How Christians Should Regard Moses
Sermon by Martin Luther(1)
August 27, 1525
Either before or after you read this article, you may want to read "Comments on Luther's 'How Christians Should Regard Moses'."
Dear friends, you have often
heard that there has never been a public sermon from heaven except
twice. Apart from them God has spoken many times through and with men on
earth, as in the case of the holy patriarchs Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, and others, down to Moses. But in none of these cases did he
speak with such glorious splendor, visible reality, or public cry and
exclamation as he did on those two occasions. Rather God illuminated
their heart within and spoke through their mouth, as Luke indicates in
the first chapter of his gospel where he says, "As he spoke by the mouth
of his holy prophets from of old" [Luke 1:70].
Now the first sermon is in Exodus 19 and 20; by it God caused himself to
be heard from heaven with great splendor and might. For the people of
Israel heard the trumpets and the voice of God himself.
In the second place God delivered a public sermon through the Holy
Spirit on Pentecost [Acts 2:2-4]. On that occasion the Holy Spirit came
with great splendor and visible impressiveness, such that there came
from heaven the sudden rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled the
entire house where the apostles were sitting. And there appeared to them
tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each of them. And they
were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to preach and speak in
other tongues. This happened with great splendor and glorious might, so
that thereafter the apostles preached so powerfully that the sermons
which we hear in the world today are hardly a shadow compared to theirs,
so far as the visible splendor and substance of their sermons is
concerned. For the apostles spoke in all sorts of languages, performed
great miracles, etc. Yet through our preachers today the Holy Spirit
does not cause himself to be either heard or seen; nothing is coming
down openly from heaven. This is why I have said that there are only two
such special and public sermons which have been seen and heard from
heaven. To be sure, God spoke also to Christ from heaven, when he was
baptized in the Jordan [Matt. 3:17], and [at the Transfiguration] on
Mount Tabor [Matt. 17:5]. However none of this took place in the
presence of the general public.
God wanted to send that second sermon into the world, for it had earlier
been announced by the mouth and in the books of the holy prophets. He
will no longer speak that way publicly through sermons. Instead, in the
third place, he will come in person with divine glory, so that all
creatures will tremble and quake before him [Luke 21:25-27]; and then he
will no longer preach to them, but they will see and handle him himself
[Luke 24:39].
Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is the law of God. The second is the
gospel. These two sermons are not the same. Therefore we must have a
good grasp of the matter in order to know how to differentiate between
them. We must know what the law is, and what the gospel is. The law
commands and requires us to do certain things. The law is thus directed
solely to our behavior and consists in making requirements. For God
speaks through the law, saying, "Do this, avoid that, this is what I
expect of you." The gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do
or to avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the
law, does the very opposite, and says, "This is what God has done for
you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, has let him be put to
death for your sake." So, then, there are two kinds of doctrine and two
kinds of works, those of God and those of men. Just as we and God are
separated from one another, so also these two doctrines are widely
separated from one another. For the gospel teaches exclusively what has
been given us by God, and not - as in the case of the law - what we are
to do and give to God.
We now want to see how this first sermon sounded forth and with what
splendor God gave the law on Mount Sinai. He selected the place where he
wanted to be seen and heard. Not that God actually spoke, for he has no
mouth, tongue, teeth, or lips as we do. But he who created and formed
the mouth of all men [Exod. 4:11] can also make speech and the voice.
For no one would be able to speak a single word unless God first gave
it, as the prophet says, "It would be impossible to speak except God
first put it in our mouth" [Num. 22:38]. Language, speech, and voice are
thus gifts of God like any other gifts, such as the fruit on the trees.
Now he who fashioned the mouth and put speech in it can also make and
use speech even though there is no mouth present. Now the words which
are here written were spoken through an angel. This is not to say that
only one angel was there, for there was a great multitude there serving
God and preaching to the people of Israel at Mount Sinai. The angel,
however, who spoke here and did the talking, spoke just as if God
himself were speaking and saying, "I am your God, who brought you out of
the land of Egypt," etc. [Exod. 20:1], as if Peter or Paul were speaking
in God's stead and saying, "I am your God," etc. In his letter to the
Galatians [3:19], Paul says that the law was ordained by angels. That
is, angels were assigned, in God's behalf, to give the law of God; and
Moses, as an intermediary, received it from the angels. I say this so
that you might know who gave the law. He did this to them, however,
because he wanted thereby to compel, burden, and press the Jews.
What kind of a voice that was, you may well imagine. It was a voice like
the voice of a man, such that it was actually heard. The syllables and
letters thus made sounds which the physical ear was able to pick up. But
it was a bold, glorious, and great voice. As told in Deuteronomy 4:12,
the people heard the voice, but saw no one. They heard a powerful voice,
for he spoke in a powerful voice, as if in the dark we should hear a
voice from a high tower or roof top, and could see no one but only hear
the strong voice of a man. And this is why it is called the voice of
God, because it was above a human voice.
Now you will hear how God used this voice in order to arouse his people
and make them brave. For he intended to institute the tangible and
spiritual government. It was previously stated how, on the advice of
Jethro, his father-in-law, Moses had established the temporal government
and appointed rulers and judges [Exod. 18:13-26]. Beyond that there is
yet a spiritual kingdom in which Christ rules in the hearts of men; this
kingdom we cannot see, because it consists only in faith and will
continue until the Last Day.
These are two kingdoms: the temporal, which governs with the sword and
is visible; and the spiritual, which governs solely with grace and with
the forgiveness of sins. Between these two kingdoms still another has
been placed in the middle, half spiritual and half temporal. It is
constituted by the Jews, with commandments and outward ceremonies which
prescribe their conduct toward God and men.
The Law of Moses Binds Only the Jews and Not the Gentiles
Here the law of Moses has its
place. It is no longer binding on us because it was given only to the
people of Israel. And Israel accepted this law for itself and its
descendants, while the Gentiles were excluded. To be sure, the Gentiles
have certain laws in common with the Jews, such as these: there is one
God, no one is to do wrong to another, no one is to commit adultery or
murder or steal, and others like them. This is written by nature into
their hearts; they did not hear it straight from heaven as the Jews did.
This is why this entire text does not pertain to the Gentiles. I say
this on account of the enthusiasts. (2)
For you see and hear how they read Moses, extol him, and bring up the
way he ruled the people with commandments. They try to be clever, and
think they know something more than is presented in the gospel; so they
minimize faith, contrive something new, and boastfully claim that it
comes from the Old Testament. They desire to govern people according to
the letter of the law of Moses, as if no one had ever read it before.
But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach
again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let
Christ be torn out of our hearts. We will not have Moses as ruler or
lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either. Moses
was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he
gave the law. We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious
spirits who say, "Thus says Moses," etc. Here you simply reply: Moses
has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment,
I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be
that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised,
(3) wash my clothes in the Jewish
way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff.
So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His
rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service.
That Moses does not bind the Gentiles can be proved from Exodus 20:1,
where God himself speaks, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." This text makes it
clear that even the Ten Commandments do not pertain to us. For God never
led us out of Egypt, but only the Jews. The sectarian spirits want to
saddle us with Moses and all the commandments. We will just skip that.
We will regard Moses as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our
lawgiver - unless he agrees with both the New Testament and the natural
law. Therefore it is clear enough that Moses is the lawgiver of the Jews
and not of the Gentiles. He has given the Jews a sign whereby they
should lay hold of God, when they call upon him as the God who brought
them out of Egypt. The Christians have a different sign, whereby they
conceive of God as the One who gave his Son, etc.
Again one can prove it from the third commandment (4)
that Moses does not pertain to Gentiles and Christians. For Paul [Col.
2:16] and the New Testament [Matt. 12:1-12; John 5:16; 7:22-23; 9:14-16]
abolish the sabbath, to show us that the sabbath was given to the Jews
alone, for whom it is a stern commandment. The prophets referred to it
too, that the sabbath of the Jews would be abolished. For Isaiah says in
the last chapter, "When the Savior comes, then such will be the time,
one sabbath after the other, one month after the other," etc. [Isa.
66:23]. This is as though he were trying to say, "It will be the sabbath
every day, and the people will be such that they make no distinction
between days. For in the New Testament the sabbath is annihilated as
regards the crude external observance, for every day is a holy day,"
etc.
Now if anyone confronts you with Moses and his commandments, and wants
to compel you to keep them, simply answer, "Go to the Jews with your
Moses; I am no Jew. Do not entangle me with Moses. If I accept Moses in
one respect [Paul tells the Galatians in chapter 5:3], then I am
obligated to keep the entire law." For not one little period in Moses
pertains to us.
Question: Why then do you preach about Moses if he does not pertain to us?
Answer to the Question: Three things are to be noted in Moses.
I want to keep Moses and not
sweep him under the rug, because I find three things in Moses.
In the first place I dismiss the commandments given to the people of
Israel. They neither urge nor compel me. They are dead and gone, except
insofar as I gladly and willingly accept something from Moses, as if I
said, "This is how Moses ruled, and it seems fine to me, so I will
follow him in this or that particular." (5)
I would even be glad if [today's] lords ruled according to the example
of Moses. If I were emperor, I would take from Moses a model for [my]
statutes; not that Moses should be binding on me, but that I should be
free to follow him in ruling as he ruled. For example, tithing is a very
fine rule, because with the giving of the tenth all other taxes would be
eliminated. For the ordinary man it would also be easier to give a tenth
than to pay rents and fees. Suppose I had ten cows; I would then give
one. If I had only five, I would give nothing. If my fields were
yielding only a little, I would give proportionately little; if much, I
would give much. All of this would be in God's providence. But as things
are now, I must pay the Gentile tax even if the hail should ruin my
entire crop. If I owe a hundred gulden in taxes, I must pay it even
though there may be nothing growing in the field. This is also the way
the pope decrees and governs. But it would be better if things were so
arranged that when I raise much, I give much; and when little, I give
little.
Again in Moses it is also stipulated that no man should sell his field
into a perpetual estate, but only up to the jubilee year [Lev. 25:8-55].
When that year came, every man returned to the field or possessions
which he had sold. In this way the possessions remained in the family
relationship. There are also other extraordinarily fine roles in Moses
which one should like to accept, use, and put into effect. Not that one
should bind or be bound by them, but (as I said earlier) the emperor
could here take an example for setting up a good government on the basis
of Moses, just as the Romans conducted a good government, and just like
the Sachsenspiegel (6) by which
affairs are ordered in this land of ours. The Gentiles are not obligated
to obey Moses. Moses is the Sachsenspiegel for the Jews. But if an
example of good government were to be taken from Moses, one could adhere
to it without obligation as long as one pleased, etc.
Again Moses says, "If a man dies without children, then his brother or
closest relative should take the widow into his home and have her to
wife, and thus raise up offspring for the deceased brother or relative.
The first child thus born was credited to the deceased brother or
relative" [Deut. 25:5-6]. So it came about that one man had many wives.
Now this is also a very good rule.
When these factious spirits come, however, and say, "Moses has commanded
it," then simply drop Moses and reply, "I am not concerned about what
Moses commands." "Yes," they say, "he has commanded that we should have
one God, that we should trust and believe in him, that we should not
swear by his name; that we should honor father and mother; not kill,
steal, commit adultery; not bear false witness, and not covet [Exod.
20:3-17]; should we not keep these commandments?" You reply: Nature also
has these laws. Nature provides that we should call upon God. The
Gentiles attest to this fact. For there never was a Gentile who did not
call upon his idols, even though these were not the true God. This also
happened among the Jews, for they had their idols as did the Gentiles;
only the Jews have received the law. The Gentiles have it written in
their heart, and there is no distinction [Rom. 3:22]. As St. Paul also
shows in Romans 2:14-15, the Gentiles, who have no law, have the law
written in their heart.
But just as the Jews fail, so also do the Gentiles. Therefore it is
natural to honor God, not steal, not commit adultery, not bear false
witness, not murder; and what Moses commands is nothing new. For what
God has given the Jews from heaven, he has also written in the hearts of
all men. Thus I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because
Moses gave the commandment, but because they have been implanted in me
by nature, and Moses agrees exactly with nature, etc.
But the other commandments of Moses, which are not [implanted in all
men] by nature, the Gentiles do not hold. Nor do these pertain to the
Gentiles, such as the tithe and others equally fine which I wish we had
too. Now this is the first thing that I ought to see in Moses, namely,
the commandments to which I am not bound except insofar as they are
[implanted in everyone] by nature [and written in everyone's heart].
The second thing to notice in Moses
In the second place I find
something in Moses that I do not have from nature: the promises and
pledges of God about Christ. (7)
This is the best thing. It is something that is not written naturally
into the heart, but comes from heaven. God has promised, for example,
that his Son should be born in the flesh. This is what the gospel
proclaims. It is not commandments. And it is the most important thing in
Moses which pertains to us. The first thing, namely, the commandments,
does not pertain to us. I read Moses because such excellent and
comforting promises are there recorded, by which I can find strength for
my weak faith. For things take place in the kingdom of Christ just as I
read in Moses that they will; therein I find also my sure foundation.
In this manner, therefore, I should accept Moses, and not sweep him
under the rug: first because he provides fine examples of laws, from
which excerpts may be taken. Second, in Moses there are the promises of
God which sustain faith. As it is written of Eve in Genesis 3:15, "I
will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her
seed; he shall bruise your head," etc. Again Abraham was given this
promise by God, speaking thus in Genesis 22:18, "In your descendants
shall all the nations be blessed"; that is, through Christ the gospel is
to arise.
Again in Deuteronomy 18:15-16 Moses says, "The Lord your God will raise
up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren-him you
shall heed; just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day
of the assembly," etc. Many are these texts in the Old Testament, which
the holy apostles quoted and drew upon.
But our factious spirits go ahead and say of everything they find in
Moses, "Here God is speaking, no one can deny it; therefore we must keep
it." So then the rabble go to it. Whew! If God has said it, who then
will say anything against it? Then they are really pressed hard like
pigs at a trough. Our dear prophets have chattered thus into the minds
of the people, "Dear people, God has ordered his people to beat Amalek
to death" [Exod. 17:8-16; Deut. 25:17-19]. (8)
Misery and tribulation have come out of this sort of thing. The peasants
have arisen, not knowing the difference, and have been led into this
error by those insane factious spirits.
Had there been educated preachers around, they could have stood up to
the false prophets and stopped them, and said this to them, "Dear
factious spirits, it is true that God commanded this of Moses and spoke
thus to the people; but we are not this people. Land, God spoke also to
Adam; but that does not make me Adam, God commanded Abraham to put his
son to death [Gen. 22:2]; but that does not make me Abraham and obligate
me to put my son to death. God spoke also with David. It is all God's
word. But let God's word be what it may, I must pay attention and know
to whom God's word is addressed. You are still a long way from being the
people with whom God spoke." The false prophets say, "You are that
people, God is speaking to you." You must prove that to me. With talk
like that these factious spirits could have been refuted. But they
wanted to be beaten, and so the rabble went to the devil.
One must deal cleanly with the Scriptures. From the very beginning the
word has come to us in various ways. It is not enough simply to look and
see whether this is God's word, whether God has said it; rather we must
look and see to whom it has been spoken, whether it fits us. That makes
all the difference between night and day. God said to David, "Out of you
shall come the king," etc. [II Sam, 7:13]. But this does not pertain to
me, nor has it been spoken to me. He can indeed speak to me if he
chooses to do so. You must keep your eye on the word that applies to
you, that is spoken to you.
The word in Scripture is of two kinds: the first does not pertain or
apply to me, the other kind does. And upon that word which does pertain
to me I can boldly trust and rely, as upon a strong rock. But if it does
not pertain to me, then I should stand still. The false prophets pitch
in and say, "Dear people, this is the word of God," That is true; we
cannot deny it. But we are not the people. God has not given us the
directive. The factious spirits came in and wanted to stir up something
new, saying, "We must keep the Old Testament also..' So they led the
peasants into a sweat and ruined them in wife and child. These insane
people imagined that it had been withheld from them, that no one had
told them they are supposed to murder. It serves them right. They would
not follow or listen to anybody. I have seen and experienced it myself,
how mad, raving, and senseless they were.
Therefore tell this to Moses: Leave Moses and his people together; they
have had their day and do not pertain to me. I listen to that word which
applies to me. We have the gospel. Christ says, "Go and preach the
gospel," not only to the Jews as Moses did, but to "all nations," to
"all creatures" [Mark 16:15]. To me it is said, "He who believes and is
baptized will be saved" [Mark 16:16]. Again, "Go and do to your neighbor
as has been done to you" [cf. Matt. 7:12]. These words strike me too,
for I am one of the "all creatures." If Christ had not added, "preach to
all creatures," then I would not listen, would not be baptized, just as
I now will not listen to Moses because he is given not to me but only to
the Jews. However because Christ says: not to one people, nor in this or
in that place in the world, but to "all creatures," therefore no one is
exempt. Rather all are thereby included; no one should doubt that to him
too the gospel is to be preached. And so I believe that word; it does
pertain also to me. I too belong under the gospel, in the new covenant.
Therefore I put my trust in that word, even if it should cost a hundred
thousand lives.
This distinction should be noticed, grasped, and taken to heart by those
preachers who would teach others; indeed by all Christians, for
everything depends entirely upon it. If the peasants had understood it
this way, they would have salvaged much and would not have been so
pitifully misled and ruined. And where we understand it differently,
there we make sects and factions, slavering among the rabble and into
the raving and uncomprehending people without any distinction, saying,
"God's word, God's word." But my dear fellow, the question is whether it
was said to you. God indeed speaks also to angels, wood, fish, birds,
animals, and all creatures, but this does not make it pertain to me. I
should pay attention to that which applies to me, that which is said to
me, in which God admonishes, drives, and requires something of me.
Here is an illustration. Suppose a housefather had a wife, a daughter, a
son, a maid, and a hired man. Now he speaks to the hired man and orders
him to hitch up the horses and bring in a load of wood, or drive over to
the field, or do some other job. And suppose he tells the maid to milk
the cows, churn some butter, and so on. And suppose he tells his wife to
take care of the kitchen and his daughter to do some spinning and make
the beds. All this would be the words of one master, one housefather.
Suppose now the maid decided she wanted to drive the horses and fetch
the wood, the hired man sat down and began milking the cows, the
daughter wanted to drive the wagon or plow the field, the wife took a
notion to make the beds or spin and so forgot all about the kitchen; and
then they all said, "The master has commanded this, these are the
housefather's orders!" Then what? Then the housefather would grab a club
and knock them all in a heap, and say, "Although it is my command, yet I
have not commanded it of you; I gave each of you your instructions, you
should have stuck to them."
It is like this with the word of God. Suppose I take up something that
God ordered someone else to do, and then I declare, "But you said to do
it." God would answer, "Let the devil thank you; I did not tell you to
do it." One must distinguish well whether the word pertains to only one
or to everybody. If, now, the housefather should say, "On Friday we are
going to eat meat," this would be a word common to everybody in the
house. Thus what God said to Moses by way of commandment is for the Jews
only. But the gospel goes through the whole world in its entirety; it is
offered to all creatures without exception. Therefore all the world
should accept it, and accept it as if it had been offered to each person
individually. The word, "We should love one another" [John 15:12],
pertains to me, for it pertains to all who belong to the gospel. Thus we
read Moses not because he applies to us, that we must obey him, but
because he agrees with the natural law and is conceived better than the
Gentiles would ever have been able to do. Thus the Ten Commandments are
a mirror of our life, in which we can see wherein we are lacking, etc.
The sectarian spirits have misunderstood also with respect to the
images; for that too pertains only to the Jews.
Summing up this second part, we read Moses for the sake of the promises
about Christ, who belongs not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles;
for through Christ all the Gentiles should have the blessing, as was
promised to Abraham [Gen. 12:3].
The third thing to be seen in Moses
In the third place we read Moses for the beautiful examples of faith, of love, and of the cross, as shown in the fathers, Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and all the rest. (9) From them we should learn to trust in God and love him. In turn there are also examples of the godless, how God does not pardon the unfaith of the unbelieving; how he can punish Cain, Ishmael, Esau, the whole world in the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. Examples like these are necessary. For although I am not Cain, yet if I should act like Cain, I will receive the same punishment as Cain. Nowhere else do we find such fine examples of both faith and unfaith. Therefore we should not sweep Moses under the rug. Moreover the Old Testament is thus properly understood when we retain from the prophets the beautiful texts about Christ, when we take note of and thoroughly grasp the fine examples, and when we use the laws as we please to our advantage.
Conclusion and Summary
I have stated that all
Christians, and especially those who handle the word of God and attempt
to teach others, should take heed and learn Moses aright. Thus where he
gives the commandments, we are not to follow him except so far as he
agrees with the natural law. Moses is a teacher and doctor of the Jews.
We have our own master, Christ, and he has set before us what we are to
know, observe, do, and leave undone. However it is true that Moses sets
down, in addition to the laws, fine examples of faith and unfaith -
punishment of the godless, elevation of the righteous and believing -
and also the dear and comforting promises concerning Christ which we
should accept. The same is true also in the gospel. For example in the
account of the ten lepers, that Christ bids them go to the priest and
make sacrifice [Luke 17:14] does not pertain to me. The example of their
faith, however, does pertain to me; I should believe Christ, as did
they.
Enough has now been said of this, and it is to be noted well for it is
really crucial. Many great and outstanding people have missed it, while
even today many great preachers still stumble over it. They do not know
how to preach Moses, nor how properly to regard his books. They are
absurd as they rage and fume, chattering to people, "God's word, God's
word!" All the while they mislead the poor people and drive them to
destruction. Many learned men have not known how far Moses ought to be
taught. Origen, Jerome, and others like them, have not shown clearly how
far Moses can really serve us. This is what I have attempted, to say in
an introduction to Moses how we should regard him, and how he should be
understood and received and not simply be swept under the rug. For in
Moses there is comprehended such a fine order, that it is a joy, etc.
God be praised.
(1)
Martin Luther, "How Christians Should Regard Moses," trans. and ed. by
E. Theodore Bachmann, Luther's Works: Word and Sacrament I, vol.
35 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 161-174. This sermon was
delivered on August 27, 1525, in Luther's long series of seventy-seven
sermons on Exodus preached from October 2, 1524, to February 2, 1527. (Return)
(2) The "enthusiasts" were the Anabaptists or
radical reformers (the left wing extreme of the reformation) like Thomas
Munzer, who Luther also refers to as "factitious or sectarian spirits"
and "false prophets." These radicals should be distinguished from the
magisterial reformers like Luther and Calvin. They were known for their
millennialism (chiliasm; apocalyptic fanaticism), which led to their
insistence of violent measures to bring about a more radical
reformation. They were also known as "spiritualists" because they
purported to receive direct revelations from the Holy Spirit who was
leading them to stir up the masses (peasants) to use all means
necessary, even violent rebellion and revolution against authorities, to
bring in the new age. Luther was afraid that such preaching would bring
massive anarchy throughout the land. Further, they argued that the
social laws of the land ought to be replaced by judicial laws of the
Mosaic covenant. "Pastor Jacob Strauss at Eisenach and the court
preacher Wolfgang Stein at Weimar had brought their considerable
influence to bear on the Saxon princes in favor of substituting the more
humane laws of the Old Testament for the then current imperial and canon
laws. Luther opposed the notion that the Scriptures would be properly
exalted if Mosaic precepts were suddenly, as law, to replace laws of the
German state and church. He warned that while seemingly honoring the
Scriptures, one can actually distort the meaning and intention of the
Word of God . . . 'Moses' is not the Word of God in the sense that
'Moses' could be substituted for a piece of human legislation . . .
Anyone who, like the enthusiasts, erects Mosaic law as a biblical-divine
requirement does injury to the preaching of Christ. Just as the
Judaizers of old, who would have required circumcision as an initial
requirement, so also the enthusiasts and radicals of this later era do
not see that Christ is the end of the Mosaic law. For all the
stipulations of that law, insofar as they go beyond the natural law,
have been abolished by Christ. The Ten Commandments are binding upon all
men only so far as they are implanted in everyone by nature. In this
sense Luther declares that 'Moses is dead' . . . Besides, the Jewish
assembly of Sinai and of the decalogue has been replaced by the
Christian congregation of Pentecost and of the new covenant. The era of
Mosaic law extends from Sinai to Pentecost. In this era the Jewish
people served its particular purpose, for this people, alone among all
the peoples, was during that time span both state and church. It was
just one national ethnic group among others on earth, but at the same
time it was peculiar people set apart for God as an instrument of his
plan for all peoples. So far as 'Moses' is simply the Sachsenspiegel or
law code of the Jewish people as a national ethnic group, it can be
listed as just one code of laws among many, features of which may or may
not be considered desirable in another age or nation. But so far as the
Mosaic law is the law of the Old Testament congregation of God, it has a
prophetic and promissory significance comparable to nothing in the laws
of other peoples; and it has a continuing relevance not to any people
simply as people but only to the post-Pentecost church of God spread
among all peoples (from introduction to sermon, pp. 157-159; written by
E. Theodore Bachman). This imposition of the Mosaic law upon the state
sounds very similar to the modern error of theonomy or Christian
reconstruction. (Return)
(3) In a letter to Chancellor Bruck of Saxony dated
January 13, 1524, Luther wrote that the people of Orlamunde, Karlstadt's
parish, would probably circumcise themselves and be wholly Mosaic. (Return)
(4) The reformers numbered the commandments
differently. Calvin referred to this as the fourth commandment (Inst.
2.8.28). (Return)
(5) This is what Luther and Calvin would refer to
as the "natural law." Calvin referred to these laws as the "equity" of
the Mosaic law (Inst. 4.20.16). Both Calvin and Luther agreed that
anything in the Mosaic law that was not "general," "common," or
"equitable" to all nations no longer applied to the state, seeing that
those specific laws were applicable only to Israel. Calvin argued, "I
would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were
not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For there are some who
deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political
system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other
men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be
enough for me to have proved it false and foolish . . . It is a fact
that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a
testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved
upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of
which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity
alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws. Whatever laws
shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that
limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever
they may differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves . . . For the
statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored
when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain. For
others are not preferred to it when they are more approved, not by a
simple comparison, but with regard to the condition of times, place, and
nation; or when that law is abrogated which was never enacted for us.
For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be
proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere; but when he
had taken the Jewish nation into his safekeeping, defense, and
protection, he also willed to be a lawgiver especially to it; and -- as
became a wise lawgiver -- he had special concern for it in making its
laws (Inst. 4.20.14, 16; also see Calvin's comments on Rom. 1:21-27 and
2:14-15). (Return)
(6) This "Saxon code of law" was a thirteenth
century compilation of the economic and social laws obtaining in and
around Magdeburg and Halberstadt; it was influential in the codification
of German law until the nineteenth century. The radical Reformers
sometimes sought to replace it with the law of Moses or the Sermon on
the Mount. (Return)
(7) Here Luther refers to gospel given
progressively in types and shadows throughout the Old Testament and
looking forward to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. (Return)
(8) Thomas Munzer in a sermon of July, 1524, at
Allstedt demanded that the princes wipe out all the godless, including
godless rulers, princes, and monks. (Return)
(9) Here Luther argues that we can find many moral
illustrations of good and bad behavior throughout the Old Testament. (Return)
This sermon and the accompanying footnotes are copied from
http://hstrial-rlotzer.homestead.com/Papers/Luther_on_Moses.html .
Go to "Comments on Luther's 'How Christians Should Regard Moses'"
Print-friendly PDF Version
(includes Luther's sermon and my comments)