Martin Luther: Rich Man and Lazarus; faith and good works (part 2)

David Teniers the Younger, The Rich Man being led into Hell

Likewise, in later comments, Luther compares the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus to James 2:13, which stresses the necessity of extending mercy to other human beings if one wants to receive mercy from God. Luther also emphasizes the importance of mercy to the needy, but he especially focuses on poor ministers and preachers. He notes that the world is full of people who “sin very grievously against the dear Gospel,” not only by refusing support to needy ministers but by committing theft against the Gospel. Luther cautions that those refusing to show mercy “might experience endless wrath and eternal displeasure,” just like the rich man in the parable: The rich man saw Lazarus every day “lying before his door full of sores, yet he did not have enough mercy to give him a bundle of straw or to grant him the crumbs under his table.” Therefore, the rich man was punished terribly in hell (LW 21: 31–2; Gowler 2014: 169).

           

Luther explores this parable further in another sermon preached sometime during 1522-3 (see The Sermons of Martin Luther
, volume IV:17-32). The beginning of the sermon makes the case that faith comes first and then acts of love therefore must follow: “I hope you are abundantly and sufficiently informed that no human being can be pleasing to God unless he believes and loves” (18). Therefore, the rich man must have, in some way, been an unrepentant sinner, although the text does not record any sins such as murder, robbery, or adultery,. In other words, like the Pharisee in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, the rich man in the parable must have been 

as honorable and respectable in his life as that Pharisee who fasted twice a week and was not as other men, of whom Luke 18:11f. speaks. For had he committed such glaring sins the Gospel would have mentioned them since it examines him so particularly that it describes even the purple robe he wore and the food he ate, which are only external matters and God does not judge according to them. Therefore he must have led outwardly an exemplary, holy life; and according to his own opinion and that of others, he must have kept the whole law of Moses (18).
 

Luther, however, attempts to “look into his heart and judge his spirit,” with a result that “if we judge this rich man according to the fruits of faith, we will find a heart and a tree of unbelief” (19). The man is not punished for his wealth; instead he is punished because “he found in them all his joy, delight and pleasure; and made them in fact his idols” (19). Since he only gratified his own desires, he lived only for himself and served only himself, and his inner sinfulness is on display with the absence of his love and mercy for Lazarus:

From this now follows the other sin, that he forgets to exercise love toward his neighbor; for there he lets poor Lazarus lie at his door, and offers him not the least assistance. And if he had not wished to help him personally, he should have commanded his servants to take him in and care for him. For the nature of faith is that it expects all good from God, and relies only on God. For from this faith man knows God, how he is good and gracious, that by reason of
such knowledge his heart becomes so tender and merciful, that he wishes cheerfully to do to every one, as he experiences God has done to him. Therefore he breaks forth with love and serves his neighbor out of his whole heart, with his body and life, with his means and honor, with his soul and spirit, and makes him partaker of all he has, just like God did to him. Therefore he does not look after the healthy, the high, the strong, the rich, the noble, the holy persons, who do not need his care; but he looks after the sick, the weak, the poor, the despised, the sinful people, to whom he can be of benefit, and among whom he can exercise his tender heart, and do to them as God has done to him (20-21).




Lazarus, on the other hand, must have had faith, because “without faith it is impossible to please God”; otherwise God would not have rewarded him (23). Luther concludes that this parable demonstrates the following: 

 

For we all must like Lazarus trust in God, surrender ourselves to him to work in us according to his own good pleasure, and be ready to serve all men. And although we all do not suffer from such sores and poverty, yet the same mind and will must be in us, that were in Lazarus, cheerfully to bear such things, wherever God wills it (25).

Martin Luther: Rich Man and Lazarus (part 1)

Martin Luther

Another short post on Martin Luther and the parables; this one is on the ethics of the parables and doing both physical and spiritual "good deeds" (more on Luther and James 2:13 in the next post).

Even in his early sermons, Luther focuses on the ethical implications of the parables. In what is likely to be the earliest extant sermon from Luther (around 1510-12), years before he wrote the 95 Theses, Luther focuses the Law of God and God’s judgment. The text is Matthew 7:12, the Golden Rule, and Luther argues that salvation is dependent upon human beings not just refraining from doing evil to one another but that it is necessary to be useful and beneficial toward other human beings (LW 1955 51:7). The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, for example, demonstrates this fact:

[The rich man] was not damned because he robbed or did evil with respect to these goods, for he feasted and clothed himself sumptuously every day with his own goods. He was damned rather because he did not do good to his neighbor, namely, Lazarus. This parable adequately teaches us that it is not sufficient merely not to do evil and not to do harm, but rather that one must be helpful and do good. It is not enough to “depart from evil”; one must also “do good” [Ps. 37:27].

 Luther then argues that the parable of the “slothful servant” in Matthew 25:14-30 makes the same point: “He was not damned because he took something away from others, but because he did not give to others. So it will be with us.” The same message is found, Luther points out, in the parable of the Sheep and Goats. After discussing the concluding words of Jesus in the parable, Luther concludes: “It is therefore not enough to be innocent of harming one’s neighbor; we must also do good as far as we are able” (8-9).

           

Luther’s first extant sermon, then, focuses on how Christians are called by Jesus to be active in helping others in words and deeds. These actions include both physical and spiritual “good deeds.”

Martin Luther's comments about allegory in his sermon on the Laborers in the Vineyard

The Sermons of Martin Luther (Baker)

Martin Luther’s approach to allegory can be seen in his 1525 sermon on the Laborers in the Vineyard parable (volume II: 106-112 of The Sermons of Martin Luther, published by Baker; Grand Rapids, MI). He notes the allegorical interpretations from “some church fathers” and says that these interpretations are “all right for pastime, if there is nothing else to preach” but that aspects of their allegorizations do “not harmonize with Scripture” and therefore cannot be correct.

Luther advises that interpreters should “let such fables pass and abide by the simple teaching and meaning of Christ”:

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 . . . . For such parables are never spoken for the purpose of being interpreted in all their minutia (106-7).

Instead the parable seeks to portray God’s unmerited mercy to sinners and that human beings cannot “storm their way into heaven by their good works” (i.e., those are the workers who “murmur against the householder,” who signifies God; 108).

Next up: Luther explores ethical implications of the parables in his sermons.

Bonus Martin Luther quote about allegorical versus literal interpretations of Scripture

Martin Luther's Table Talk

One can very often count on Martin Luther to give his opinion in a colorful way (sometimes to readers' and even his chagrin). 

Luther’s additional thoughts of how and why he moved from allegorical to literal interpretations of Scripture are recorded in a Table Talk from October, 1540. This move includes a rejection of the fourfold manner of interpretation, such as practiced by Gregory the Great (I don't think I have discussed his writings yet on this blog, but I will) and others:

When I was young . . I dealt with allegories, tropologies, and analogies and did nothing but clever tricks with them. If somebody had them today, they’d be looked upon as rare relics. I know they’re nothing but rubbish. Now I’ve let them go, and this is my last and best art, to translate the Scriptures in their plain sense. The literal sense does it—in it there’s life, comfort, power, instruction, and skill. The other is tomfoolery, however brilliant the impression it makes (LW 1955 54:406).

Any person with a weak mind “is able to launch into allegories.”

Next week I will start giving examples from Martin Luther's sermons on the parables. Great stuff!

Martin Luther's move away from allegorical interpretation of Scripture

Martin Luther

Before I start discussing some of Martin Luther's important sermons on the parables, I should note his important move away from allegorical interpretation of Scripture. He was not a fan of Origen!

Luther underwent significant development in his approach to exegesis. He notes, for example, that early in his career, he utilized allegorization extensively in his interpretations of Scripture (he would have allegorized even a "chamber pot"):

When I was a monk, I was a master in the use of allegories. I allegorized everything. Afterwards through the Epistle to the Romans, I came to some knowledge of Christ. I recognized then that all allegories nothing, that it’s not what Christ signifies but what Christ is that counts. Before I allegorized everything, even a chamber pot . . . . Jerome and Origen contributed to the practice of searching only for allegories. God forgive them. In all of Origen there is not one word of Christ (LW 1967 54:46-47).

Interpreters must begin with the plain sense of Scripture and pursue the literal sense as far as one can go, before considering any symbolic meaning. The reference point, though, always has to be centered on Christ, and that focus provides the context for all biblical interpretation (Kissinger 1979: 45).

           

Luther again reflects on his development of thought concerning exegesis “Now I have shaken off all these follies, and my best art is to deliver the Scripture in the simple sense; therein is life, strength, and doctrine; all other methods are nothing but foolishness, let them shine how they will . . .” (Table Talk CCEL 275).

Luther uses even harsher language in his treatise, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments. He addresses in particular, Andreas von Karlstadt, a former colleague who now opposed him. Luther argues that Karlstadt’s approach is similar to those “who are fond of allegories,” whom Jerome compares to “jugglers” (LW 1958 40:187-8). To illustrate the defects of allegorical interpretation, Luther compares it to the legend of St. George: St. George is Christ, the woman he saved is Christendom, dragon is the devil, the horse is the human nature of Christ, the spear is the gospel message, and so forth. Allegorical interpretation is a “trifling art,” and here Luther does not mince words: “their interpretation is so stupid that it makes one feel like vomiting” (188). Such interpreters “juggle and play” with the texts, and as long as they do not damage the message of Christ, Luther is content to leave such “prophets,” as he sarcastically calls them, alone, but, Luther adds: “But when one examines it under the light and according to the text, it is revealed as pure jugglery. Devoid of foundation or truth, it is the product of his [Karlstadt’s] own fancy, and forced upon the text” (189-90). Then Luther goes on to say:

If such spiritual juggling were to prevail, I would like to put Dr. Karlstadt and all his prophets to school for another three years. I was thoroughly drilled in this method when I first began to study the Bible ten years ago, before I discovered the true method. I too would carelessly say: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth," Gen. 1 [:1]: Heaven refers to the angels and the spiritual creatures; earth refers to the bodily creatures. Don't you think this was splendidly and truly said? Yes, but meanwhile what happened to the text? How could I prove, that in this verse heaven and earth are not the natural heaven and earth, as the words say? Brother, the natural meaning of the words is queen, transcending all subtle, acute sophistical fancy. From it we may not deviate, unless we are compelled by a clear article of the faith. Otherwise the spiritual jugglers would not leave a single letter in Scripture.
      In this manner even the great teacher Origen played the fool, and led St. Jerome and many others astray with him. In former times his books were justly forbidden and condemned on account of such spiritual tomfoolery. For it is dangerous so to play with the Word of God by which conscience and faith are to be guided. Therefore, interpretations of God's Word must be lucid and definite having a firm, sure, and true foundation on which one may confidently rely.

 He has some additional words about allegorical interpretation in Table Talk, which I will talk about next.

A personal note: A very happy birthday to Camden!

Martin Luther and the Parables (bio)

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Luther, who became the leader of the Protestant Reformation in Germany (Zwingli had been active earlier in Switzerland), was born in 1483 in Eisleben, Saxony. His father, Hans Luther, was a miner, and he wanted his son to become a lawyer, and Martin earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Erfurt University. On his way back to Erfurt in 1505 during a life-threatening thunderstorm, the frightened Luther made a vow to become a monk. He abandoned his studies, became a monk at the Augustinian Monastery at Erfurt, and was ordained as a priest in 1507. 

His assignment after his ordination was to return to university, this time in Wittenberg, to study theology, and he earned a bachelor’s degree in biblical studies in 1509 and received a doctorate in theology in 1512. He then was appointed professor of biblical exegesis at in the theology faculty of Wittenberg University, where he would stay for the rest of his career.

During Luther’s early career, including a disappointing trip to Rome in 1510 but especially during exegetical study of the Bible—most notably Romans 1:17—Luther developed a theology of justification by faith, that human beings could not become righteous through their own efforts; it only came about because of the grace of God: Righteousness is God’s free gift to sinners through the righteousness imputed by Jesus that is not merited but given through faith (and faith alone).

The decisive event that inaugurated the Lutheran Reformation occurred on October 31, 1517, when, as later documents claim, Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses on the door of the castle church of Wittenberg. The immediate catalyst for the 95 Theses was the preaching of Johann Tetzel about indulgences, the practice of the Roman Catholic Church to remit the penalty for sins—past present and future—for the payment of money, in this case, the indulgences were on behalf of Pope Leo X (and Albert of Mainz) for the restoration of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Tetzel declared, for example, that payment of indulgences resulted in souls being immediately released from purgatory. Luther’s 95 Theses denounced this practice and other practices of the Church, including the authority of the pope. Scripture alone (sola scriptura) is the true authority, not the pope or church councils or the church itself (e.g., Luther points to Abraham’s words to the rich man in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus; Luke 16:29-31; LW 1955 52:172). The 95 Theses created a firestorm throughout Germany, and, in 1520, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther.

Luther refused to recant (e.g., at the Diet of Worms), but he survived because Frederick the Wise of Saxony (and others) protected him. Luther then embarked upon an ambitious number of writings that served as the foundation for a reform of the theology and practice of the church in Germany, including a translation of the Bible in German (the New Testament in 1522, and the Hebrew Bible in 1534) and such calls for reform as in the treatises On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, and On Christian Freedom, all three of which were written in 1520, the same year Luther was excommunicated. Luther continued to write prolifically, and his works included treatises, catechisms, hymns (e.g., A Might Fortress is Our God), sermons, commentaries on the Bible, and other works.

The next post will discuss Luther’s fascinating journey from allegorical interpretation of Scripture to (primarily) non-allegorical.

A personal note: Today would have been my brother Gary’s 61^st birthday. This post is in his honor/memory. Gary would have enjoyed a Stammtisch and theological discussion with Martin Luther!