3. Law and gospel in their opposition or as opposites.
There is no need to apologize for Luther, much less to say that Luther spoke in a misleading way,928) when he describes law and gospel as complete opposites. Luther, however, speaks very decisively at this point. He says of the law and gospel that they are "separated from each other in the widest sense and are more than opposites" (inter se longissime "distincta et plus quam contradictoria separata sunt).929) But Luther is absolutely right, the law and the gospel are really complete opposites according to their content; they relate to each other like yes and no. Whereas the law demands from man complete conformity to the commandments it lays down for man's nature and actions, and proclaims God's wrath on all delinquents, the gospel makes no moral demands on man whatsoever, and therefore does not punish any transgressions — not even the sin of unbelief930) — but rather assures all transgressors and those condemned by the law, without any good quality or works on their part, of God's grace for Christ's sake. It is to be noted,
927) Against the Antinomians, XX, 1619-1623. — A short biography of Agricola and an apt description of his character can be found in RE.2 I, 211 by Gustav Plitt. There the actual motive of his stand against Melanchthon is also pointed out. Agricola "was a gifted and not unskilled man. … But everything good was spoiled by his intemperate vanity. Luther, who knew him well, wrote on December 6, 1540: Si velis scire, quidnam ipsa vanitas sit, nulla certiore imagine cognosces quam Islebii. This defect of character made him unfit to be a minister. Agricola belongs to those assistants of the reformers who did more harm than good." The letter mentioned by Plitt is addressed to Jakob Stratner, court preacher in Berlin, and is found in de Wette V, 319 f.; in the St. L. Ausg. XXIb, 2535 ff.
928) Against Thomasius, Das Bekenntnis der ev.-luth. K. in der Konsequenz s. Prinzipips, p. 47 f. Likewise in Dogmengeschichte2 11, 425.
929) Ad Gal. II. 105: St. L. IX, 447.
930) The gospel certainly demands faith, but does not rebuke unbelief. More about this point at the end of this section.
269 > Law and Gospel. [ [English ed. ~ 228-229]
what a synergistic theology has forgotten, that the same persons whom the law pronounces guilty and condemns to death are absolved from guilt and condemnation in the gospel. The Gospel, as far as its promise of grace is concerned, knows no distinction between great and small sinners, between those who have behaved rightly and those who have not, between those who are more or less guilty, and so on. Rather, it says, "There is no distinction here; they are all sinners, and lack the glory which they ought to have in God, and are justified without merit by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ." 931) It is already a falsification of the gospel by the addition of law, if the grace promised by the gospel is referred to other and differently constituted, relatively better or less guilty persons than those about whom the condemnation judgment of the law passes. Of course, the gospel demands faith. That the gospel demands faith is an expression of Scripture,932) therefore not to be criticized. But the faith which the gospel demands is not a good quality in man or a human achievement in any sense, but the very opposite of all achievement on the part of man, because according to Scripture the "by faith" (διά τής πίοτεως) is as much as "not of works" (ονκ εξ έργων).933) That God requires or commands faith in the gospel has the sense that God is fully serious about the offer of grace in the gospel.934) Then it stands that the gospel itself produces the faith it demands without man's cooperation. The faith which the gospel demands or commands is, as Luther says, not a "work commanded" in the law, as love, obedience, etc. are commanded in the law, but faith is an effect of the promise (opus promissionis). Indeed, by requiring or commanding faith, the Gospel itself speaks faith into the heart, as the jailer at Philippi becomes faithful through the apostle Paul's imperative: "Believe (πίστενσον) on the Lord JEsum Christ."935) In order to put into the light and to hold the complete difference of the law and the gospel according to their contents, the ancient theologians continued to point out the different nature of the promises of the law and of the gospel
931) Rom. 3:23-24.<w:t>932) 1 Joh. 3:23.<w:t>933) Eph. 2:8-9.
934) Cf. further explanation II, 528.<w:t>935) E. A. 58, 353 f.
270 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 229]
and called the promises of the law conditional (promissiones conditionales) and those of the gospel pure promises of grace (promissiones gratuitae). We must, what some antinomians denied,936) on the basis of the Scriptures, of course, also speak of promises of the law, because the law promises life to those who really keep it. Gal. 3:12: "The man that doeth it shall live thereby," ό ποιήσας αυτά ανϑρωπος ζήσεται εν αντόϊς. But if we compare the promises of the law with those of the gospel as to their nature, they are complete contrasts. The Scriptures are very careful to point out that the Law promises life only to those men who have actually kept the Law in all matters, as is already evident from the Scriptural words just quoted. Then, in order to characterize the promises of the Law, it is necessary to recall with what emphasis Christ points out to those who wanted to inherit eternal life by the way of the Law: "Do this and you will live. 937) If, on the other hand, we pay attention to how the promises of the Gospel are described in Scripture, we get the impression that Scripture cannot do enough in testifying to the fact that the Gospel promises righteousness and life to men who have not kept the Law. It heaps the particulae exclusivae: "without law", "without the works of the law", "not of works", "not of the works of the law". 938) In other words, the promises of the law and the promises of the gospel are related in this way: the law justifies the man who is righteous in himself; the gospel justifies the man who is ungodly in himself. The Scripture explicitly says that faith in the gospel is faith which believes in the God who righteousnesses (τον ασεβή) the ungodly.939) — Again, for the sake of completeness, it must be remembered that the word "condition" is ambiguous. One cannot forbid the expression "conditional promise" to describe the promises of the gospel, because also the gospel promises are expressed in sentences that are conditional sentences according to the
936) Andreas Poach of Erfurt and Anton Otto of Nordhausen argued that the Law had no promise of salvation at all. Schlüsselbnrg, Catalogus IV, 276; Schmid-Hauck, p. 363.
937) Luke 10:28.<w:t>938) Rom. 3:21, 28; Eph. 2:9; Gal. 2:16.
939) Rom. 4:5.
271 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 229-230]
grammatical form, Rom. 10:9: εάν πιοτενσής … σωϑήσγ [“If thou … shalt believe in thine heart… thou shalt be saved.”]). But the teachers who understand and hold the distinction between law and gospel remind us that "condition" in conditional sentences belonging to the law does, however, denote a human accomplishment, as in the sentence, "If you keep the law, you will live." But in conditional sentences that belong in the Gospel, as in the sentence, "If thou believest, thou shalt be saved," faith does not denote an achievement or a work, but the manner of appropriation (modum applicationis). The sentence: "If you believe, you will be saved" does not have the meaning: "If you have faith, you will be saved", but: on the way of faith, without own goodness and achievements, you will be saved.940) Quenstedt treats the question: An promissiones evangelicae sint conditionales under a special section.941)
If we have to hold the law and the gospel, seen from their content, with Luther as contradictoria, an insurmountable difficulty seems to arise. If in the Law God condemns sinners to death because of their sins, and in the Gospel he absolves the same sinners — for there is no difference among them — and grants them life, it seems to follow that neither the hearer of the Word of God knows whether he should apply the Word of death or the Word of life to himself, nor even the pastor is able to know whether in applying the Word to certain persons he should say to them: "Thou art a child of death" or, "Thou shalt not die, but live, for the Lord hath taken away thy sin." In order to remove this apparent confusion, one has always resorted to the information that the consolation of the Gospel should be preached only to those who have already become different and better men. We have already recognized this information as erroneous. The apparent confusion is only lifted in the right way if we let ourselves be instructed from the Scriptures about another difference between law and gospel. It is this, that both have their different areas, sharply delineated against each other, in which they are to come into effect within the order of salvation (οικονομία). The law, to be sure, is to be proclaimed without any deduction,942) but only for the purpose of being applied
940) Cf. the quotations from Heerbrand, Sebastian Schmidt, Gerhard II, 37, note 97.
941) Systema II, 1018 sqq.
942) Matt. 5:17. 18: Gal. 3:10; Rom. 1:18; 3:9-19.
272 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 231]
to bring man to the knowledge of his sin and worthiness of damnation. As soon as this purpose is achieved, that is, as soon as the man asks with a shattered heart, "What must I do to be saved?" then the law is to be silenced. It is not a church order, but a divine order, that not the law, but only the gospel be preached to terrified hearts, promising forgiveness of sins and salvation without law and works to sinners as they are ("Just as I am") for Christ's sake. In the catechisms this is expressed something like this: "The law is to be preached to sure sinners, the gospel to poor sinners." In the scriptural words of Rom. 10:4: "Christ is the end of the law; he that believeth on him is righteous," the territory of the law is precisely delineated against the territory of the gospel, and the exclusive right of the gospel in the territory of broken and humbled hearts is expressed in the purpose of the gospel: "to preach the gospel to the poor, binding up the brokenhearted."943) This boundary regulation between law and gospel stands firm from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, especially also from the practice of Christ and the apostles.944) Luther:945) "The law has its goal, how far it should go and what it should accomplish, namely up to Christ, to frighten the impenitent with God's wrath and disgrace. Likewise, the gospel has its special office and work, to preach forgiveness of sins to the afflicted conscience. … Wherefore the conscience is rightly stricken, that it feels sin rightly, is in distress of death, is burdened with war, pestilence, poverty, shame, and such like calamities, and as the law saith: You are condemned to death, this and that I demand of you, you have not done nor been able to do — where the law, I say, thus strikes in and terrifies man with fear of death and hell and despair, then it is high time to know how to separate law and gospel from each other and to direct each to its place. Here let him separate who can separate, for here is the time of separation and need. Here belongs that St. Paul says: "Before faith came,
943) Is. 61:1; Luke 4:18.
944) Nathan and David, 2 Sam. 12:13. Christ and the sinner, Luke 7:48. Peter on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:37-39. Paul and Silas and the jailer of Philippi, Acts 16:27-31. the congregation at Corinth and the incestuous man, 1 Cor. 5:1-5; 2 Cor. 2:6-8.
945) Sermon on Gal. 3:23-24, "On the Difference between the Law and the Gospel". St. L. IX, 798 ff.
273 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 231-232]
we are kept and shut up under the law.' … Therefore, if the law accuses me of not having done this and that, of being unrighteous and written in God's register of guilt, I must confess it is all true. But the corollary: Therefore you are condemned, I must not admit, but defend myself with strong faith and say: According to the law, which reckons my guilt, I am indeed a poor, condemned sinner, but I appeal from the law to the gospel, for God has given another word above the law, that is, the gospel, which gives us his grace, forgiveness of sins, eternal righteousness and life, and in addition absolves and absolves me from your terrors and condemnation, and comforts me that all guilt has been paid by the Son of God, Jesus Christ himself. Therefore, it is highly necessary that both words be rightly directed and acted upon, and that diligently care be taken that they not be blended together." To the right separation of law and gospel belongs therefore also that the gospel is recognized as the "higher word", whereby God wants to let it remain towards the frightened sinner. Luther adds: "If now both, law and gospel, collide, and the law finds me a sinner, accuses and condemns me, but the gospel says, Matt. 9:2: 'Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee? thou shalt be saved: both are the Word of God; but which shall I follow? This is what St. Paul teaches you: "When faith comes," he says, "we are no longer under the disciplinarian," then the law ceases. For it should and must, as the lesser word, give place and room to the gospel. Both are the Word of God, the Law and the Gospel, but they are not both equal. One is lower, the other higher; one weaker, the other stronger; one lower, the other greater. So when they wrestle with each other, I follow the gospel and say, "Good-bye, law!"946)
In order to explain the difference between the law and the gospel, it is necessary to point out their different sources of knowledge. While the law is still known to man by nature, no thought of the gospel has ever entered the heart of even
946)That these ways of speaking of Luther of the "lower" and "higher" word, which refer to the scope of the law and the gospel within the divine economy of salvation, find accordance with Scripture, is evident from Scripture passages such as Rom. 10:4; 5:20-21; 2 Cor. 3:7 ff; Deut. 18:15 ff; Jer. 31:31 ff; Hebr. 8:6-13.
274 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 232-233]
the wisest and most civic-minded people.. The Gospel has become known among men only through God's revelation in the Word of God. The scripture also draws attention to this difference between law and gospel regarding their sources of knowledge. It says Rom. 2:14-15 of the law that the Gentiles, who do not have the written law, are law to themselves, because the work of the law, that is, what is commanded by the law, stands written in their hearts. Of the gospel, on the other hand, it says 1 Cor. 2:7 ff.: "Not a wisdom of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, which perish; but we speak of the secret, hidden wisdom of God (σοφίαν ϑεον εν μνστηρίφ, την άποκεκρνμμένην), which God ordained before the world for our glory, which none of the rulers of this world knew; for if they had known them, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, but, as it stands: That (α) eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into any man's.heart (επί καρδίαν άνϑρώπον ονκ άνέβη), which God hath prepared for them that love him. But unto us God hath revealed it by his Spirit."947) Therefore, all pagan religions, because they are all religions of law, do not bear the slightest resemblance to the Christian religion. It has become the custom of most of the newer representatives of the comparative study of religions to state a similarity, even an essential equality between the pagan religions and the Christian religion.948) They come to this result in the way that they exclude the gospel of Christ, the crucified, as unessential from the Christian religion. For example, Pfleiderer949) and Frank B. Jevons.950) The difference between law and gospel, seen on their sources of knowledge, actually also shapes itself into an opposition, insofar as the natural man asserts his innate religion of law against the gospel. He considers the gospel of God's grace in Christ to be an offence and foolishness,951) until the "opinio legis" in his heart is overcome by the gospel.952)
947) It has often been recalled that according to the context, these words do not refer to eternal salvation, but to the Gospel.
948) But Max Müller-Oxford [sic: Monier Monier-Williams] is quite different; see II, 2, note 8.
949) Religion and Religions. 1906, p. 215 ff.
950) An Introduction to the Study of Comparative Religion. 1908, p. 69.
951) 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:14.<w:t xml:space="preserve">952) Apol. 134, 144. [Trigl. 197, Apol., 111, 144 🔗]
275 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 233-234]
In the question of how far law and gospel are opposites, the special question of whether the gospel or the law rebuke the sin of unbelief has also been dealt with. The Formula of Concord teaches, as has already been said, that the penalty of unbelief is to be assigned to the law, not to the gospel, if "gospel" is taken in its proper sense. Against this judgment it has been objected in ancient and modern times that it is impossible to see how the law can rebuke unbelief, since it knows nothing of faith. Therefore, the punishment of unbelief must be rebuke in the gospel. This, as Gerhard occasionally notes, was the main argument (palmarium argumentum) also of the later Philippists or Cryptocalvinists.952a) Frank also finds the matter quite questionable.952b) On the other hand, attention must be drawn to a twofold point: 1. After all that we know of the gospel in the proper sense from Scripture, one cannot even remotely entertain the thought that the gospel rebuke the sin of unbelief. 2. According to all that we know of the law from Scripture, the law truly cannot refrain from punishing the sin of unbelief along with all other sins. As for the first point, let us remember that there is a very close relationship between the gospel and the merit of Christ. The gospel distributes what Christ has earned. But Christ has purchased for all the world the forgiveness of all sins, that is, even the sin of unbelief. So also the gospel, as it distributes the forgiveness of all sins, so also the forgiveness of the sin of unbelief. How, then, should the gospel, which forgives the sin of unbelief, come to rebuke the sin of unbelief? We would therefore have to decide to deny Christ's merit and the essence of the gospel if we wanted to rebuke in the gospel, taken in its proper sense, the punishment of unbelief. Furthermore, if the gospel were to rebuke unbelief, it would also only condemn believers continually, because even
952 a) Gerhard points out to L. de ev., § 105 that Agricola's theses of the Gospel as a penitential sermon were zealously defended by the Cryptocalvinists ut apparet ex catechesi et thesibus anno 70. et 71. ibidem (namely in Wittenberg) editis. Cf. Münscher, Dogmengesch. (Neudecker) III, 576
952 b) Dogm. Studien, p. 114: "The difficulty is this, that the reproving and punishing function of the law is, after all, only the reverse of its demanding and commanding one; the former, by the nature of the thing, cannot reach further than the latter."
276 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 234-235]
in believers, besides faith, there is always a lot of unbelief, which truly weighs heavily on their conscience. Where, then, should we flee with the guilt of unbelief, which we must confess daily, if the gospel also punished the sin of unbelief instead of forgiving it? Even more, if the gospel were to rebuke unbelief, no man could come to believe the gospel at all, that is, become a Christian, because every man is unbelieving before he comes to believe. Therefore, we will have to agree with the Formula of Concord when it says: "Accordingly, we reject and consider it unjust and harmful when it is taught that the Gospel is actually (proprie) a sermon of repentance or punishment and not a sermon of grace alone, thereby turning the Gospel back into a doctrine of law, obscuring the merit of Christ and Holy Scriptures, depriving Christians of comfort, and opening the door again to popery."952c) And now the other point, how the Law comes to rebuke unbelief against the Gospel, since the Law, in itself or by itself, knows nothing of Gospel and faith. Here we have to remember that the Law and the Gospel do not float in the air as abstracts, but are both God's Word to man. The law is Deus propter peccata damnans, and the gospel is Deus propter Christ absolvens sive iustificans. Now why should not God also subject the contempt of His grace, that is, unbelief, to His penal operation as Deus propter peccata damnans? The Formula of Concord expresses the state of affairs thus:952d) "So (hac ratione) the law rebukes unbelief, if one does not believe God's Word. Since the Gospel, which alone actually teaches and commands believing in Christ, is God's Word, the Holy Spirit, through the ministry of the Law, also reproves unbelief, because they do not believe in Christ, which Gospel alone actually teaches saving faith in Christ." We know very well that this does not declare how the law and the gospel can be in God at the same time. This is connected with the fact that the knowledge of God in this life has the characteristic: αρτι γινώσκω εκ μέρους, "now I know it bit by bit".952e) — That the Gospel is a sermon of repentance and punishment has also been tried to prove by a reference to the
952c) Formula of Concord, p. 535, 11 [Trigl. 805, Epit., V, 11 🔗]; 639, 27 [961, Sol. Decl., V, 27 🔗]
952d) S. 637, 19. [Trigl. 957, Sol. Decl., v, 19 🔗]<w:t>952e) 1 Cor. 13:12.
277 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 235-236]
suffering and death of Christ. The train of thought was roughly this: Christ's suffering and death undoubtedly belongs in the gospel. Now, through Christ's suffering, sin is repented of, because from it we recognize the greatness of God's wrath and human guilt all the more. Consequently, the gospel is a sermon of repentance and punishment. To this it must be said: Admittedly, the wrath of God on the sin of men can and should also be taught from the suffering and death of Christ. Christ himself thus uses the fact of his suffering and death.952f) But so far as this is done, not gospel but law is preached, when both words are used in their proper sense. This too is made clear in the Formula of Concord, when it says in Luther's words:952g) "All the sermon of the law, the sermon of our sins and the sermon of God's wrath, be it as it how and when it may.. … Yes, what is a more serious, more terrible display and sermon of God's wrath against sin than the suffering and death of Christ, His Son? But as long as all this preaches God's wrath and terrifies man, it is not the Gospel's nor Christ's own sermon, but Moses' and the law's on the impenitent. For the gospel and Christ are not ordained and given to terrify nor condemn, but to comfort and raise up those who are terrified and timid." In the Epitome, the fright with Christ's suffering and death is also called "a foreign office (alienum opus), by which he comes to his own office (proprium suum officium), that is, to preach grace."952h)