Sunday, February 1, 2015

Your Superbowl Halftime Entertainment - Blessed by the WELS Stuporstars:
Tim Glende and Ski

Tim Glende and Ski posed with Katy Perry,
the no talent Superbowl entertainment for 2015.
I hope she didn't sing one of her porn songs -
that would embarrass WELS, maybe.

I used to wonder why Glende and Ski were so enchanted with Katy Perry. Let's skip the first two reasons.

The third reason - she lip-syncs her songs and they lip-sync their copycat sermons.

Oh oh. She did go porno for the Superbowl:

"I thought it would be appropriate to draw blood tonight," tweeted the singer, who also sang excerpts from I Kissed a Girl and Teenage Dream during her set.

Classic Father Hollywood - Women Consecrating the Elements in WELS

Or both - Sam Birn's graphic on his Facebook page.


Girls Gone Wild, WELS Edition

In spite of the Wisconsin Synod's reputation for "conservative" rigor, WELS has a rather "liberal" view when it comes to women officiating at the Eucharist.

According to this Q&A from the WELS's own website, there have been at least two instances where laywomen in the WELS have said the Lord' Words of Institution over bread and wine and served it, claiming that it was the body and blood of the Lord. The practice was in no way condemned by the WELS hierarchy, but rather, the practice is current under a "moratorium" in order to "keep from offending our brothers."

This error has come about by the intersection of an error on the doctrine of the ministry combined with a legalistic view of the role of women.

First, WELS does not believe the pastoral office has been divinely established, and further teaches that "The Bible establishes all of public gospel ministry but does not establish a pastoral office as such or vest certain duties exclusive to that office" (Emphasis added).

From this starting point, WELS adds the next premise that the differences between male and female are limited to a legalistic "thou shalt not," as the article puts it:
"Since the Bible does not assign specific duties to the pastor, WELS approaches the matter of women communing women from Scripture's man and women role relationship principle. WELS doctrinal statements on the role of man and woman say that a woman may have any part in public ministry that does not assume teaching authority over a man. That, of course, would include women communing women" (emphasis added).
And this has moved beyond the theoretical into the practical:
"WELS has had only two instances of women communing women, and our Conference of Presidents has since issued an indefinite moratorium on such practice to keep from offending our brothers until the matter is mutually resolved" (emphasis added).
The "it's only happened twice" defense reminds me of the Monty Python sketch claiming that the British Navy now has cannibalism "relatively under control."

In other words, the theology of male and female boils down to an oversimplified and law-based overarching principle that women are free to do anything and everything in the Lord's economy so long as she does not exercise authority over a man in doing so - when in fact, the role of women is much richer than the "anything other than..." approach of the WELS. Accepting these two premises and following them to their logical end yields the result of women saying the Words of Institution over bread and wine, and distributing the elements to each other as if they were the true body and blood.

This is roughly the equivalent of my asserting that since I'm an American citizen, I can sign my name on a bill and make it a law, or that I can authorize people to go up into the Statue of Liberty's crown, or may indeed put stars on my lapels and order military personnel about. I can do no such thing. It is a matter of authority. Pastors are ambassadors of Christ, and speak by His authority, standing in His stead and by His command. The American ambassador to Canada speaks with the authority of the government of the United States. Of course, I am free to visit the Parliament in Ottawa, but unlike the word of the ambassador, my word bears no authority. Any statements I make have no force behind them, as I have not been placed into any such office by those who have such authority to delegate.

This is quite different than the Roman Catholic assertion that at a man's ordination, a metaphysical change in his person has happened. But this is also quite different than the Protestant assertion that ordination is nothing more than a quaint ceremony. Sometimes the president of the United States is called "the most powerful man in the world." Not so. I'd be willing to wager than any middle linebacker in the NFL could take out President Obama in any kind of a strength competition or fight. What the president has is not personal "power," but rather delegated personal "authority" that he exercises "by virtue of his office." Not even someone more "powerful" than the president can make laws and issue commands to the military. If someone were to attempt to do so lacking authority, it would be a mutiny and a rebellion.

The examples in Scripture of those who assumed and usurped authority not given by the Lord do not end well. Korah's rebellioncomes to mind.

And lest we become too smug in the LCMS, I think we should be on guard. We do have deaconesses who are described as "ministers," some even serving in institutional chaplaincies, providing spiritual care to both men and women. I have even seen this work described as being "pastoral" - though there is great care not to turn this adjective into a noun. At some point, the earlier understanding that deaconesses would only teach women and children has been superseded in the LCMS, as deaconesses are now permitted to teach men as well as women and children. What authority they have and do not have seems to be on a sliding scale of gray, and varies with whomever is asked.

But the problem goes well beyond the malleable role of the deaconess. I recently heard firsthand of a "laying on of hands" in the LCMS that involved not only clergy, but the congregational elders (after all, see 1 Tim 4:4...) and the female congregational president as well. I know that sometimes clergy wives are even involved in these ceremonials.

We also have an oxymoronic "office" in the LCMS called "lay minister." Male "lay ministers" have been given "license" for "Word and Sacrament ministry" by district presidents. Female "lay ministers" take the same classes and hold the same synodical designation, yet (to my knowledge) there have not been instances of female "lay ministers" either preaching or presiding over an alleged Sacrament of the Altar. But I do think this toe-to-the-line of the Wisconsonian view of the office of the ministry and the roles of the sexes leaves the possibility open.

One of the most foolish things anyone can ever say is: "It can't happen here."

We in the LCMS have a similar rather limited theology of the sexes as the WELS. We tend to focus on the narrow and myopic legalistic issue of "what women are allowed, and are not allowed, to do" (functionalism) rather than the deeper and eternal issue of what men and women were created to do (ontology). Function ought to flow from ontology rather than trying to reverse-engineer the situation in the opposite direction.

I suspect there are some in our midst who indeed would make the argument that women have the divine authority to bless bread and wine (even as they have the power to physically say the words), that they can indeed also have the churchly permission ("call") to do so as long as no men take the "sacrament" from her hand, and so long as she does not lay claim to the title of "pastor." And there are some that will, no doubt, make a couple arguments in favor of women consecrating based on:

1) The charge of "Donatism." This is the ancient heresy that the validity of the sacrament is based on the moral standing of the officiant. However, sex has nothing to do with moral fitness. It is rather an ontological distinction. For example, men are not denied the privilege of carrying a child in the womb based on a moral reason, it's rather a question of reality and vocation. Just as a good and righteous American citizen can write his name at the end of a bill passed by Congress, the fact is that his righteous signature is not effective whereas that of even a wicked president is - by virtue of authority. A person's sex has nothing at all to do with Donatism.

In fact, the Donatism charge can even go the other way. For example, a very pious and morally upright lay woman can say all the right words over bread and wine without having any authority from God, neither from Scripture nor from the Church, and yet a wicked ordained male pastor with a valid call can do the same thing - and there is no doubt whatsoever of the validity of the sacraments he officiates over.

This is because the issue is authority, not moral fitness.

In fact, there was an interesting conversation between some LCMS seminary professors over this very issue. You can read the initial article about the "validity of churchly acts of ordained [sic] women" here and the rebuttal against the charge of "Neo-Donatism" here.

2) Emergency baptism. The argument goes that if women can "confect the sacrament," so to speak, regarding an emergency baptism, then it follows that she can similarly officiate over celebrations of the Holy Eucharist. But this is a leap of logic that presumes that all sacraments are equal and that we are not bound to any authority in these matters apart from our own modern whims. The crux of the matter is that emergency baptism is just that - a life and death situation. The Church has long established this form of Holy Baptism, and has never denied the fairer sex the extraordinary authority to administer the Holy Sacrament in matters of extremity. However, the same cannot be said for other sacramental and churchly acts. For there are no emergency marriages or confirmations or communions. Our confessions cite the scenario attributed to St. Augustine in which one dying man baptizes the other, and the newly-baptized administers the Sacrament of Holy Absolution to his fellow. There is no mention of any other sacrament or church rite. Most certainly there is no precedent for emergency lay Communion.

Just as female ordination inevitably leads to the blessing of same-sex marriages, I also believe that a functional view of the ministry inexorably leads to women functioning (if not outright claiming to be) pastors. Until we in the LCMS come to grips with the idea of ontology (both of ministers and of the sexes), we will continue to follow in the train of our conservative brethren, even though the tracks have taken a radical turn to the left.

HT: Dr. William J. Tighe

13 comments:

  1. What would you say is the connection between "Authority" and Ontology? When I think of these issues, I tend to think of authority first (rather than ontology), but I would wager that there is a fine and strong connection. How might you describe it though?
    Reply
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.
    Reply
  3. Interesting that when I was in WELS, it maintained the view of the OHM just as you describe, and saw LCMS as waffling on the authority thing by allowing women voters in congregations, which as far as I know are still not allowed in WELS.

    As I read and learned more, it was the view of the OHM that was one of three factors that led me to change synods, because, as you point out, without the OHM the rest of it surely follows at some point.

    (The other two factors, for anyone curious, were local matters and it seeming that almost every blogger I found who understood Lutheranism as I do was LCMS, including our host, though we may part ways re secular music and church polity.)
    Reply
  4. Dear Eric:

    I think authority flows from ontology.

    For example, the husband has authority in the family because of who he is ontologically - a man. The Lord orders authority in the family not in a functional way (the head of the household being determined by who happens to be functioning as the head on a particular day), but in an ontological way (by virtue of the husband's maleness).
    Reply
  5. Dear PE:

    I think the female suffrage was a case of the church imitating the world. I think it is an example of viewing the Kingdom of God in terms of "rights" instead of seeking ways to serve. This same impetus is what led to women's "ordination" among our former brethren. Sometimes I think the modern Church is embarrassed by looking different than the world.
    Reply
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.
    Reply
  7. Scripture, in helping us to understand the church, likens the church, which is of divine origin, to the body, which is also of divine origin, and not to any social or political organisation, all of which are of human origin.

    The church always gets into serious trouble when it ignores this and begins to understand itself in terms of the man made rather than the divine.

    It did so when it began to resemble the world in terms of its empires and kingdoms, and does so now as it begins to understand itself in terms of democracy and free or open society.

    The RCC considers that Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders confer an indelible character -- technically a redundancy, since the Greek root of the word character means to engrave -- which is not erased however much a person falls from it morally.

    Which turns the focus to who can impart that character. The RCC considers that anyone may baptise, whereas only those who are valid bishops (the highest of three degrees of Holy Orders) may confirm or ordain.

    That is why when I became Lutheran I was not baptised, my RCC baptism being held valid, whereas if one of you blackbirds became RC, your Lutheran baptism would be valid but you would be confirmed, and if seeking blackbirditude even without the celibacy thing you would be ordained, neither sacrament having been administered before.

    Ontology gone wild. Which is the point of bringing it up here. The specific formulation of these doctrines in the RCC is from Trent, which is post-Reformation, but are considered to be simply later formal declarations of long held truths, whereas the Reformation challenges what in fact are the long held truths and what later formulations serving the RCC.

    Which is why as an RC I saw the OHM as what happens when you try to have priests without being priests, in the context of trying to be Catholic without being Catholic, but as having come to believe the BOC is a true and correct statement of the revealed truth of God in Scripture and joined WELS, I saw the OHM as something for which one changes synods.

    We certainly have enough feet grumbling that they are not heads, and legs trying to act like arms, etc, these days.
    Reply
  8. Dear PE:

    Just to clarify, Tritarian Christian clergy that were ordained in another communion are not "re-ordained" upon becoming Lutheran and being placed into ministerial service there.

    We treat such ordinations in the same way that we do baptisms - as a once-in-a-lifetime event.
    Reply
  9. You might appreciate this:

    My congregation adopted women voters in 2001, just before I got here in 2004 (in fact, the final constitutional paperwork went through just after I got here). When my dad dropped off my stuff, he was asked by a member, "What do you think of women voters?"

    My dad's reply - "I don't like any voters." >=o)
    Reply
  10. Yes, I understand. Beyond baptism, the reciprocity is not mutual, except Matrimony where the ministers of the sacrament are the couple.

    That's what makes it such a hoot for me, having lived on both sides of the street and two different versions of the Lutheran side of the street.
    Reply
  11. Show me in the Bible where it says that it must be a pastor that offers the sacrament.
    Show me in the Bible where women are commanded not to minister to each other in any way.

    Thank you.
    Reply
  12. Dear TShinnick:

    Matt 28:20 Jesus excludes all but the future pastors (exclusively men) from the initial Eucharist.

    Luke 22:19 Jesus tells only the future pastors (exclusively men) "do this," and excludes both male and female laymen from this command, vocation, and authority.

    John 20:22 Our Blessed Lord (the most sensitive Man in history who fears neither civil authority nor falling out of favor in terms of social mores) ordains His exclusively male disciples, deliberately excludes Mary Magdalene, the other female eyewitnesses of the resurrection, and even His own mother from the presbyterate.

    1 Tim 3:1-7 St. Paul (as all the scriptures do) uses exclusively the masculine gender to describe the episcopal/presbyterial office, says they must have "wives" (not spouses).

    All over the NT, the words "pastor," "elder," and "overseer" appear in their exclusively masculine gender.

    In the entire history of the Lord's people, He made no provision for female priests or overseers. The OT Israelites were looked at askance by their contemporaries, as they worshiped a male God and had only male priests who stood in His stead.

    The NT Church of Peter and Paul's day were equally weird for, unlike the pagans in the Greco-Roman world, they ordained exclusively men. That's because they knew both the Word and the word up close and personal.

    The reason for this "weirdness" is because the Church, the people of God, are "holy" - they are not like the world. The world has a different view of the roles of men and women, but we, the peculiar holy ("separate") people, believe Holy Scripture, and did so exclusively until many years after the "enlightenment" - when people just decided to rewrite the Scriptures and do what they want.

    To those who want women to be ordained and want laymen of both sexes to preach and administer sacraments, I would ask: "Show me in the Bible where laymen are given the authority to consecrate the Sacrament of the Altar," and "Show me in the Bible where women are ever, under any circumstances, consecrating the Sacrament of the Altar."

    Thanks for writing!
    Reply
  13. I am presently a member of WELS and am interested in studying more of the differences between the LCMS and WELS on the doctrine of ministry. Would you be able to recommend any good books or articles dealing with this?

    Women should definitely NOT be administering the Eucharist under any circumstance!

Septuagesima Sunday - The Third Sunday Before Ash Wednesday



Septuagesima Sunday, 2015

Pastor Gregory L. Jackson


Bethany Lutheran Church, 10 AM Central Time


The Hymn #132                           O God of God                                    3:55
The Confession of Sins
The Absolution
The Introit p. 16
The Gloria Patri
The Kyrie p. 17
The Gloria in Excelsis
The Salutation and Collect p. 19
The Epistle and Gradual       
The Gospel              
Glory be to Thee, O Lord!
Praise be to Thee, O Christ!
The Nicene Creed p. 22
The Sermon Hymn # 151            Christ the Life                       2:78

Grace and Mercy - Do People Really Want Justice?

The Hymn # 227     Come Holy Ghost                             2:72
The Preface p. 24
The Sanctus p. 26
The Lord's Prayer p. 27
The Words of Institution
The Agnus Dei p. 28
The Nunc Dimittis p. 29
The Benediction p. 31
The Hymn #409   Let Us Ever Walk                              2:91

1 Corinthians 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.  25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.  26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:  27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;  2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;  4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.  5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

KJV Matthew 20:1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. 2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. 5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? 7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. 8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. 9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. 10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. 11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. 13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Septuagesima Sunday

Lord God, heavenly Father, who through Thy holy word hast called us into Thy vineyard: Send, we beseech Thee, Thy Holy Spirit into our hearts, that we may labor faithfully in Thy vineyard, shun sin and all offense, obediently keep Thy word and do Thy will, and put our whole and only trust in Thy grace, which Thou hast bestowed upon us so plenteously through Thy Son Jesus Christ, that we may obtain eternal salvation through Him, who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, one true God, world without end. Amen.



Grace and Mercy - Do People Really Want Justice?

This parable is familiar to most who go to church and hear the historic lessons. This narrative teaches more about human nature and our reaction to God's grace.

The overall plot is familiar to anyone who hires people as day laborers. The idea is that one job needs to be done, and some people are looking for short-term work.  This fits our human situation because we do all kinds of work in many places before our days are over. Everyone wants to be paid well, and if we are, we take that for granted until things change and half-pay is the norm. When things are really bad, any pay for any job is good.

God's grace is the central issue in all confessions of the Christian faith. That is another way of saying - how are people rewarded for being trusting in God for forgiveness and salvation. 

The ultimate reward is forgiveness and eternal life. so that makes an interesting parallel in this story. Everyone gets a penny.

First he hires people at the beginning of the day to work in the vineyard, for a penny. We still use that term for church work. I recall a pastor writing and saying, "I am glad you will be working in the vineyard." He neglected to say that the vineyard (LCA) was being replanted with poison grapes.

We should not consider what the penny or shilling means, not what the first or the last hour signifies; but what the householder had in mind and what he aims to teach, how he desires to have his goodness esteemed higher than all human works and merit, yea, that his mercy alone must have all the praise.

Later, more are hired, four more times They will get whatever is right, and no specific promise is made to them. But the pay is given in reverse. The last hired get a penny, so the first hired think, "We will get more, because we worked all day."

But they only get a penny. They are quite unhappy, in spite of their earlier agreement.

11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, 12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

First of all - people complain about how little the others have worked compared to them. Secondly, they make known how much they suffered.

This represents the human reaction to what others receive. Of course, we always have a very slight understanding of anyone else, but still the Old Adam says, "This is not fair. They have done very little to deserve this, while I have suffered terribly in comparison. The reward should be just, equal."

4. Hence the substance of the parable in today’s Gospel consists not in the penny, what it is, nor in the different hours; but in earning and acquiring, or how one can earn the penny; that as here the first presumed to obtain the penny and even more by their own merit, and yet the last received the same amount because of the goodness of the householder. Thus God will show it is nothing but mercy that he gives and no one is to arrogate to himself more than another. Therefore he says I do thee no wrong, is not the money mine and not thine; if I had given away thy property, then thou wouldest have reason to murmur; is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own ?

The answer reminds us of God speaking out of the whirlwind to Job:

3 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? 14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. 15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

This parable builds toward the ending, and that ending should be given a lot of thought.

We always think of justice or fairness, whether we admit it or not. The first issue is answered well by Paul in Romans. No one wants justice, because the Law condemns us even if we fail in even one part of the Law. 

The human view of justice is, "I deserve more, because he did less."

God's first response is ironic humor. "I did you no wrong. You agreed with this offer. Accept that and do not argue. I am giving My goodness and mercy to the last hired just as I am giving to you."

God's mercy and goodness belong to Him alone. When He gives it, He is breaking no law. He is not taking from one man to give it to another.

Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

Therefore, God asks why His goodness makes man see evil.

How This Happens Today
Sometimes we get a special burden to bear. It may be our own disorder or handicap. It can be caring for children with special needs. It can be a congregational call with nothing but problems, or it can be the abuse of a synod that rewards common criminals, drunks, adulterers, and sex offenders.

There is always an example to observe and covet, asking why God allows such a thing to happen.

But we do not know how God works in the broadest sense until much later. Age and experience have given at least a higher spot to observe those things from the past and a prediction of the future - if I am only standing on an anthill.

I have pointed out to many men that abusive leaders have given them a blessing in sending them away. There are many more opportunities with freedom than with slavery under the slave-masters. The worse others have behaved, the more they will see God's justice, which is terrible indeed.

The Gospel is not chained, as Paul observed. It can go everywhere, but no one should use the Gospel as an excuse to be lawless, as many are today.

When God gives us special children, He has given us special blessings. Sometimes they cannot live or live the ideal life. But I know two little girls who were constant blessings to others and still bless us today. Another baby girl, far more fragile, grew up and lost all kinds of ability from her disease. She suffered terribly from the disease she had and from people taking advantage of her weakness. But she was completely involved in caring for others.

This is how God blesses with His goodness, although it is completely hidden from many. Most pastors will labor in the vineyard without being noticed or even thanked very much. They hear members praise the famous media ministers, who often live in $10 million houses. Meanwhile, the parsonage roof leaks and furnace needs repairing. 

Children look at mothers as obstacles blocking their path to happiness, and the mothers carry on, enjoying the fact that they love their children, than having them and loving them is reward enough.

God's goodness is revealed in His ability to turn ordinary water into wine, as the miracle at Cana indicated. If we look at God's goodness as evil, because others seem to get more, then all we have to do is wait. Time wounds all heels. If the undeserving get too much, God will whisk it away suddenly.

If the goodness seems slight at the moment, later it will compound its interest and be clear - but only to thankful hearts.



Luther's Sermon on the Laborers in the Vineyard. Matthew 20:1-16

Norma Boeckler



SEPTUAGESIMA SUNDAY.
   
German text: Erlangen edition II, 84; Walch II, 696; St. Louis II, 5o8.

TEXT:

Matthew 20:1-16. For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that was a householder, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the laborers for a shilling a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing in the marketplace idle; and to them he said, Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out the sixth and the ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing; and he saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard. And when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the laborers, and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a shilling. And when the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received every man a shilling. And when they received it, they murmured against the householder saying, These last have spent but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat. But he answered and said to one of them, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a shilling? Take up that which is thine, and go thy way; it is my will to give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own? or is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last.

CONTENTS:

THE PARABLE OF THE HOUSEHOLDER.

WHO WENT OUT TO HIRE LABORERS.

I. AN OPINION ON THE INTERPRETATION SOME GIVE OF THIS PARABLE

II. FOR WHAT PURPOSE CHRIST PUT FORTH THIS PARABLE

III. HOW AND WHY WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE MAIN THOUGHT IN THIS PARABLE

IV. HOW THE PRESUMPTION OF THOSE WHO WISH TO GO TO HEAVEN BY MEANS OF THEIR GOOD WORKS IS SHAKEN BY THIS PARABLE

V. THE SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE OF TWO POINTS OF THIS PARABLE

* Of the fall of great saints 11.

VI. HOW AND WHY THIS PARABLE WAS NECESSARY TO BE PREACHED IN THE TIME OF LUTHER

VII. THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS PARABLE

1. Some church fathers applied this Gospel to all the preachers from the beginning to the end of the world, and taught the first hour was the time of Adam, the third that of Noah, the sixth that of Abraham, the ninth that of Moses, and the eleventh hour that of Christ and his apostles. Such talk is all right for pastime, if there is nothing else to preach. For it does not harmonize with Scripture to say that the shilling signifies eternal life, with which the first, or Adam and the holy patriarchs, were dissatisfied, and that such holy characters should murmur in the kingdom of heaven, and be rebuked by the householder and made the last, that is, be condemned.

2. Therefore we will let such fables pass and abide by the simple teaching and meaning of Christ, who wishes to show by this parable how it actually is in the kingdom of heaven, or in Christendom upon the earth; that God here directs and works wonderfully by making the first last and the last first. And all is spoken to humble those who are great that they should trust in nothing but the goodness and mercy of God. And on the other hand that those who are nothing should not despair, but trust in the goodness of God just as the others do.

3. Therefore we must not consider this parable in every detail, but confine ourselves to the leading thought, that which Christ designs to teach by it.

We should not consider what the penny or shilling means, not what the first or the last hour signifies; but what the householder had in mind and what he aims to teach, how he desires to have his goodness esteemed higher than all human works and merit, yea, that his mercy alone must have all the praise. Like in the parable of the unrighteous steward, Luke 16:5f., the whole parable in its details is not held before our eyes, that we should also defraud our Lord; but it sets forth the wisdom of the steward in that he provided so well and wisely for himself and planned in the very best way, although at the injury of his Lord. Now whoever would investigate and preach long on that parable about the doctors, what the book of accounts, the oil, the wheat and the measure signify, would miss the true meaning and be led by his own ideas which would never be of any benefit to anyone.

For such parables are never spoken for the purpose of being interpreted in all their minutia. For Paul compared Christ to Adam in Romans 5:18, and says, Adam was a figure of Christ; this Paul did because we inherited from Adam sin and death, and from Christ life and righteousness. But the lesson of the parable does not consist in the inheritance, but in the consequence of the inheritance. That just like sin and death cling to those who are born of Adam and descend by heredity, so do life and righteousness cling to those who are born of Christ, they are inherited. Just as one might take an unchaste woman who adorns herself to please the world and commit sin, as a figure of a Christian soul that adorns itself also to please God, but not to commit sin as the woman does.

4. Hence the substance of the parable in today’s Gospel consists not in the penny, what it is, nor in the different hours; but in earning and acquiring, or how one can earn the penny; that as here the first presumed to obtain the penny and even more by their own merit, and yet the last received the same amount because of the goodness of the householder. Thus God will show it is nothing but mercy that he gives and no one is to arrogate to himself more than another. Therefore he says I do thee no wrong, is not the money mine and not thine; if I had given away thy property, then thou wouldest have reason to murmur; is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own ?

5. Now in this way Christ strikes a blow first against the presumption (as he also does in today’s Epistle) of those who would storm their way into heaven by their good works; as the Jews did and wished to be next to God; as hitherto our own clergy have also done. These all labor for definite wages, that is, they take the law of God in no other sense than that they should fulfill it by certain defined works for a specified reward, and they never understand it correctly, and know not that before God all is pure grace. This signifies that they hire themselves out for wages, and agree with the householder for a penny a day; consequently their lives are bitter and they lead a career that is indeed hard.

6. Now when the Gospel comes and makes all alike, as Paul teaches in Romans 3:23, so that they who have done great works are no more than public sinners, and must also become sinners and tolerate the saying: “All have sinned”, Romans 3:23, and that no one is justified before God by his works; then they look around and despise those who have done nothing at all, while their great worry and labor avail no more than such idleness and reckless living. Then they murmur against the householder, they imagine it is not right; they blaspheme the Gospel, and become hardened in their ways; then they lose the favor and grace of God, and are obliged to take their temporal reward and trot from him with their penny and be condemned; for they served not for the sake of mercy but for the sake of reward, and they will receive that and nothing more, the others however must confess that they have merited neither the penny nor the grace, but more is given to them than they had ever thought was promised to them. These remained in grace and besides were saved, and besides this, here in time they had enough; for all depended upon the good pleasure of the householder.

7. Therefore if one were to interpret it critically, the penny would have to signify temporal good, and the favor of the householder, eternal life. But the day and the heat we transfer from temporal things to the conscience, so that workrighteous persons do labor long and hard, that is, they do all with a heavy conscience and an unwilling heart, forced and coerced by the law; but the short time or last hours are the light consciences that live blessed lives, led by grace, and that willingly and without being driven by the law.

8. Thus they have now each a penny, that is, a temporal reward is given to both. But the last did not seek it, it was added to them because they sought first the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 6:33, and consequently they have the grace to everlasting life and are happy. The first however seek the temporal reward, bargain for it and serve for it; and hence they fail to secure grace and by means of a hard life they merit perdition. For the last do not think of earning the penny, nor do they thus blunder, but they receive all. When the first saw this, by a miscalculation they thought they would receive more, and lost all. Therefore we clearly see, if we look into their hearts, that the last had no regard for their own merit, but enjoyed the goodness of the householder. The first however did not esteem the goodness of the householder, but looked to their own merits, and thought it was their’s by right and murmured about it.

9. We must now look at these two words “last” and “first,” from two view points. Let us see what they mean before God, then what they mean before men. Thus, those who are the first in the eyes of man, that is, those who consider themselves, or let themselves be considered, as the nearest to or the first before God, they are just the opposite before God, they are the last in his eyes and the farthest from him. On the other hand those who are the last in the eyes of man, those who consider themselves, or let themselves be considered, the farthest from God and the last before him, they also are just the opposite, in that they are the nearest and the first before God. Now whoever desires to be secure, let him conduct himself according to the saying: “Whosoever exalteth himself, shall be humbled.” For it is here written: The first before men are the last before God; the last in the eyes of men are first in the eye of God. On the other hand, the first before God are the last before men; and those God esteems as the last are considered by men to be the first.

10. But since this Gospel does not speak of first and last in a common, ordinary sense, as the exalted of the world are nothing before God, like heathen who know nothing of God; but it means those who imagine they are the first or the last in the eyes of God, the words ascend very high and apply to the better classes of people; yea, they terrify the greatest of the saints. Therefore it holds up Christ before the apostles themselves. For here it happens that one who in the eyes of the world is truly poor, weak, despised, yea, who indeed suffers for God’s sake, in whom there is no sign that he is anything, and yet in his heart he is so discouraged and bashful as to think he is the last, is secretly full of his own pleasure and delight, so that he thinks he is the first before God, and just because of that he is the last. On the contrary should one indeed be so discouraged and bashful as to think he is the last before God, although he at the time has money, honor and property in the eyes of the world, he is just because of this the first.

11. One sees here also how the greatest saints have feared, how many also have fallen from high spiritual callings. David complains in <19D102> Psalm 131:2: “Surely I have stilled and quieted my soul; like a weaned child with his mother.” Likewise in another place, Psalm 36:11: “Let not the foot of pride come against me”. How often he chastises the impudent, and haughty, <19B921> Psalm 119:21. So Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:7 says: “That I should not be exalted overmuch there was given to me a thorn in the flesh,” etc. And as we have heard in today’s Epistle what honorable men have fallen. To all of whom without doubt the sad secret ill-turn came because they became secure, and thought, we are now near to God, there is no need. we know God, we have done this and that; they did not see how they made themselves the first before God. Behold, how Saul fell!

How God permitted David to fall! How Peter had to fall! How some disciples of Paul fell !

12. Therefore it is indeed necessary to preach this Gospel in our times to those who now know the Gospel as myself and those like me, who imagine they can teach and govern the whole world, and therefore imagine they are the nearest to God and have devoured the Holy Spirit, bones and feathers.

For why is it that so many sects have already gone forth, this one making a hobby of one thing in the Gospel and that one of another? No doubt, because none of them considered that the saying, “the first are last,” meant and concerned them; or if applied to them, they were secure and without fear, considering themselves as the first. Therefore according to this saying, it must come to pass that they be the last, and hence rush ahead and spread shameful doctrines and blasphemies against God and his Word.

13. Was not this the fate of the pope when he and his followers imagined they were the vice-regents and representatives of and the nearest to God, and persuaded the world to believe it? In that very act they were the vicegerents of Satan and the farthest from God, so that no mortals under the sun ever raged and foamed against God and his Word like they have done.

And yet they did not see the horrible deceiver, because they were secure and feared not this keen, sharp, high and excellent judgment, “The first shall be the last.” For it strikes into the lowest depths of the heart, the real spiritual darkness, that considers itself as the first even in the midst of poverty, dishonor and misfortune, yea, most of all then.

14. Hence the substance of this Gospel is that no mortal is so high, nor will ever ascend so high, who will not have occasion to fear that he may become the very lowest. On the other hand, no mortal lies so low or can fall so low, to whom the hope is not extended that he may become the highest; because here all human merit is abolished and God’s goodness alone is praised, and it is decreed as on a festive occasion that the first shall be last and the last first. In that he says, “the first shall be last” he strips thee of all thy presumption and forbids thee to exalt thyself above the lowest outcast, even if thou wert like Abraham, David, Peter or Paul.

However, in that he also says, “the last shall be first,” he checks thee against all doubting, and forbids thee to humble thyself below any saint, even if thou wert Pilate, Herod, Sodom and Gomorrah.

15. For just as we have no reason to be presumptuous, so we have also no cause to doubt; but the golden mean is confirmed and fortified by this Gospel, so that we regard not the penny but the goodness of the householder, which is alike and the same to high and low, to the first and the last, to saints and sinners, and no one can boast nor comfort himself nor presume more than another; for he is God not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles, yea, especially of all, and it matters not who they are or what they are called.