Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Martin Luther Defends Paul s Attribution of the Law to Angels and Its Abolished Nature
If you believe I have stretched things, I am in good company in concluding Paul taught: (1) the Law originated with the angels; (2) God did not intend to bless Jews with the Law; and (3) we are free to treat the Law as simply from Moses and disregard it entirely. Martin Luther goes so far as to say these are valid reasons why Christians do not have to obey the Law. I thus enjoy the very best of company in understanding Paul's words. The only problem is my companion so thoroughly rejects Moses that he does not see how what he is saying makes himself an apostate, tripped up by Paul's teachings. (Thankfully, Luther later repented. See page 106.)
In a sermon entitled How Christians Should Regard Moses given August 27, 1525, Martin Luther simply assumes Paul's words are authoritative on who truly spoke at Sinai. While Moses said it was God, and Scripture calls this person God, Luther says it really meant angels because Paul says this is who truly gave the Law. Listen how a man caught in a contradiction reasons this out. Luther says:
Now the words which are here written [in the Law of Moses] 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.
- Martin Luther, "How Christians Should Regard Moses," Luther's Works: Word and Sacrament I (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960) Vol. 35 at 161-174.
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.
Luther is distancing God from the Law of Moses, just as Paul had done. It was delivered by angels, not God personally. Luther is ignoring that Jesus Himself said that God was
the direct deliverer of the Law from the burning bush. Having planted a false seed to distance God from the Law, Luther next begins talking as if God did not give the Law. Because Jesus is God, Luther's next remark has all the earmarks of someone who has not thought through the implications of his statement:
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.
But it is not Moses who gave the Law. Nor did angels. It was Jesus who is the "I AM" who gave the Law. (Ex. 3:14, "tell them I AM sent you"; John 8:58, "before Abraham was, I AM") Rewrite this and you can see how incongruous Luther's statement now appears:
We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to
let [Jesus's words to Moses] return and to let Christ [preached by
Paul] be torn out of our hearts. We will not have [I AM who is
Jesus who gave the Law] as ruler or lawgiver any longer.
Martin Luther then announces proudly his total rejection of the Law.
-
(Mark 12:26); Luke 20:37.
So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service.... Even the Ten Commandments do not pertain to us.
If this is true, then why did Jesus teach to the contrary that whoever taught the smallest commandment of the Law should no longer be followed would be least in the kingdom of heaven? (Matt. 5:19).
Luther Was Sometimes On the Right Track In This Sermon
In fairness to Luther, at other times in the same sermon, Luther's answer on whether the Law applies to us is to examine whether the passage is addressed to Jews alone. This is the only correct limitation. For example, if a command is solely to Jews, such as the law of circumcision (Gen. 17:11); (Lev. 12:3), (Josh. 5:2), then it obviously does not apply to Gentiles. In the Jerusalem council in Acts chapter 15, James ruled this command does not apply to Gentiles. (Acts 15:19). James said this not because the Law was abrogated in its entirety, but rather because the circumcision command was limited to Jews whom James later told Paul must still, as converts to Christ, follow the circumcision command. (Acts 21:21,25).
-
However, if a Gentile chose to enter the Temple proper of Jerusalem, Ezekiel says even "strangers" must be circumcised. (Ez. 44:9).
-
The KJV atypically accepts one late textual corruption. This is in James' mouth in Acts 15:24. This makes it appear James said the Law does not apply at all to Gentiles. The KJV has it that James says some have tried "subverting your souls, saying. Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law. to whom we gave no such commandment." (Act 15:24). However, the ASV and NIV correctly omits "ye must be circumcised and keep the law," saying instead some tried "subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment." Why did the KJV add the above bolded words? The UBS' Greek New Testament (4th Ed) says this entire phrase first appears in the miniscule 1175 (pg. 476), which dates from the Tenth Century A.D. (pg. 17). The phrase "keep the Law" first appears in quotations of Acts 15:24 in the Apostolic Constitutions and in the writings of Amphilochius (pg. 467). Amphilochius died "after 394," and this copy of the Apostolic Constitutions is dated to "about 380" (pg. 31.) All the earlier texts omit both changes to Acts 15:24.
That James was following this principle is evident again when he imposed on Gentiles prohibitions on eating certain animals with their blood still in it (Acts 15:20).The Law of Moses said this food-rule applied not only to Israelites but also to 'strangers' in the land. ((Lev. 17:10),12 (food with blood).) James likewise adds that Gentiles must refrain from fornication. James no doubt had the Hebrew meaning of that word in mind, which meant adultery. Once again, we find this command against adultery was stated in Leviticus to apply not only to Jews, but also to "strangers that sojourn in Israel." (Lev. 20:2, 10.) 26
Was James following Scripture in making this distinction? Yes, indeed. The Law of Moses had an example that a command for a son of Israel not to eat meat of an animal that died naturally did not apply to non-Israelite sojourners who were permitted to each such meat. (Deut. 14:21). Thus, this proves that commands to Israelites do not automatically apply to the non-Israelite. James simply applied this principle to interpret the scope of other commands in the Law of Moses.
If you apply the Israel-sojourner distinction which James employed, then of the Law of Moses which applies to non-Jews it would primarily be the open-ended Ten Commandments as well as sojourner-specific provisions in Leviticus chapters 19 and 20 and 24:13-24, and (Exod. 12:19) (prohibition on leaven during feast of unleavened bread)" which Jesus alludes to many times. These are commands that do not introduce themselves as commands to only Israelites. If James' approach is valid, then all the fuss about the Law as some terrible burden is a non-starter. The burden on Gentiles is quite insignificant if we follow the distinction in the Law of Moses itselfbetween "sons of Israel" and "sojourners" as James was obviously doing. The alleged burdensome nature of the Law on Gentiles was a red herring all along.
-
See page 138 et seq.
-
On why the idol-food command that James also gives was a deduction as applicable to both Jew and Gentile, see Footnote 1 on page 118.
James thus did not add to the Law. Instead, he refused to apply Israel-only principles to Gentiles. He kept to the strict letter of the Law. James says the reason to maintain this distinction of Jew versus Gentile in the New Covenant is so that "we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God." (Acts 15:19). His ruling also complied with (Deut. 4:2).
So if James is right, when Jesus says "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19), Jesus meant us to understand as to Gentiles, that no obedience would be required as to Israel-only commands (unless Jesus extended them). And if James is right, when Jesus says whoever teaches you to obey the least command in the Law would be the greatest in the kingdom, Jesus meant as to Gentiles that if you taught them to obey open-ended commands and commands directed at sojourners in the Law then you would be the greatest in the kingdom. (Matt. 5:19). But if you go beyond this, and add Israel-only commands on Gentiles which God (including Jesus) never imposed on them, you are unduly burdening their entry into the kingdom of God. You are violating (Deut. 4:2) by adding burdens nowhere in the Law itself (unless a prophet, such as Jesus, added the command, pursuant to Deut. 18:15).
- Some argue that the Ten Commandments (Decalogue) are not open-ended, implied from (Exod. 20:2) which says "I...brought you out of the Land of Egypt." This is largely irrelevant. You can find specific mention of most of the Ten Commandments imposed on sojourners: blasphemy - using God's name in vain (Lev. 24:16; Num 15:30); murder (Lev. 24:17); Sabbath-breaking (Deut. 5:12-15; Lev. 25:6; Exo 23:12); adultery (Lev. 20:2, 10), etc. Even if the Decalogue as a whole does not apply, Bonhoeffer says Jesus extended the Decalogue to all in the New Covenant when He spoke to the young rich man. ((Matt. 19:16-26); (Mark 10:17-31); Luke 18:1826). See Bonhoeffer. Cost of Discipleship (1937) at 72-84.
Did Jesus ever speak this way Himself? Yes, this is one of the obvious applications of the principle behind the lessons about the old and new cloth and the old and new wineskin. (Matt. 9:16-17). Combining the two items in each case makes things worse, and fails to preserve the old sideby-side with the new. The new cloth put on old clothing causes a "worse rent." New wine in an old wineskin causes the wine to be "spilled and the skins perish."
James similarly speaks that putting the Israel-only commands upon Gentiles is "trouble" for those "turning to God." You cause more problems that you solve by doing so. The new cloth is not of the same inherent material as the old cloth, and lacks the same elasticity. It cannot be stretched as far as the old. The Jew can be pushed further in commands than a Gentile. It is inherent in their culture, as God molded the Jews. The new wine in an old wineskin will swell up from pressure trying to stay within the bounds of the old wineskin. The new wine will spill out ( i.e ., become lost) if you try to make the new fit the stiffness and boundaries of the old wineskin. Gentiles cannot be pressed to follow the Israel-only provisions; the pressure will force them out of the wineskin.
-
Passover dinner, which precedes the feast of unleavened bread, is optional for the Sojourner. However, if he "will keep it," then the Sojourner has to be circumcised. (Exod. 12:48; (Num. 9:14)). Thus, Passover was an honor for a nonJew sojourner to celebrate. If he chose to do so, he must be circumcised. As discussed in Appendix C, Jesus contemplated His Jewish apostles would keep Passover, and amended the Passover remembrances to include His anticipated work on the Cross. If Gentile Christians observe Passover, it is an honor. When we do so, we were to do the remembrances that Jesus outlined in the last passover. This explains why the early apostolic church was anxious to and did keep Passover; and this is why Passover is a feast worldwide in all forms of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) except in English-speaking nations where it is known as Easter. Why the different nomenclature? Because Catholicism could not root out the English/Germanic preference to call that season by the name of the goddess Eastre. As a result, English-speaking Christians have lost memory of what festival they are attempting to celebrate while Christians of all denominations and faiths in non-English speaking countries keep Passover under its proper name. For more discussion, see Appendix C: The Easter Error JWO/JWO_20_01_HowTheCanonWasFormed_0112.
-
Yet, bear in mind, Jesus as Prophet can add a command to the Law of Moses.
Unfortunately, Luther in this sermon did not consistently maintain this valid Israel-Sojoumer distinction. Luther ends the sennon by throwing off of the Gentiles all the Old Law, even the sojourner commands. He put the New beyond any testing for its validity against the Law given Moses. Luther says:
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 . 30
Here you see how one falls into apostasy. No longer do you accept the Law given to Moses to define what is a false prophet. Thus, you have accepted a set of new teachings that are beyond the reach of God's prior revelation to test its validity. Luther thereby became in 1525 totally antinomian - making the validity of principles in the Mosaic Law turn on the superior validity of what Luther regarded as New Testament writings but only if also confirmed by natural law.
Please note, however, that later from 1532 to 1537 Luther reversed his position on the Law. He denounced antinomianism in the Antinomian Theses (1537). He said a Christian can spiritually die and become like a non-Christian. To revive, they must examine themselves by the Ten Commandments, and repent from sin. Luther's Catechisms of late 1531-1532 (which the Lutheran church uses to this day) state Jesus' doctrine on salvation and the Law while ignoring Paul's doctrines (except on how to treat government officials, wives, etc.) For this reason, evangelicals condemn Luther's Catechisms. Miles Stanford said the "Lutheran Church" turned into "legalism" by adopting an "unscriptural application of 'the law as the rule of life' for the believer." Likewise, Pastor Dwight Oswald regards Luther's Catechism as making Luther so at odds with Paul's doctrines that even Luther must be deemed lost and responsible for having led countless numbers to perish in hell. Similarly, Calvinists at Calvin College skewer Luther's 1531 edition of his catechism for departing from the faith he previously taught so boldly. 34
-
Luther repeats this statement later in his 1525 sermon: "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.'"
-
Martin Luther, Don't Tell Me That! From Martin Luther s Antinomian Theses (Lutheran Press: 2004).
However, prior to this radical switch, Luther was willing to endorse everything Paul said. Luther inspired by Paul said the angels gave the Law; the Law was a curse on Jews; Jesus never intended the Law applies to non-Jews who follow Him; and the Law is dead and we only follow those aspects that coincide with reason ('natural law') if re-affirmed in the New Testament. Accordingly, unless Luther in 1525 misread Paul, Paul must be understood to have thrown off the entire Law by denigrating its origin and purpose. I therefore enjoy the very best of company in my reading Paul the same way.
But we can take heart from the fact that Luther later made a radical separation from his own earlier antinomianism. Luther must have finally seen the error of the doctrine Luther deduced from Galatians. In fact, it appears no coincidence that Luther's switch quickly followed his lecture on Galatians. For in that epistle, we have Paul's most virulent anti-Law writings, with Paul's rationale clearly exposed in (Gal. 4:22) ff. With such new conviction, Luther had the courage to reform himself. That's the best explanation for why we find Jesus' Words Only emerging in Luther's Catechisms. Luther made one more radical revolution, once more willing to face the charge of being a heretic. This time, however, it was for basing his core doctrine on Jesus' words only.
-
Quoted in Bob Nyberg's Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism A Matter of Law Versus Grace, reprinted online at http://4himnet.com/xobnyberg/dispensationalismOl.html.
-
See Pastor Dwight Oswald, "Martin Luther's Sacramental Gospel," Earnestly Contending For The Faith (Nov-Dee. 1997). See also, Lutheran Heresy at http://www.jesus-is-savior.com.
-
Calvinists thereby find the 1531 Catechism defective spiritually. See Calvin College at http://www.ccel.0rg/s/schaff/hcc7/htm/ii.v.xiv.htm.