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.
I have been asked why, on St Timothy Day in York Minster, I stood up to object during the ordination of Libby Lane as the first woman bishop of the Church of England. I am happy to give an answer: I stood out of love for the church for which I have served as a pastor for forty-one years and out of respect for the gospel which it proclaims.
.jpg)
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.)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Show me in the Bible where women are commanded not to minister to each other in any way.
Thank you.
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!
Women should definitely NOT be administering the Eucharist under any circumstance!