can’t be found in I John 2:2, without a great deal of extrapolation.

Another approach is to suggest that the phrase ‘The Whole World’ is a comparative statement where the inspired Apostle is saying, “Jesus is propitiation not only for the sins of us Christians in Asia Minor but also the propitiation for the sins of Christians everywhere in the world.” Certainly the thought that the ‘whole world’ does not have to have reference to each and every individual who has ever lived has support in the New Testament. One has only to think of Colossian 1:6 where the Apostle, speaking of the word, can say it ‘has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit….” Quite obviously the Apostle isn’t saying that the word has come to each and every individual but rather is speaking in a metaphorical sense regarding how the word has proliferated. In Colossians 1:23 we see a situation where the Apostle can say that the gospel was ‘preached to every creature under heaven’ and yet quite obviously the Apostle does not mean here that people outside the Roman Empire had heard the Gospel. Indeed the meaning in Colossians 1:23 is that the Gospel had been made known indiscriminately and profusely. Now, given what we have seen from Colossians clearly the phrase ‘The Whole World’ found in I John 2:2 does not have to mean ‘each and every individual who has ever lived,’ and any interpretation of I John 2:2 that agrees with Augustine, Bede, Calvin, and Beza that what John is communicating is that the propitiation of Jesus is not limited to the saints in Asia Minor but extends to the elect in ‘The Whole World’ is to be preferred over non-Reformed interpretations if only because it provides a cogency and logical consistency that all other non-Reformed interpretations are lacking.

(And on this point of logical cogency keep in mind that many people you discuss this point with, like a person I discussed this with in their home last week, may end up telling you that it doesn’t matter if their position is a contradiction and that it is a mystery we have to accept.)

Still, the interpretation that teaches that what John is doing is making a statement comparing “Jesus’ propitiation as not only for the sins of those Christians in Asia Minor but also the propitiation for the sins of Christians everywhere in the world” is to be preferred over non-Reformed interpretations where Christ dies for each and every individual. Yet I would contend that there remain problems with that interpretation and that perhaps a better way to read this text might be found.

First, there is nothing in the book of I John that suggests that whatever John has to say is uniquely applicable to the Christians in Asia Minor. In other words, the assumption that in 2:2 John is emphasizing that the extent of the propitiatory work of Christ reaches beyond the Christians he is writing to doesn’t fit the general context of I John where we find nothing that would require the Apostle to go out of the way to make the point that Christ’s propitiation is broader than Asia Minor Christians. Indeed the contrast that the Apostle seems to be making is not between Christians in Asia Minor as well as Christians throughout the world but rather Christians as a whole as well as ‘the whole world.’ Besides, it would have hardly been considered ‘news’ to these believers in Asia Minor that Jesus’ propitiation also applies to Christians in other Christian faith communities. More on that in a moment.

Another interpretation that we have already rubbed up against is the idea that I John 2:2 does teach that every creature under heaven creature has been provided a propitiation for and so does indeed teach a Universal propitiation in a hypothetical sense. The problems with such a reading are legion.

First, such a teaching would expose the propitiatory death of Christ as largely ineffectual. Christ dies to provide universal propitiation and yet John can say of this, “propitiated for world,” that it ‘lies in the evil one (I John 5:19).’ In such an interpretation one can only conclude that the propitiation of Christ isn’t worth the papyrus on which John wrote the words.

Second, such a teaching requires us to conclude that the propitiatory death of Jesus is not that which saves us. If Christ propitiated for the whole world and if the whole world (each and every individual) isn’t saved then that which differentiates a saved person from a non-saved person can not be the propitiatory death of Christ but rather some other differentiating dynamic. Such a teaching would make the death of Christ secondary to whatever primary dynamic is the reasons that causes people to differ in reference to salvation, and this in turn, would require honesty to say that the death of Christ in itself most definitely doesn’t save.

Third, the Apostle speaks of this propitiatory death as being a monumental benefit both to the Church and also to the World and yet if Christ’s death is so ineffectual as to the salvation of so many, wherein can be found that which is monumental in that which is said to be a benefit? Quite obviously hypothetical universal propitiation will never do.

Another way out of this labyrinth that some have offered is to divide Christ’s work of Advocacy from His work of propitiation (cmp. 2:1). This argument is construed so as to teach that while Christ is indeed the propitiation of the whole world (each and every individual who has ever lived) He is not the Advocate for the whole world. Thus Christ dies effectually for everybody but He does not pray that all that He died for will come and so some whom He died for never come and they die in their sins. In this view it is the advocacy of Christ that turns the potentiality of the propitiation into actuality. Again the problems here are burdensome. First, as has already been mentioned what such a view does is to divide the Priestly work of Christ introducing contradiction into the office of Jesus as great high priest. On one hand the High priest, in His death, provides propitiation for the sins of each and every individual while on the other hand this same great High Priest refuses to advocate for those for whom He propitiated. Can you say multiple personality disorder? Second, were such an arrangement true we would have to say that what saves us is not the Cross work of Christ but rather the Advocacy work of Christ. This view makes the effectual power of the propitiation of Christ to rest on the work of Christ’s Advocacy as opposed seeing His Advocacy as resting on the basis of the effectual power of His reconciling death. Such an interpretation must be forsworn.

So what do we make of I John 2:2? Well we could start by stating the obvious. The inspired Apostle says that Christ IS (not was) the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. It is the whole world that is propitiated for and which has an advocate before the Father. Here we are forced to embrace some kind of Universalism that is exclusive of the idea that all individual men will be saved. What kind of Universalism will serve that kind of function?

The overall answer I believe lies in embracing the idea that the reconciling work of Christ accomplished on the cross was designed so that in the outworking of history what would eventually come to pass was the salvation of the whole cosmos (“all things”). In Christ’s death all things were reconciled in principle and definitively but that reconciliation was to take place progressively in history and culminate in all things being reconciled finally in the consummation of all things. The redemptive effects of Christ’s death was accomplished at the cross and those same redemptive effects continue to extend out into the future so that the all things that were reconciled in principle and definitively in the death of Christ are progressively reconciled as the future unfolds. The final end of Christ’s work is the reconciliation of all things that was accomplished in principle and definitively in the work of our Lord Christ in his Cross work.

So, when the Apostle speaks here of Christ being the propitiation for the sins of the whole world what he has before him is the kind of Universalism that sees the end result of the work of Christ. The teleology (goal) of Christ’s propitiatory work is a universally saved world. The idea of ‘Whole World’ in I John 2:2 should not be read as Christ making propitiation for the sins of each and every individual. Neither should I John 2:2 be read as Christ providing a propitiation for each and every individual that is activated only by His particular Advocacy. Rather I John 2:2 should be read as the Apostle speaking in much the same way that Isaiah wrote in Chapter 49 in reference to the coming Messiah,

5 And now the LORD says,
he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,
to bring Jacob back to him;
and that Israel might be gathered to him—
for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD,
and my God has become my strength—
6he says:”It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to bring back the preserved of Israel;
I will make you as a light for the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

And so I John 2:2 while not teaching a absolute universalism is teaching that there is a universalistic quality to what Christ has done. That is to say, that because Christ has died for the sins of the whole world we can anticipate that a time is coming where the whole world will be saved. This has been called “eschatological univeralism”

That the whole world didn’t yet give evidence in John’s day or doesn’t yet give evidence in our day that Jesus has propitiated for its sins is no proof against the reality that the propitiatory work of Christ wouldn’t one day yield a whole word that would one day give evidence of Christ propitiating for the sins of the whole world.

In saying that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world John is, I believe, also speaking proleptically about what is as good as accomplished in light of the effectual power of Christ’s propitiating death. Christ propitiated for the sins of the whole world and it is only a matter of time before the whole world, like the little community that John writes to, will be saved.

Now that word proleptically.

a. Proleptic is the assignment of something, such as an event or name, to a time that precedes it, as in If you tell the cops, you’re a dead man.

So John is writing to this early church that is a small and fledgling organization, and the Apostle, understanding the impact of what Christ has done, by speaking of Christ’s propitiation for the sins of the whole world speaks of the future certain effect of what His propitiation accomplished. Sure, the whole world isn’t yet revealing the fruit of Christ’s propitiatory death but that doesn’t mean that Christ death wasn’t a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

B. B. Warfield puts it this way,

“(Jesus) came into the world because of love of the world, in order that he might save the world, and He actually saves the world. Where the expositors have gone astray is in not perceiving that this salvation of the world was not conceived by John – any more than the salvation of the individual – accomplishing itself all at once. Jesus came to save the world, and world will through Him be saved; at the end of the day he will have a saved world to present to His father.”

Because of the propitiatory death of Christ the world in its totality will be saved. Because of the propitiatory death of Christ the New World Order of His eschatological Kingdom that He inaugurated will push back and overcome this present evil age. The Lord Jesus Christ, because of His propitiatory death, has saved the World from the destruction that was visited upon it by the work of Adam.

All of this fits wonderfully with what the Apostle Paul says in Romans 8;

“because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.”

The present evil age World order will be delivered from the bondage of corruption precisely because it was delivered from the bondage of corruption in the propitiatory death of Christ. The mustard seed will become the huge tree. The leaven will work its way through the whole loaf. The great stone cut out of the side of the Mountain will crush pretenders to the throne. Christ will be all in all.

In this reading the contrast that is implied by the Apostle in I John 2:2 is not the contrast of the flock in Asia Minor contrasted with the flock in other portions of the world. Nor is the contrast to be found in the propitiation of all the Christians of all time with the propitiation of each and every individual that lived during John’s time. Rather the contrast that the Apostle has in mind is the contrast between the ‘little flock’ in Asia Minor that is saved with the Whole World that will be saved as a result of the work of Christ.

The salvation that Christ wrought is Cosmic in its nature. The death of Christ does not merely save individuals out of the World but has the effect of saving individuals along with the World. The Universalism, thus of the Apostle John, is not an ‘all men will be saved’ universalism. Rather the Apostle’s Universalism is an eschatological Universalism.

Ken Gentry puts it this way,

Though these passages do not teach an ‘each and every universalism’ as in liberal thought, they do set forth the certain, divinely assured prospect of a coming day in which the world as a system (a Kosmos) of men and things, and their relationships, will be redeemed. A day in which the world will operate systematically upon a Christian ethico-redemptive basis. Christ’s redemptive labors will have gradually brought in the era of universal worship, peace and prosperity looked for by the prophets of the Old Testament…. There is a coming day in which Christ will have sought and have found that which was lost: the world. Hence the Great Commission command to baptize ‘all nations.’

So when we read these types of passages we read them understanding that “all things” refers to the expansive nature of Christ’s reconciling work. The created order has been reconciled in Christ. Though all men are not reconciled, humanity as a whole is reconciled.

I John 2:2 thus is a passage that is a post-millennial affirmation that the Kingdoms of this World will be the Kingdoms of our Lord and that the knowledge of the glory of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.

Now, in light of this believers can continue, as they so commonly currently do expect defeat in this world or in submission to King Jesus they can get to work seeking to extend the crown rights of King Jesus, who has provided the propitiation of the sins of the whole world.

I am ashamed to admit that just today I caught the divine irony of the Egyptians drowning in the Red Sea. Years prior to that Red Sea event Egypt sought to eliminate God’s host by having them cast into the river upon birth. So, many years later, God returns the favor and casts the Egyptian hosts into the waters. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

“On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, “Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast.” And they took it. When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!” This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.”

Introduction

Why Church Calendar

1.) Recital theology

¹¹ I will remember the deeds of the Lord;
    yes, I will remember your wonders of old.
¹² I will ponder all your work,
    and meditate on your mighty deeds.

The Church calendar gives us the means to recite our theology and our History. If familiar with the Church calendar we can become a people who are anchored in our undoubted catholic Christian faith. When we are involved in this recital theology as connected to the calendar we are involved in a kind of catechism.

2.) The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of history.

George Orwell

We want to use the Church Calendar to remind us of our History as a Christian people. And so we spend this time seeking to ground these New Testament texts in the history of God’s people. The purpose is that we will be both theologically and historically grounded.

When we celebrate Advent, for example, we look at the History of God’s people looking forward to the coming of Christ and then we speak of that fulfillment and then we add that we now look forward to a future coming of Christ.

3.) As a Christian people we desire to measure time in a Christian fashion and not as a people who think the measuring of time is neutral. If we will not measure time as Christians we will measure time as non-Christians. Why should we note President’s Day or MLK Day and not mark Epiphany or Advent?

4.) There is no intent to absolutize the Church Calendar. We ourselves do not find ourselves tied to it. We will deviate to address other issues that need to be spoken to but neither do we find ourselves required to ignore a means that can work to help us to ground us in Christian thinking habits.

There is nothing Romantic or mystical in observing the movement of time in Christian terms.

As we turn to the text, we note that the structure of John 2:1-11 is typical of a miracle story: the setting is established (verses 1-2), a need arises (verses 3-5), a miracle addresses that need (verses 6-8), and there is a response to that miracle (verses 9-11).

Preliminary considerations

By way of introduction we note that Cana of Galilee was in territory inhabited by many Gentiles and there he performed his first miracle in the Gospel of John. From the very beginning therefore, Jesus is portrayed as a trans-national figure in the Gospel. His life and work is intended to extend beyond Israel.

Though it sounds rude to our ears, Jesus’ address to his Mother is not curt but an address revealing the respect he has for His mother. The phrase “what concern is that to you and to me?” is a common Semitic expression that implies a sense of disengagement, not active hostility (similar uses occur in 2 Kings 3:13; Hosea 14:8).

¹³ And Elisha said to the king of Israel, “What have I to do with you?
8 O Ephraim, what have I to do with idols?

As we consider the core of the passage we would note that it is all about connecting the anticipation of the OT with the inaugurative fulfillment of the age to come as found in Christ then on to the complete realization of the coming Day when sin is removed from the Cosmos and men dwell with God.

I.) Eschatological Movement of OT anticipation to NT inaugurative fulfillment

1.) The reason that this is called “This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana” is because it is the first indication, by way of miracle, that Jesus is the embodiment of the glorious age to come that was anticipated in the OT. The Lord Christ gives a miracle here that is a sign that reveals the salvation, abundance, and new life now present in the world through the Lord Christ. Here forward King Emmanuel will continue to demonstrate the presence of the Kingdom with healings, exorcisms, and miracles over nature. Here though is the first sign … a sign at a wedding feast that announces that the promised groom spoken of in the OT has now arrived with Christ in the NT.

Illustration — Bud upon tulip tree

2.) The Old covenant was a ministry of condemnation. The New Covenant is a ministry of life. This first sign Miracles demonstrates that.

Jesus first sign thus shows the difference of emphasis between the two covenants. Whereas Moses, being one of the premier representative of the old covenant that brought condemnation, did exhibit that character of the covenant with the first plague that found the source of life (water) in Egypt being turned to blood. Jesus, as head of the New and better covenant counters this first plague with his first sign that finds him turning water into wine.

Jesus is thus revealed as a better Moses. Whereas Moses’ sign was to the end of leading God’s people out of the bondage of Egypt, Jesus sign was to the end of leading God’s people into the Kingdom. Moses sign was to harden Pharaoh’s heart. Jesus sign was to soften the hearts of his people. (“and His disciples believed in Him”)

3.) The marriage setting serves likewise as a fitting motif because through covenantal history God is a groom to His bride people. The sign of Cana thus indicates the high point of that marriage motif. God in Christ has brought the new and better covenant and with that new and better covenant the marriage between God and His people is at it’s full expression.

So, it is appropriate that this first Sign happens in the context of a wedding feast since in the OT wedding and banquet imagery is used, as we just noted, to symbolize the messianic era (Isaiah 54:4-8; 62:4-5; Matthew 22:1-14; Revelation 19:9).

Isaiah 54

For your Maker is your husband,
    the Lord of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
    the God of the whole earth he is called.
⁶ For the Lord has called you
    like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit,
like a wife of youth when she is cast off,
    says your God.

Isaiah 62

You shall no more be termed Forsaken,^[a]
    and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,^[b]
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,^[c]
    and your land Married;^[d]
for the Lord delights in you,
    and your land shall be married.
⁵ For as a young man marries a young woman,
    so shall your sons marry you,
and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
    so shall your God rejoice over you.

^{Revelation 19:9} And the angel said^[a] to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

Parable of the Wedding feast in Mt. 22

4.) This beginning of signs is in keeping with Jesus coming as one eating and drinking compared to John The Baptist, who was the greatest prophet of the OT not eating or drinking wine. As Jesus is the one who is the new and better covenant it is fitting that His coming is adorned in merriment and celebration with a beginning signs that finds him turning water into wine.

II.) The Importance of “Hour” and “Wine” Here

Wine

1.) This miracle centers on wine because abundant wine is symbolic of God’s presence in the world in the eschatological age (Amos 9:13; Joel 3:18) in the OT.  This will take on even more significance when we look at the phrase the Lord Christ’s references as “that hour.”

^{Joel 3:18} “And in that day
the mountains shall drip sweet wine,

Amos 9:13 —  “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord,
    “when the plowman shall overtake the reaper
    and the treader of grapes him who sows the seed;
the mountains shall drip sweet wine,
    and all the hills shall flow with it.

So … that day spoken of in the OT has arrived.  The promised Day has arrived in Christ.

2.) The head-waiter made the ironic statement that the good wine had been saved “until now.”  This of course is both literally and symbolically true. It was literally better wine but the Lord Christ as the long promised Messiah in the OT is Himself better than all who had come before.

The real bridegroom who served this superior wine, Jesus, has “now” appeared, ushering into the world God’s abundant goodness and grace in a definitive way.

3.) The comment by the Master to the Bridegroom at the end of the Cana record about the quality of the wine is a double entendre. The obvious meaning is, of course, quite literal, but the underlying motif is covenantal in meaning. In redemptive history the new and better covenant is “the good wine kept until last.”

With Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper he brings forth wine again. This in effect gives us wine bookends of his ministry. Water to wine in His first miracle. Wine in order to show forth the blood of the covenant on the night he was betrayed. In this we see that in Jesus, who is the new and better covenant, we have the one who brings together the joy of the new covenant represented by the water to wine at Cana and the water to blood old covenant plague. As Christ’s younger brethren we drink the wine of Cana at the table because He took upon Himself the wrath of God that should have justly found us all being plagued with the death that the water to blood was to God’s enemies in the Old Covenant. Christ took the curses for the penalty of sin that we might drink the wine of Cana.

And of course we know of the promise that connects the future with all this. The promise that bespeaks the fact that Christ will drink wine with us again in the newness of the Father’s Kingdom.

The Word — “Hour”

A1.) The word “hour” is a technical and theologically rich term in the Fourth Gospel. It is used in two technical senses,

A.) to refer to the era of eschatological fulfillment (e.g., 4:21, 23;  5:25, 28)

¹ Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. ²³ But the hour is coming, and is now here,

²⁵ “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live…. ²⁸ Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice

B.) Perhaps more importantly it is a technical references to Jesus’ glorification through his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension (7:30; 8:20; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1).

³⁰ So they were seeking to arrest him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come.

no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.

‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this purpose I have come to this hour.

Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come…

It is significant though, that at the beginning of his public ministry the Lord Christ is mindful of where all this ministry is going. He understands His task and that He is the Messiah assigned for a particular hour. 

Conclusion

Abundance of Grace

6 Stone Jars 20-30 Gallons
The best of the wine

We see God provides above and beyond the need and that with the very best. Christ is the very best and is given to more than meet our need. He is our salvation, our reconciliation, our redemption. God provides the Son just as Christ provides the wine.

Where else might we go with all this?

Joy … Christ has come. He has brought all that God has promised. There is no reason for us to now be downcast. In Christ the Kingdom has come and we are part of that Kingdom.

Mary mentioned here and at cross. Is there at the beginning and at the end.

_________________

7.) Given Mary’s concern for the Wedding problems it is probably the case that this wedding was a family member to Mary and Jesus. If so it would again be fitting that this first sign would be done among his kinsman people serving as a adumbration of what His bringing of the new and better covenant meant for His spiritual kinsman people.

I..) 20:1-15 teaches God can legitimately do whatever he chooses to do with all that he possesses.

We see this kind of reasoning in the book of Job. At the end of Job the answer God gives Job is that as God He is above inquiry as to what He does with His own.

It this kind of God we have to do with in Romans when it teaches that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

We must not miss the Sovereignty of God in this Parable for that is one over-riding theme. The Vineyard (Kingdom) belongs to the owner. He brings into the Vineyard who He will and when He will. He recompenses according to justice and grace. We all get what we deserve because we are found in Christ. From another perspective all of us get what we do not deserve and that is reward above our work. Those who complain against the Vineyard Owner are implicitly complaining against the Sovereignty and generosity of God.

Down this line of Sovereignty we see the clear teaching of Election. “Many are called but few are Chosen.” I understand this to mean that many are attached to visible Kingdom who do not have the invisible Kingdom within them. All in the Kingdom are called but only the elect are chosen. Some reckon their Kingdom work as merit based. These are forever trying to put God in their debt. These are those who are called and not chosen. .

II.) 20:1-15 teaches that the promise of reward should not become ground upon which to stand. The ground upon which to stand is the generosity of the Vineyard owner in calling one to work. All is of grace, including the reward.

We find this kind of point made in Luke 15 in the parable of the Prodigal Son

Here we find the workers first hired, resentful, and complaining of injustice
Lk. 15 we find the elder son, who stayed at home, resentful and complaining of injustice

Here we find the unexpected generosity of the Employer towards the workers hired late
Lk. 15 we find the unexpected generosity of the Father towards the prodigal son

Here the employer justifies his extravagant generosity
Lk. 15 the Father justifies his extravagant generosity

Part of our sin nature reveals itself in our being inveterate comparers. We are consumed with all things being fair and then we are forever defining fair as that which works in our favor. In Matthew 20 the complaint of “unfairness,” is really about envy. There was a belief that the latecomers are getting more than they deserved and that the latecomers were not getting what the earlier workers thought they deserved. The earlier workers were discontent with what they received only because they were angry that the later workers were treated with abundant kindness.

Here is one point of application I believe. Can we rejoice with others in the largesse of God’s grace towards them when we might be tempted to think that God, having plenty of largesse to spare, isn’t being quite as gracious towards us as He might? Can we be content with the grace we’ve been given without being angered that someone has been given more? Can we keep from looking at others and playing the comparison game?

It is grace for any of us to be in Kingdom work. What matters it if God decides to bless some in the Kingdom with more than He does others in terms of blessing?

III.) 20:1-15 teaches that God’s generosity transcends human expectations, and grace disallows calculations of recompense

There is, in some quarters of the Church, a great deal of discussion on future rewards of the Kingdom, as if the desire for rewards ought to be a motivating factor for obedience. However, our motivation for obedience is found not in the promise of rewards, as if we could calculate that.

I’ve never been too concerned about this whole notion of rewards as a motivating factor or as something that should draw our interest. It is enough that God has placed us in the Vineyard to begin with, and it is enough that our motivation is calculated not on what more we might receive but on all that God has already freely given us. God has freely saved us and freely put us in the Kingdom and He will freely measure out to each according to His good measure.

As we have hinted at already, note that the complaint is not against the landowner’s injustice. There was no injustice in his dealing with those who would bring complaint. The complaint instead is against the generosity towards the latecomers. The complaint isn’t “you haven’t been good enough to us,” the complaint rather is, “you’ve been too good to others.”