How Christians Should Regard Moses
Sermon by Martin Luther(1)
August 27, 1525
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/Luther_on_Moses.html . |
