Obedience to Worldly and Household Authorities

1886 Western District Essay

Obedience to Worldly and Household Authorities

Doctrinal Proceedings.

Dr. C. F. W. Walther was kind enough again this year to provide theses for discussion and to present them himself. This year's proceedings conclude the topic that has been before the Western District for thirteen years. The aim was to prove that “only through the doctrine of the Lutheran Church is all glory given to God alone, and that therefore the doctrine of this church is the only true one.” Last year, from this point of view, the doctrine of “obedience to men in matters of faith and conscience” was discussed, in particular that “the authorities have neither the right nor the power to rule over the faith and conscience of their subjects.” This year, it will be demonstrated in detail that this rule also applies to domestic authority. Therefore, the

Theme:

The Lutheran Church believes, teaches, and confesses according to God's Word that even the household rule has neither the right nor the power to rule over the faith and conscience of its subordinates.

The speaker noted the following: If there has ever been a time when the treatment of the topic before us was highly topical, it is undoubtedly the present time. We are now clearly living in the time referred to in 2 Peter 3:3: “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, walking according to their own lusts.” Or have the scoffers who recognize no law other than their own lusts not yet come? Are we not living in a time of licentiousness and upheaval? More and more desperate people are now coming forward who have specifically allied themselves to overthrow all divine and human order in the world with bloody violence and satanic malice, so that even the respectable world trembles and recoils before them. But it is not only that, as far as divine order is concerned, the respectable world itself is in a sorry state, but alas! even many Christians have not remained free from the destructive ideas of these last days, especially with regard to the divine order of the

household order. The household order is, after all, the lowest foundation of all divine world order. If the household order is right, the other orders will also be right. If the household order falls, then necessarily every other order in the world that flows from the household order will also fall. If there is no return to the right leadership and sanctification of the household government, at least in Christianity, we are heading for terrible times.

But who can help here? Of course, only God, the eternal Lord and ruler of the world, the only guide of hearts. But he does not want to do it directly, but indirectly through people, namely through His Church. The Church has the calling to be the salt of the earth and to resist the encroaching moral and religious decay. It is to be the heavenly leaven that permeates everything, the whole world, every social class and world order, including the household, and restores it to what God intended it to be. The Church should be a dam that stands in the way of every stream of corruption and stops and pushes back the wild waters flowing out of hell. Woe to a Church that sighs, complains, and scolds about the ever-increasing corruption, but, despairing of help, idly folds its hands in its lap. The church is and remains responsible above all to God for ensuring that things change. It is true that the church, its preachers, and its members will not make any friends by punishing all pervasive corruption; rather, they will reap enmity, shame, and persecution. But their Lord and Head commands them: “Cry aloud! Do not spare! Lift up your voice like a trumpet, and declare to my people their transgression and to the house of Jacob their sins.” (Isaiah 58:1) Nor should we think that we, a small band, are incapable of swimming against the tide, much less stemming it. Look back, and you will see—to God's glory alone, let it be said—how the Lord has helped our small flock to gain a salutary influence everywhere, including in matters of Christian morals and order. For truth and justice have an irresistible power over people. To this end, God has given the promise that His Word shall not return void. Therefore, let us be confident and very joyful in continuing to proclaim the Word and especially in punishing all ungodly beings that have invaded our country. For a church that is not intent on destroying all the strongholds of the devil in the world does not recognize the great mission it has on earth; indeed, it merely plays at being a church, it does not deserve this name, it is not salt, it is not leaven. Such a church, which does not punish, which, so to speak, lies on its leaven, will ultimately become a laughingstock and a disgrace and will be swallowed up by the ruin of the world itself. The Lord himself says that such “foolish salt” is worth nothing more than

being thrown out and trampled underfoot by people. May the Lord in his mercy preserve our dear synod from such a terrible fate!

Before we move on to the theses themselves, the following preliminary remarks are necessary: There are three estates established by God in which every Christian on earth finds himself, namely the ecclesiastical, the civil, and the domestic estate. Therefore, there are also three governments established by God himself, under which every Christian likewise finds himself in this world, namely the ecclesiastical, the civil, and the domestic government. None of these orders has the right or power to rule over the consciences of men; indeed, no creature in heaven or on earth, let alone in hell, has this power. The rule over consciences is reserved to God, the almighty Creator and Lord of all things. Whoever dares to want to rule over the conscience of any human being makes himself God and sets himself on a high throne, from which God himself will cast him down into the lowest abyss of hell. — In this year's meetings, we will now deal with the domestic government. This authority itself, however, is divided into three different authorities, namely parental, marital, and paternal. Our three theses deal with one of these forms of authority each. However, it only becomes clear that none of them has power over a person's conscience when we first consider what obedience a Christian who is subject to these forms of authority is indeed obliged to render. This is particularly necessary in our country in every respect. [Parental:] Children do not know what they owe their parents; parents do not know what duties they may demand of their children. Of course, they also do not know in which cases children may not obey their parents. The same is true in marriage. [Marital:] The wife does not know what obligations she has toward her husband, and even if she does know, she often does not want to admit it. But she usually does not know when she must not yield to her husband, but obey God alone. [Paternal:] It is well known that domestic servants are usually completely unaware of the sacred duty that rests upon them. They think it is a human institution for earning money; they think that the heart with which one performs one's service is irrelevant. Many even think that it does not matter whether one is faithful or unfaithful in one's daily work, as long as the master does not notice the unfaithfulness. It does not usually occur to servants that they should serve God in their position; rather, they think that it is their own business and that they are free to leave a family at any time, even if this causes the family to suffer. Such people all serve in the name of the devil and carry the curse with them from their masters' house.

Where is the church that sets itself the task of making known the true

divine teaching in these matters? Only the Lutheran Church has the true teaching about these three estates and shows how important they are. The old teachers of our church call the three orders “three hierarchies,” that is, three holy orders. Therefore, let us not be ashamed to deal with these simple catechism matters. It is precisely the nature of the most well-known and general truths that they are least respected, and yet we can never learn them all. Even if we lived for a thousand years, we would still not be finished with them. God's things are inexhaustible; when we enter into them, we find wonders upon wonders everywhere, and our bodies and souls are refreshed by them. If they were then put into practice, the earth would become a paradise. But the deluded children of the world and false Christians do not want to recognize this. They live, as it were, in a spiritual swamp and carry within them the fever of worldly thoughts, unable to get rid of it because they do not want to use the right medicine found in Scripture.

Thesis I.

That children 1. are bound according to God's Word not only to love their parents as God's representatives, but also to honor them and be subject and obedient in conscience to them in all things (the fourth commandment, Ex. 20:12, Eph. 6:2-3, Col. 3:20, 1 Kings 2:19; Luke 2:51).

Children should not merely love their parents. We should love all people, even our enemies. But children should also honor their parents according to the word of Scripture in Exodus 20:12: “Honor your father and your mother.” While love for one's neighbor is commanded in other cases, honor is also required toward parents. But what is honor? To honor means to love something with a holy reverence. Honor that is not connected with love is not true honor. If a person humbles himself outwardly before his parents only because it is customary in his circle, he does not give them true honor. Honor must come from the heart; it is something internal. A child must regard his parents as God's representatives to him. He must see a certain majesty in them, for they bear the majesty of God. The father may be pious or godless, but a father is a father. If a child treats his father with contempt, even if only with his expressions, God sees this as if the child had treated Him with contempt. If a powerful emperor sends a representative somewhere, and this representative is insulted, pelted with dung, or at least scolded like a common man, the emperor becomes enraged and sends his

servants to avenge the insulted honor. So it is here. If a son looks at his father with contempt, treats him with contempt, and contradicts him, he is a godless son of Cain and belongs to the race of Hamites. It does not help if such a son treats other people kindly and lovingly: if he is disobedient to his father, God sees this as a sin against Himself. But where have we ended up in our time? How devastated the relationship between fathers and children has become! How often do we find that a son thinks he is doing his old father the greatest honor by giving him a few dollars from his earnings now and then, but in reality he is ashamed of “the old man”! He has attained a certain level of education, and his poor father has spent his last penny to give his son an education; now he can do something thanks to his father's self-denial and the heavy sacrifices he has made, but now the son despises his old father, whom he considers simple-minded, and often does not even consider it worth the effort to speak to him. It is terrible when young people treat their parents this way; God does not look on this with indifference!

While the commandments are not repeated so completely elsewhere in the New Testament, the fourth commandment is quoted in full and transformed in an evangelical sense in Ephesians 6:2-3: “Honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise: that it may be well with you, and you may live long on the earth.” The apostle gives the promise a New Testament meaning; and it is always fulfilled. All godless boys who despise their parents will not prosper. Even if some who have treated their parents badly become rich and prosperous afterwards, it is God's judgment upon them. For when God is most angry with a person, He gives him everything he wants, feeding him as if he were an animal for slaughter, which is fattened up for the day of slaughter. Otherwise, no blessing rests on such disobedient children and their homes. They fare badly on earth, and God's wrath finally sweeps them away.

We have an example of a good, pious son in Solomon, 1 Kings 2:19: “Bathsheba came in to King Solomon to speak to him about Adonijah. And the king rose and went to meet her, and bowed down to her” (i.e., he bowed down to her to the ground), “and sat down on his throne. And a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand.” Let us remember this excellent example and hold it up to our children. Let us tell them how shameful it is when children treat their parents disrespectfully. But let us remember that it is just as shameful when parents tolerate such disrespectful behavior! The children are often less to blame than the parents who do not punish their children. When a son has grown up, learned something, and earned a lot of money,

parents are often afraid to say what they should say, and when he behaves badly and rules in the whole house as if he were the master, his parents do not punish him. Woe to the parents who act in this way! They are like Eli, who met a sudden and terrible death because of his negligence. Therefore, as we speak of the duties of children, let us also think of our parental duties and be certain that the unpunished sins of our children are our own sins! We must do things differently than the Americans; we must not follow what they consider decent. Our standard is not the fashion and customs of our country, but the Bible, and we must strictly follow it in these matters.

Col. 3:20: “Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.” This is a terrible word for the old Adam: “in everything.” But it is God's will that is being expressed here, and who would dare to contradict the Holy Spirit? This is not too much to say. It is clear that the apostle assumes here that the Colossians know well that those things which God has reserved for Himself are excluded.

Luke 2:51: “And he went down with them to Nazareth, and was subject unto them.” Here we are presented with the example of the Savior, and what an example it is! Jesus, the Prince of Life, the Lord of Glory, the only begotten Son of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, the Creator of the world, the Redeemer of sinners, is subject to Joseph the carpenter, who is only his foster father, and to Mary, his mother, a poor, weak woman! He had previously shown them that he was true God, saying, “I must be in my Father's house.” But no sooner had he given this small hint of the glory that belonged to him than he went home with them and obeyed them without protest. What an example to set for our children! Jesus was not ashamed to be subject to his parents in all things: should our children be ashamed to follow his example?

Chemnitz comments on this passage: "That Luke (chapter 2:51) adds, ‘and was subject to them,’ refers to external duties. And note the word ‘subject,’ which expresses the highest humiliation. For it means that external activities are governed by the rule of a higher authority; for it is attributed to slaves, children, women, and subjects who receive orders from their masters and carry them out.... From this passage, it is therefore certain that the parents often assigned the little boy Jesus a task or a job, which he then obediently carried out. And from this word, the ancients rightly concluded what Jesus did or what activities he was engaged in

before the age of thirty. For he had not yet begun his ministry and had not learned to write (John 7:15). Nor is it to be believed that he spent his life in idle repose. Basil *) [*) Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, died 379] therefore says: "At an early age, subject to his parents, he humbly and obediently submitted himself to some kind of physical labor. For although those people were righteous and pious, they were poor and did not have an abundance of the necessities of life, as evidenced by the manger that served as the birthplace of the exalted child. They were therefore rightly devoted to constant physical labor, seeking thereby to obtain the necessities of life. But Jesus, completely subject and obedient to them, also demonstrated his submission and obedience by taking on work.“So far Basilius. Justin assures us in his”Dialogue with Trypho" that Jesus was engaged in making yokes and plows until he was thirty years old, and this opinion is not based on mere assumptions of the ancients. Rather, the Nazarenes (who were undoubtedly well acquainted with the way of life Jesus lived before beginning his ministry) not only call him “a carpenter's son” (Matthew 13:55), but in Mark 6:2 they say, "Where did he get such things and such deeds that are done by his hands? Is he not the carpenter?' It should be noted that they mention his hands. For they are amazed and offended that such miracles, which reveal divine power, are performed by those hands, which they had seen performing a carpenter's work two years earlier.... In addition to describing humiliation and servitude, this story also teaches that Jesus wanted to sanctify children's obedience to their parents, so that through this sublime example of the Son of God's obedience to his mother and his foster father, a carpenter, obedience to parents would become sweeter for other children." (Harmonia ev. ad Luc. 2, 51)

Balduin writes: "The father is not obliged to give his children an account of the reasons for his commands, as a man is accustomed to consult with his wife about such matters and is obliged to do so; for she is subject to him by virtue of an agreement; but children are subject to their parents by nature, and therefore they are obliged to obey them in all things, not according to an agreement, but according to the commandment of the Apostle, Col. 3:20: ‘Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is pleasing to the Lord.’" (Tractatus de casibb. consc. p. 1227)

Some have thought that when excommunication is imposed on a father, the children are no longer required to obey him. But this is a

great error. Even if the Church has excommunicated a father and cut him off like a rotten limb, this does not change the relationship between him and his children. Even an excommunicated father must be obeyed and honored by his son, even if he does not perform his duties and honor him with the same joy as he would a pious father.

Balduin says about this: "Excommunication does not abolish civil relations, contracts, and commercial transactions with the excommunicated person, just as in the papacy the oaths of subjects and the obedience of children are abolished when the authorities or a father have been excommunicated. But because excommunication affects only the criminal, and not his friends and blood relatives, the subjects owe obedience to the authorities, and the wife to her husband, even though he has been excommunicated, and they may avail themselves of their services whenever necessity requires. For excommunication does not effect a separation of those whom God and nature have united, but only a separation from a particular church in ecclesiastical matters, until true repentance follows." (Tract. de casibb. consc. p. 1131)

The following was also noted here: What gives this matter its great importance is God's express word. Luther says: “God's Word sets my parents above all others and clothes them with divine majesty.” Even if parents may be insignificant, unrespected people in the eyes of reason, God's Word stands and remains: “Honor your father and your mother.” It is not human but divine respect that parents have. Just as Baptism is insignificant to reason, just as unenlightened eyes see only foul water in it, while we recognize from God's Word that it is a bath of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit through Christ's institution and promise, so too does the divine Word surround parents in the fourth commandment with a divine glory that can never be taken from them. Because the authority of parents is divine, they cannot forgive anything of it. If they do so, they sin against God and trample on His majesty. Again, this also illuminates what a glorious service children render to their parents; it is a service to God in the true sense of the word. — This also raises the question of how children should behave when their parents disagree, when the father allows something that the mother wants to forbid, e.g., an engagement on the part of the children. It should be remembered that Scripture says, “The husband is the head of the wife.” Consequently, when parents disagree, children must obey their father.

The nature of humans is different from the nature of angels. Angels were all created at once, probably on the

first days of creation, and none have been created since. As for humans, however, God first created only one, then brought forth a second person from him, and all humans are descended from these two. Even if humans had remained in a state of innocence, they would still have needed the help of other humans, since they are not born as adults. The task of helping them, however, is that of the parents. After the Fall, the need for help for children has become ever greater. Even if a child is born healthy, it would soon wither and perish if it did not have parents to care for and raise it, or other people to take over the parents' duties. After the Fall, however, there is something else to consider: there is nothing but evil in human nature. “The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.” Goodness does not come to the fore because it is not there. Parents now have the great task of resisting and controlling the evil that is in their children and of planting goodness in them; otherwise, only weeds and malice will sprout. Of course, this often looks just like the most beautiful plant. Some children have such a nature that everyone likes them; they are so well-behaved, friendly, and modest that anyone who does not have a spiritually open eye thinks they have very good children. And yet it is all nature, an outer veneer that has been painted over these children. “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child,” says Scripture. Therefore, our thesis goes on to say:

Therefore, children must submit themselves especially to the discipline of their parents. (Eph. 6:4, Gen. 18:19, 1 Tim. 4:6, 2 Tim. 3:15, Prov. 1:8, Deut. 6:6, 7. Proverbs 23:13, 14; 1 Sam. 2:23; 3:12, 13; Proverbs 19:18; Deut. 21:18-21).

Discipline has two meanings: first, instruction, and second, when instruction is fruitless, punishment. God's Word clearly states that it is the duty of children to submit to the discipline of their parents. Eph. 6:4: "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." The first words of this verse do not belong here, but they are of the utmost importance. Parents should not be the cause of their children's anger. Children can become angry through no fault of their parents, but if their parents are to blame, they have committed a great sin. We should not despise the little ones, but hold them in high esteem. Whoever has a child under his hands has, as it were, the eternal life of an immortal soul under his hands, a soul that is redeemed by Christ's blood and destined

to populate heaven, not hell. Fathers provoke their children to anger when they punish them in carnal passion and treat them unjustly. There are fathers who take out their bad mood on their children, and as ignorant as children are, they still have a conscience and feel quite well that their father is treating them unjustly. Then a certain anger arises in such a child. But it is the second part of the saying that is particularly relevant here. One might think: since it only speaks of the duty of parents, these words cannot be held against the children. But when God imposes on parents the duty to “bring up their children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord,” He thereby indirectly obliges the children to submit to this discipline and admonition. If a father wants to go on a journey and commands his steward in the presence of the children to supervise them in his absence and to punish them if necessary, the father does not need to say a word to the children himself: they hear for themselves that the steward has been given authority. Thus, the apostle's admonition also expresses God's will that children must submit to their parents' discipline, that they must allow themselves to be admonished, instructed, and even chastised when they have sinned.

Genesis 18:19: “I know that he (Abraham) will command his children and his household after him to keep the ways of the Lord, to do what is right and good; so that the Lord may bring upon Abraham what He has promised him.” If the Lord Himself rewards Abraham and answers his prayer because he will urge his children and his household after him to fear God, this indirectly expresses that this is a duty of parents from which they can never escape. A father who thinks he has no time, that he must attend to his business, and that because he leaves home early and comes home late, he must entrust the upbringing of his children to his wife or strangers, is a shameful father. It is the first duty of a father to lead his children to Christ and to plant true fear of God in their hearts, even if it is necessary to use the rod. God will demand an accounting on that day, and who is so foolish as to think he can get away with saying, “I didn't have time”? The upbringing of children takes precedence over everything else. This is not to say that a father who is very busy should not allow other people to help him in the upbringing of his children; in fact, we always do this. We send our children to school so that they may be educated there. That is why the Christian school is such a wonderful blessing that it cannot be expressed in human words. Parents should actually teach their children all good things themselves; but since they have to work and toil for their daily bread, God

is well satisfied if they do everything possible to entrust their children to good teachers who are known to understand the difficult task of raising children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord. In this country, the situation in this regard is sad. Many Americans say, “I don't want to teach my children any religion; they can wait until they grow up and then decide for themselves which religion they want to adopt.” But that is a truly satanic principle. That is why God gave children parents, so that they might, so to speak, instill the Word of God in their children with their mother's milk and encourage them day by day on the path of godliness. If they do not do so, they are bad parents, more malicious than wolves, who care better for their young than such miserable people care for their children. Since they do not want to do anything for the salvation of their children, they will go to hell for it. Children are a great and precious blessing. But with each additional child, the enormous responsibility also grows. Most people see children only as their toys, delight in them, hug and kiss them, and think that is enough. But they do not think at all that these children are to become citizens of the kingdom of heaven. They have their children baptized because that is the custom in the Lutheran Church, but they never remind their children of what God has given them in Baptism, of the covenant that the Lord has made with them. Nothing of this ever crosses the father's lips, let alone that he would take the little ones on his lap and talk to them about the Savior. No wonder some people cry over their wayward children. They should cry over themselves, because they did not begin in time to plant love for their Lord and Savior in their children's hearts. It is terrible how hard-hearted we have become in recent times, that a person can have a whole bunch of children, and even be proud of his beautiful family, and not think that these children are a gift from God, which He will reclaim and for which He will demand accountability. What are the sun, the moon, and all the stars compared to a child? The sun, moon, and stars will pass away, but the child shall live from eternity to eternity, in the blessed vision of the triune God. Woe to us, therefore, if we do not do everything in our power to bring our children to heaven! However, if someone recognizes his weakness every day and laments that he cannot carry out this important work as he should, he should take comfort. Then all is well with us if we recognize our weakness. But this knowledge should motivate us to perform this important task better and better. Parents must enter into closer spiritual communion with their children; children must realize that their father and mother are truly Christians. The child must recognize that the father cares for him and is concerned for the salvation of his soul. But if

a father passes by his children day after day in silence, not causing them any offense, but also not seeking to influence their young hearts, then he has shamefully neglected his duty. Herein lies the first duty of parents, to care for their children, not only physically, but also spiritually. But who would not have to accuse himself in this matter? Things must change for the better in this regard, and our dear synod must shine like a beacon in these last days. By God's grace, we have already become a great people. If all parents among us do their duty, the world cannot help but be amazed at the discipline that reigns in our homes, and we will thus do good to the world by our example. Woe to a Christian who does the opposite, who is said to be a pious man, who attends church diligently, etc., but who never speaks to his children about God's Word; who is grumpy with them and has his head full of other things!

The church of the New Testament also recognized and practiced this. This is attested to in 1 Timothy 4:6: “You will be a good servant of Jesus Christ, raised in the words of faith and good doctrine, which you have always followed.” We see from 2 Timothy 1:5 who raised Timothy in the words of faith and pure doctrine: “I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it lives in you also,” and chapter 3:15: “Since you have known the Holy Scriptures from childhood, they can instruct you for salvation.” These two passages are the key to the former. Grandmother Lois took little Timothy on her lap, recited proverbs to him, and tried to apply the proverbs to his little heart. This remained in Timothy's heart, and when he later met Paul, the apostle immediately noticed that the young man had a special gift from the Lord. Timothy's mother also expressed this praise, but unfortunately his father did not. This is still usually the case today. If you find a young Christian with good knowledge and a godly life and ask him where he got it from, he usually replies, “From my pious mother.” What his mother said has penetrated deep into his heart, and he has never forgotten it, even when he occasionally strayed from the right path. Then the thought of his mother's teachings startled him and brought him back on track. It is a real shame for men that one so rarely hears that they have made a special impression on their children with their Christianity. There are certainly exceptions, but the rule is that mothers care more about the salvation of their children than fathers do.

A wonderful passage that belongs here is Deuteronomy 6:6-7: “These words, which I command you today, shall be on your heart. You shall instill them in your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise.” It is not even enough for a father to tell his child what is written; he should also impress it upon him, reminding him how great and serious sin is, how it offends his Savior and drives away the Holy Spirit. It often happens that good Christians in a congregation excuse themselves by saying, “I cannot do that, I do not have the gift.” But that is an empty excuse. If they really do not have the gift, they should ask God to give it to them. They do not have it because they do not ask for it. This gift can be requested, and God will certainly not refuse it to those who ask Him for it.

But even more than that, instruction is not enough; it must also be taken seriously. This is what Scripture says in Proverbs 23:13-14: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.” People often say, “This is a free country, so even a father has no right to beat his children.” But it is a terrible blindness to speak this way. The father is responsible for the child, and now he is not allowed to discipline him? The proverb quoted above does not merely mean “discipline with words,” but the text indicates that the rod should also be used. Nor should one think that the rod is superfluous in any case. It must always be at hand. Evil is in the hearts of all people. Those who spare the rod deprive their children of salvation.

Here we have the example of Eli, 1 Sam. 2:23: “And he said unto them, Wherefore do ye such things? for I hear of your wickedness from all people.” Eli also chastised his children with words, but he did not show seriousness. But God did not tolerate his weakness, and Eli had to atone for this sin of omission with his death. This remarkable case concerns us all. Who would still have an unbroken neck if the Lord were to deal with everyone as He did with Eli?

Note also the words of Prov. 19:18: “Chastise your son, for there is hope.” From this we learn that discipline must begin in the cradle. It is unchristian foolishness when parents say that a child is too young and does not understand the blows. As soon as wickedness breaks out, the duty begins to control it with seriousness. There are enough Christian parents who, through no fault of their own, have wayward children. This is a great and terrible cross to bear, and far be it from us to weigh on the conscience of such parents, who have proven their faithfulness. Rather, they should be comforted in their heavy cross and shown

that the great saints of whom Scripture tells us often did not fare better. But experience teaches that in most such cases the parents themselves are to blame. They did not begin discipline early enough. Even small children who are still at their mother's breast often cry not only out of pain, hunger, or thirst, but one can see that they are full of anger and malice. In such cases, the child should not be picked up and calmed with sweet words, but discipline is appropriate. The child understands this well enough. It soon acquires a little understanding, and even small children have a conscience and quickly realize what punishment is all about. This discipline must be continued, and in this way one gets good children. But beware of turning your children into respectable hypocrites. There are parents who believe nothing bad about their children; who consider them good and pious; who become angry when told that their children have lied or committed some other sin; indeed, they often say outright, “My child does not lie,” and the like. But such parents raise nothing but Pharisees and hypocrites. For God's sake, we should make our children poor sinners at an early age. Why is it that so many children turn their backs on the church when their parents die? They may have grown up to the delight of everyone, but they always lived as hypocrites, were always praised, and everything was always interpreted in the best possible light. We must make children poor sinners through the way we raise them; that is the surest way to keep them in Christianity.

Finally, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 belongs here: "If anyone has a stubborn and disobedient son who does not obey his father and mother, and when they discipline him, he will not listen to them, then his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders of the city and to the gate of that place, and say to the elders of the city: This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and will not obey our voice, and is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the people of that city shall stone him to death, and you shall put away the evil from among you, that all Israel may hear and fear." In the old covenant, the church was merged with the state. Therefore, if children did not want to obey at home, it ultimately became a civil crime. In God's chosen people, such disobedient people were not to be tolerated, but put to death. But even now, in the New Testament, parents who tolerate their disobedient, wayward children in their homes are committing a grave sin. They should not bring them before the secular authorities; but if they do not comply with the house rules, they should be sent out of the house. As long as the children are young, the church, the congregation, has nothing to do with them. But if such a

disobedient, rebellious child has already reached the age to be admitted to Holy Communion, the congregation is the supreme judge. And if such a child causes offense to the whole congregation through its wickedness, it must be brought before the congregation and excluded from communion if it does not repent. —

On this subject, the following testimonies of Lutheran theologians:

Luther writes: "God has never said to anyone, ‘Take the land or kingdom,’ except to the Jews. But he has instituted the authority of parents, which is the greatest and best, over their children and servants; this was commanded to our first father Adam in express terms. After that, he commanded it again through Moses (Exodus 20:12): ‘Honor your father and mother!’ Therefore, this authority is greater than that of all kings and emperors, second only to God.... This authority is given and established so that children may be raised and taught God's Word, to know, fear, and believe in God, so that a father should actually be a bishop and pastor of his household. For he has the same authority over his children and servants as a bishop has over his people." (Sermon on Genesis 1527. III, 285 f. [StL 3, 193 f.])

The same: "Married couples should know that they can do no better work or service for God, for Christianity, for the whole world, for themselves, and for their children than to raise their children well. Pilgrimages to Rome, to Jerusalem, to St. James, building churches, founding masses, or whatever other works may be named, are nothing compared to this one work, that married couples raise their children. For this is the most important road to heaven, and they cannot attain heaven sooner or better than by this work. It is also their own work (i.e., entrusted to them in particular), and if they do not apply themselves to it, it is as wrong as if fire did not burn or water did not wet. So, in turn, hell is not more easily deserved than by one's own children, even if they do not do any harmful work, because they neglect their children, let them curse, swear, teach shameful words and songs, and live according to their will. In addition, some of them provoke them with worldly adornments and encouragement to seek only worldly pleasures, to rise high and become rich, always caring more for the body than for the soul. — There is also no greater harm to Christianity than neglecting children. For if one wants to help Christianity again, one must truly begin with the children, as was done in former times... Therefore, it is highly necessary for every married person to care more deeply and diligently for the soul of their child than for the flesh that comes from them, and to regard their child

as nothing other than a precious eternal treasure entrusted to them by God to keep safe from the devil, the world, and the flesh, lest they steal and kill it. For they will be called to account for it in death and on the last day with a sharp reckoning. For where do you think the terrible howling and wailing of those who will cry out (Luke 23:29) will come from: “Blessed are the bodies that have not borne children and the breasts that have not nursed!”? Without doubt, because they did not bring their children back to God, from whom they had received them to keep. O truly, a noble, great, blessed estate, the married estate, if it is kept right.... Finally, if you want to atone for all your sins and obtain the highest indulgence here and there, die blissfully, and extend your lineage far and wide, then look with all seriousness at the third part: to raise your children well. If you cannot do this, then ask and seek out other people who can, and do not spare any expense, food, effort, or labor. For these are the churches, altars, testaments, vigils, and masses for the dead that you leave behind, which will also shine upon you in death and wherever you go. Soli Deo Gloria!" (Sermon on the married estate. 1517. X, 761—763 [StL 10, 643-645; AE 44:12 ff.])

The same: "What else is it but sacrificing and burning one's own child to idols, when parents love their children more for the sake of the world than for God? They let them go and, burned by worldly lust, love, joy, goods, and honor, God's love, honor, and eternal good pleasure are extinguished in them. Oh, how dangerous it is to be a father and mother where only flesh and blood reigns! For truly, it is upon this (fourth) commandment that the first three and the last six are recognized and kept, since parents are commanded to teach their children such things, as in Psalm 78:5–6: “He established a testimony in Jacob and gave a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach their children, that the generations to come, even the children yet to be born, when they arise, may also declare it to their children.” This is also the reason why God commands parents to honor, that is, to love with fear; for this love is without fear, and therefore it is more dishonor than honor." (Sermon on Good Works. 1520. X, 1644 f. [StL 10, 1360 f.; AE 44:83])

Gerhard: “King David placed his son Solomon under the guidance of Nathan the prophet* (2 Sam. 12:25), that is, he ensured that he was diligently instructed in the true religion by Nathan, his court preacher, and guided to all godliness and virtue.” (Loc. de magistr. § 151.)

Luther: "In particular, the authorities and parents should also strive to govern well and send their children to school, pointing out how they are obliged to do so, and if they fail to do so, what a

accursed sin they are committing. For by doing so, they destroy and devastate both God's kingdom and the world, as the worst enemies of both God and man. And mark well what terrible damage they do when they do not help raise children to become pastors, preachers, clerks, etc., that God will punish them terribly for it. For it is necessary to preach here; the parents and authorities are now sinning in this matter beyond words. The devil also has something cruel in mind with this." (Preface to the Small Catechism. 19-20)

The same: "But those who do not want to learn this, who deny Christ and are not Christians, should not be allowed to receive the sacrament, should not be baptized, and should not enjoy any Christian freedom, but should be sent back to the pope and his officials, and to the devil himself. In addition, their parents and landlords shall deny them food and drink and inform them that the prince wants to drive such uncivilized people out of the country, etc. For although no one can or should be forced to believe, the crowd should nevertheless be kept in check and driven to know what is right and wrong among those with whom they want to live, eat, and reside. For whoever wants to live in a city should know and observe the city laws that he wants to enjoy, God grant it, whether he believes or is in his heart a rogue or a scoundrel." (Preface to the Small Catechism, § 11-13.) This passage is often held up to us as proof that Luther was also in favor of coercion of faith. But here there is no mention of a case in which a religion is to be imposed on someone against their conscience, but rather of unscrupulous, crude, undisciplined, lazy subjects who learn nothing but want to remain in their innate ignorance and crudeness. Carpzov therefore comments on Luther's words: “It is one thing to compel people to believe, and another to ensure external discipline so that brutality and godlessness do not take deeper root.” (Isag. in libr. symb. p. 946.)

The following story was also read aloud, which Theodoret *) [*) Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, died 457] recounts in his continuation of Eusebius' church history: "While Julian was causing unrest with his threats, he was defeated by a Beroen. The latter was already famous as the supreme ruler of the Beroen Republic; but he became even more famous for the fervor of his heart for Christ. For when he learned that his son had fallen into the godlessness that was growing ever greater at that time, he cast him out of the house and publicly renounced him. Thereupon, the son met the emperor in the inn nearest to the city, to whom he presented both his opinion and his father's

renunciation. The emperor told him to be calm, for he would reconcile his father with him. And when he came to Berea, he invited the magistrate and the most distinguished citizens to a dinner, among whom was the father of that young man. He had the father sit down on the same couch with his son, and during the meal he said to the father: It does not seem right and fair to me to use force against someone who is inclined to something else and to change his mind to something else that he does not want. Therefore, do not use force against your son, who rejects your dogmas (doctrines of faith). For I do not force you to accept mine, even though I could very well force you to do so.' But the father, conscious of his divine religion, says: “What? Are you talking, O Emperor, about that senseless man who hates God and prefers lies to the truth?” Whereupon the emperor, assuming a gentle expression, says: “Stop scolding!” and, turning his face away from him, says to the young man: “I will take care of you, because I cannot persuade your father to do so.” — I have not recounted this (adds Theodoret) without purpose, but in order to show not only the courage of that admirable man, but also that Julian's power was despised by most people." (Theodoreti opp. Tom. II. fol. 291. cf. Antores hist. eccles.sive Tripart. 1523. fol. 470 sq.)

Of the last days, in which we undoubtedly live, the Savior says that it will be as it was in the days of Noah before the Flood, and he uses the words: “They will marry and be given in marriage.” The Lord is undoubtedly referring to Genesis 6, where it is recounted that before the Flood, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took wives for themselves. They no longer bound themselves to any law. They had abandoned the promise and therefore despised the commandments. So it is now that even in Germany, where good manners were otherwise more important, and even more so here in America, it is no longer a matter of concern whether parents give their consent to a marriage. This is clear evidence that the fourth commandment has almost been abolished. For what kind of honoring of parents is it when children marry whomever they want, behind their parents' backs, against their will, without perhaps even asking their parents? This is not honoring one's parents, but shamefully despising them, and is a grievous transgression of the fourth commandment. And how much unhappiness this brings upon a family! Many a father looks with pleasure upon his son or daughter and thinks with joy of the time when a dear son-in-law or a faithful daughter-in-law will be brought into his house. But his children choose people whom their father wants nothing to do with, who speak a different language, are of a different nationality, or

are even of bad character, and they form relationships with them behind his back. Family happiness is ruined, and unfortunately the newspapers all too often report such events, which also frequently occur in the highest social classes. Such incidents cause godly parents great heartache, as we see from the example of Rebekah. Her son Esau took two wives from among the daughters of the Hittites. But they behaved in such a way that Rebekah said to Isaac, “If Jacob also does this, what good is life to me?” She had become completely weary of life, for the two wives had caused disruption throughout the entire family. This is especially the case when the godless son also takes a person of a different faith; even if he attends church with his parents for a while, this usually soon ceases. Then he follows his wife and engages in idolatry with her. It is impossible to express how shameful it is when children marry against their parents' will. Unfortunately, there are not only justices of the peace, but also so-called Christian, evangelical, even Lutheran pastors who bless such godless children, while it is the devil who drives them to act against God and His commandments. This shows how low the so-called clergy has sunk. For such preachers, who unite godless children in marriage for money and goods, are undoubtedly shameful belly priests and miserable hirelings, who are not even worthy of crossing the threshold of the church, let alone stepping into the pulpit and at the altar. But they are found everywhere, and souls who want to be pious consider such behavior to be perfectly acceptable. They believe that as soon as children have reached the legal age of majority, they have every right to marry according to their own will, and that pastors therefore have a duty to unite them. This also stems in large part from the false doctrine of authority, which holds that whatever the authorities permit is permissible in general, even for Christians. The main cause, however, is and remains that people no longer fear God and His holy Ten Commandments. Now we should know that, according to God's Word, any engagement entered into by children without the consent of their parents is completely invalid. And even if someone were a widower and already of marriageable age, but still had a father, he must respect him and cannot enter into a new marriage without his father's permission. Therefore, our first thesis further tells us that children, in particular

b. when starting their own family, must obtain their parents' consent when choosing a spouse. (1 Cor. 7:36-38. Deut. 7:3. Gen. 29:21. Judg. 14:12; Ex. 22:17; Gen. 26:34-35; Num. 30:4-6.)

This is based on God's Word. In 1 Cor. 7:36-38 we read: "But if anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, because she is past the age of marriage, and he cannot control himself, let him do as he wishes; let him marry her. But if anyone is firmly resolved, because he is free and has his own will, and decides in his heart to keep his virgin, he does well. Finally, he who marries does well; but he who does not marry does better." At that time, the persecution of Christians was already underway, and the apostle had undoubtedly seen many cases where those who had recently married denied the gospel of Christ out of love for their wives and children. Therefore, he advises Christians here not to rush into marriage, but to wait until the storm has passed. But he is very careful not to bind consciences in matters that the Word of God neither commands nor forbids. He gives only good, well-intentioned advice here, not a command. But note well: there is no word about what the children should do when marrying, but only what the father should do, which naturally includes the mother. The apostle thus gives the fathers full authority to act. He does not even say that fathers should ask their children about their inclinations, although a fatherly-minded head of the household will certainly do so, even if it is not essential to the matter, but only for the sake of prosperity. The apostle, however, remains strict in his view that a father has the right to marry off his daughter and thus also his son as he himself wishes. This idea has completely disappeared in Christianity, and the result is that all divine orders in the world that are connected with subordination have been overturned and are still being overturned. But that is precisely why we, as an orthodox church, should allow ourselves to be guided by such crystal-clear statements from Holy Scripture, for God's sake. The father has the right to say to his child, “You shall marry this person, that is what I want!” Of course, circumstances may arise in which a father cannot act according to his own will, but he always has the power to do what he wants. Children are his property and not their own masters; they are subject to their parents in all things.

This was not first established in the New Testament. In Deuteronomy 7:3, we read: “You shall not make friends with them (the heathen), you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons.” The children of Israel were not to enter into blood ties with the Gentiles. There is also no mention of the freedom of the children, but only of the freedom of the parents, who can give their daughter to a man and their son to a woman. Therefore, we must be clear: it is not the children who are to marry, but the parents who are to marry off their children. The

children do not have the right to choose a person behind their parents' backs and perhaps even make a secret promise, but they should first discuss it with their parents. Therefore, when a young man asks a father for his daughter's hand, the father should ask whether the suitor already has his own father's consent to the union. Until he can prove this, the girl's father should not even listen to him.

Genesis 29:21: “Jacob said to Laban, ‘Give me my wife now.’” Laban had promised Rachel to Jacob as his wife for seven years of service. Now that the period of service had expired, Jacob did not simply go and take the girl, but came to Laban and demanded her from him. He wanted his wife to be given to him, not to take her himself. Where is that the case today? The world finds such behavior ridiculous, and when it reads that children have shamefully deceived and betrayed their parents in these matters, the world laughs and mocks the poor parents on top of that. It is also noteworthy that Jacob says, “My wife.” He could also have said, “My bride, my fiancée.” But those who are betrothed are married before God. It is not living together that makes a couple married, but the mutual promise with the permission of both parents. Otherwise, fornicators would be bound to each other by their fornication in such a way that the bond could not be broken again.

Judges 14:1-2 contains a most remarkable example: "Samson went down to Timnah and saw a woman in Timnah among the daughters of the Philistines. And when he came up, he said to his father and mother, 'I have seen a woman in Timnah among the daughters of the Philistines; now give me this woman as my wife." Samson was a chosen instrument of the Lord, through whom God wanted to do great things against the bitter enemies of the chosen people of Israel. He sees a woman among the Philistines, and it occurs to him that he must marry her. He himself undoubtedly did not really know why this was so, but God wanted to place him in the midst of the Philistines in this way so that he could drive them into pairs. But Samson did not say a word to the woman or her parents, but went home, first discussed it with his father and mother, and asked them to give him the woman in marriage. If a young man acts like this today, he is ridiculed by the world and by false Christians.

Exodus 22:17: "But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out the money that is due to a virgin as a dowry. " According to this passage, the father of a defiled girl had to decide whether or not the defiler should be forgiven for his sin. He could give him the girl as his wife,

but he could also prevent the marriage and demand that the sinner give the girl the usual dowry.

Genesis 26:34-35: “When Esau was forty years old, he took as his wife Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basmath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Both of them caused Isaac and Rebekah great grief.” What is described here still happens frequently today. Who has not heard of Christian fathers, and even more so Christian mothers, wishing for death when their godless sons bring godless daughters-in-law into the house, or their godless daughters bring godless husbands? It is most terrible when the parents are good Lutherans and the children marry Papists, so that the doors of the house are opened to Roman priests.

Num. 30:4–6.: "If a woman makes a vow to the Lord and binds herself while she is still in her father's house and in her maidenhood, and her vow and bond that she makes concerning her soul comes before her father, and he is silent about it, then all her vows and all her bonds that she has bound herself with concerning her soul shall stand. But if her father forbids it on the day he hears of it, then none of the vows or pledges she has made concerning her soul shall stand; and the Lord will be gracious to her because her father forbade it." This is a particularly important passage. If a daughter is still unmarried, she is, according to the Holy Spirit's expression, still “in maidenhood”; she is her father's maid, just as the son is his father's servant. If a girl made a vow to God at that time, it was tantamount to an oath, since she was dealing with God. But if the father noticed that his daughter had made a vow and he did not like it, perhaps because the vow was such that it would render the girl unfit for strenuous necessary work for a certain period of time, and the like, the father could forbid her to keep the vow. This freed the girl before God, and she did not need to fear losing God's grace if she did not fulfill what she had promised. But if even such a vow could be overturned by the father, it is clear and obvious that this is also the case with an arbitrary promise of marriage made by the children. The father can also revoke such a promise, or rather, he can declare it null and void. However, there is also tacit consent (tacitus consensus). The father can behave in such a way that everyone can see that he had no objection to his son spending a year and a day with a girl, so that it is obvious that he also has no objection to the two of them getting married. In doing so, he has given his tacit consent without having to say a word. Of course, a father can even less revoke a consent that he has actually given. Once the parents have given their consent,

the matter is out of their hands, for then God has also given His consent. If such an engagement were to be broken, it would first have to be proven that God the Lord also revokes His consent. If this cannot be proven, then one commits the terrible sin of adultery by breaking off such an engagement. Therefore, one should be careful not to give one's consent lightly in this important matter. Even if it later becomes apparent that the future son-in-law or daughter-in-law is a bad person, lazy, careless, an alcoholic, or the like, all complaints are of no avail. It is then just as if a layman, out of hostility toward the ministry, baptizes his children himself. If he has performed the act according to Christ's institution, the child is truly baptized. Likewise, young people are married as soon as they have given their vows with the consent of their parents; it is of no use to regret it later.

The following passages also belong here: Genesis 38:6: “And Judah gave his firstborn son Er a wife named Tamar.” 21:21: “His mother took him (Ishmael) a wife from the land of Egypt.” 24:3: “Swear to me by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.”

On this subject, we read the following in the Smalcald Articles: “It is also wrong... that any marriage which is entered into secretly and with deceit, without the parents' prior knowledge and consent, should be valid and binding.” (Tr 78) The Lutheran Church has also renounced the abominations of the papacy in this matter. The papists recognize secret betrothals. They say that if a couple of young people have promised to marry each other even without the consent of their parents, no one can dissolve this promise except, at most, the Pope. But they must do so because they allow children to enter a monastery without their parents' consent and, as they say, to betroth themselves to Christ. Only in the case of very young children do they sometimes require the consent of the parents; in other cases, they go so far as to not even allow the closest relatives to visit after the children have entered the monastery.

Tertullian writes: “Nor can children validly and lawfully marry without the consent of their parents.” *) (Ad uxorem. 2, 7.) [*) “Nec filii inter se sine consensuparentumritte et jure nubunt.”] This is the language of the early Christian church. Something can be valid and yet not lawful, such as a Baptism performed by a lay person without necessity. In our case, if a son or daughter marries

without the consent of their parents, it is not only unlawful but also invalid. It is not merely a nice, lovely, pious way to enter into marriage that one first asks one's parents, but it is a matter of necessity; that is, if it does not happen, no marriage comes into being. Sometimes, of course, the state takes the place of the parents and gives permission. Then the marriage is valid, but not lawful.

Balduin writes: "Are children obliged to seek the consent of their parents when entering into marriage? Answer: This question is disputed in various ways, especially in the papacy, where almost all reverence of children for their parents has been abolished by papal church laws... In our church, however, it is taught with great unanimity that the consent of the parents is necessary for the marriage to be valid, *) [*) Not only fine and praiseworthy!] and so much so that the father, if he has just cause, can break off the marriage that has been entered into but not yet consummated, or, if it has been consummated, disinherit the disobedient son; as the church order of this electorate states under the heading “on matrimonial matters” fol. 99. By “parents” we mean not only father and mother, but also grandfather and grandmother, if the father and mother are absent. We will only give here the main proofs, which alone are sufficient to satisfy the conscience:

"1.) God has commanded us to honor our father and mother, which honor requires not only reverence but also obedience from children, so that they ask their parents for advice in such a serious matter as marriage and obey their advice. Therefore, Paul wants children to be obedient to their parents in all things (Col. 3:20), namely in those things that are not contrary to God, as we have heard above.

"2.) There are explicit laws that require parents to take care of the marriage of their children; for example: “that you take their daughters as wives for your sons” (Ex. 34:16); “you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons” (Deut. 7:3); “take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands” (Jer. 29:6); “Advise your daughter, and you will have done a great thing, and give her to a sensible man” (Sir. 7:27); “He who marries his virgin daughter does well” (1 Cor. 7:30).

“3.) The father is permitted to prevent the marriage of his daughter who has been defiled by another, for it is said:”If the father refuses to give her to him, he (the defiler) shall weigh out gold, as much as a virgin's dowry is worth" (Ex. 22:17). If, according to this, a father can invalidate the marriage of his already defiled

daughter by his objection, how much more can he prevent the engagement while the matter is still intact (integra)?

"4.) There is also no shortage of examples of parents who have married off their children. Hagar took a wife for her son Ishmael from the land of Egypt (Genesis 21:21). Abraham sends his servant Eliezer to find a wife for his son (Genesis 24:3). Bethuel betrothed his daughter to Isaac (Gen. 24:51, 57). Isaac sent Jacob to Mesopotamia for the purpose of marriage (Gen. 29:19). Judah gave his firstborn son Er a wife (Gen. 38:7). The same is read of Caleb (Judges 1:12-13), of the judge Ebzan (Judges 12:9), and of Raguel (Tobit 7:14-15). We also have examples of children asking their parents' consent to their marriage. Samson says to his parents: “I have seen a woman in Timnah; now give her to me as my wife” (Judges 14:2). Tamar, David's daughter, leaves the decision about her marriage to her father's discretion (2 Sam. 13:13). An angel advised Tobias to ask his relative Raguel for a wife (Tob. 6:13 ff.).

"5.) A father can invalidate his daughter's vow if he has not approved it with his consent. Num. 30:6: “If her father forbids it on the day he hears of it, no vow or commitment she has made concerning her soul shall be valid, and the Lord will be gracious to her because her father has forbidden it.” *) [*) Wilisch's “Parallel Bible” makes the undoubtedly correct observation on this passage: "Although only daughters, as the weakest instruments (1 Pet. 3:7), are mentioned here, sons are also undoubtedly included, as they might otherwise be considered to have more understanding and caution in avoiding rash vows. But since both a son and a daughter can err in this matter, and both are subject to the fourth commandment, and both the son and the daughter are under the authority and power of their father, a father is authorized to judge both his son's vow and his daughter's. But if it is not entirely within the power and authority of children and their discretion to make a vow, then it is even less appropriate for them to enter into a marriage vow for the rest of their lives without their parents' knowledge and consent."] Thus, a father can also overturn a marriage promise that has not been approved by his consent, which is why consent is necessary for entering into marriage.

"6.) Even reasonable pagans agree with this truth, from whom Ambrose quotes a line from Euripides' Andromache, where Hermione, the daughter of Helen, says to Orestes, who was courting her: 'My father will take care of my marriage, for that is not my concern.

“7.) Civil laws also agree....

”8.) The laws of papal jurisdiction also concur with this.... We consider it unnecessary to provide further evidence. The necessity

of parental consent in the marriage of children has been sufficiently proven by what has been said; whereby what has been said of the father must also be assumed of the mother, whatever the lawyers may object here regarding the weakness of the sex and the power of affections in mothers. For divine law teaches that the mother is to be honored just as the father (Exodus 20:12), which is why Scripture always mentions the father and mother together when dealing with the honor of parents (Deuteronomy 27:6, Proverbs 19:26, 20:20, Ephesians 6:2). Children certainly belong equally to their mother and father; indeed, they have caused their mother the most trouble in childbirth, in nursing, and in raising them, as the old Tobias impresses upon his son with the words: “Honor your mother all your life; remember what she endured for you when she carried you under her heart” (Tob. 4:3, 4). Why, then, should children not honor their mothers by asking their advice when entering into a marital union that will take them into a foreign family? And who would dare to snatch children, who are the special property of their mothers, from them against their will?

"Therefore, we read in Scripture examples of mothers who either married off their children or were asked for advice in doing so, such as Hagar, of whom it is said, ‘And his (Ishmael's) mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt’ (Gen. 21:21). Rebekah consults with her husband about Jacob's marriage when it says, ‘And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am weary of living before the daughters of Heth. If Jacob takes a wife from among the daughters of Heth, who are like the daughters of this land, what good will my life be to me?”’ (Genesis 27:46). Samson is another example, who revealed his intention to marry the daughter of a Philistine to both his mother and his father (Judges 14:2), etc. In Euripides' Iphigenia, Clytemnestra says: “Should I not be allowed to marry off the children I have borne?”

However, in some passages of Scripture, only the father is mentioned in this matter, e.g., Exodus 22:17: “But if the father refuses to give her to him (the seducer)”; furthermore, Numbers 30:6: ‘But if her father forbids it on the day he hears of it, no vow or promise shall be binding’; this does not exclude the consent of the mother, but only requires the consent of the father in particular. For if the father does not agree with the mother on the marriage of their children, the consent of the father will undoubtedly take precedence, because the man is the master of the woman, but the woman is under the man." (Tract. de casib. consc. 1628. p. 1230—1235)

Seb. Schmidt writes on Genesis 26:34-35: "It is obvious that neither Isaac nor Rebekah were pleased with Esau's marriages, and that Esau therefore entered into them without their consent,

whereupon these marriages only became valid through the forbearance and tolerance of the parents. Hence the popes want to prove in vain from this that secret marriages are permissible or valid.“(Super Mosis Lib. I. Genes. 1. c.)

The Parallel Bible by Wilisch writes on Genesis 24:37:”My lord took an oath from me and said: You shall not take a wife for my son from among the daughters of the Canaanites, in whose land I dwell.“The following:”Children should therefore not marry against their parents' will and take whomever they want as wives or husbands; for this is counted among the sins of men before the Flood. Genesis 6:2." (I. fol. 130.)

Luther also writes on the passage Genesis 6:2 (“And the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose”) as follows: “Moses blames them” (the people before the Flood) “solely for this as their fault, that they cast aside the law of their fathers and did not keep a certain order of marriage, but followed their lust badly and took those they loved by force, against their parents' will.” (W1 I, 762 [sic I, 672; StL 1, 445; AE 2, 10]) — [The history of the Jesuit order:]

When Luther, almost 350 years ago, had placed the bright light of the Gospel back on the candlestick, so that it now shone again on all Christendom, he had at the same time inflicted a mortal wound on the papacy. The throne of the Pope wavered and faltered in all the lands of Christendom. Then the devil awakened a fanatical spirit in Spain, an officer named Ignatius of Loyola. He founded a new order whose members were not only to take the three vows of monks, namely to be obedient to their superiors, to remain unmarried, and to have no personal property, but he added to these vows that they should obey the pope unconditionally. And if he were to send them to the ends of the earth without giving them a penny for travel expenses, they would be bound to go. The then Pope Paul III soon realized that this was a valuable bodyguard for him, and therefore confirmed this order in 1540, which had set itself the goal of reestablishing the faltering papacy, healing the wounds that Luther had inflicted on it, to reestablish the Pope's rule throughout Christendom, and above all to gain control over the consciences of all people. They wanted to bring it to the point where they and the priests devoted to them would actually be the conscience of the people. People were not to follow the conscience they had received at birth, but were to know that, whatever their conscience might say, they had to do what their Jesuit confessor demanded. It is clear that the most godless society that has ever existed is that of the so-called

“Jesuit Order,” whose ultimate goal is to gain control over the consciences of all people. In this, the Jesuits went so far as to conspire against the Pope whenever he thwarted their plans for political reasons. In 1773, Pope Clement XIV abolished the Jesuit Order because all Catholic political powers had demanded it. It was recognized that this was the most dangerous order to the state that existed. Everywhere they instigated conspiracies, even against governments. They actually wanted to be the ones who told kings and emperors how they should act. It is therefore not love for the pope or the papacy, but love of power that drives this nefarious society. It is true that it is the nature of all secular and spiritual tyrants to demand that their subordinates act against their conscience on their orders. But to teach openly and directly that they have the power and right to rule over the faith and conscience of men, that is, to command men to believe what they consider to be error and to do what they consider to be sin, is something that few in the world dare to undertake. How shamefully the Russian emperor is now [in 1886] acting against the poor Lutherans! He torments the consciences of their poor pastors to the utmost, forbidding them to do what they swore before God when they took office, and commanding them to do what is contrary to their oath of office. But nevertheless, neither the emperor nor the popes subordinate to him dare to say that they have the power and right to rule over faith and conscience. Few in the world dare to say this, but among these few is above all the Jesuit Order. This order has given itself a constitution in which it states: “It has seemed good to us in the Lord that no stipulations, declarations, or rules of life can entail the obligation to commit a mortal sin or a venial sin, unless the superior commands it in the name of Jesus Christ or by virtue of obedience!” A member of this order must therefore also commit a mortal sin if the superior commands him to do so in the name of Jesus Christ and by virtue of the obedience that the Jesuit has sworn to perform. This constitution remained hidden for a long time; the Jesuits kept it only among themselves and no one else got their hands on it. But when Clement XIV abolished the order in 1773, all their monasteries were quickly sealed. They themselves were expelled, and now, of course, the constitution in its true wording also came into the hands of the laity. The register of the Prague edition summarizes the quoted words as follows: “The superiors can make it binding to sin in the name of obedience if this benefits many.” They have the diabolical principle that if one has a good purpose, one can use any means. They go so far as to say that if one has a good purpose in mind,

one can even kill one's own father. If the son sees that his father is squandering the family fortune, he can, according to the Jesuit principle, kill his father if he has the good purpose of managing the fortune better. In short, no means are too bad: the Jesuits approve of them if they are used for a good purpose. There is not one of the Ten Commandments from which they do not dispense according to their wicked principle.

But the Jesuits not only have this appalling principle, they have also acted according to it time and again. Whenever a superior commands any Jesuit to commit a sin, that is, to do something against his conscience, even if it is the most appalling thing imaginable, regicide, treason, poisoning wells, and the like, the subordinate, who has sworn unconditional obedience, is obliged to carry out the orders. One may be tempted to think that this is an exaggerated portrayal of Jesuitism, but it is really nothing but the pure truth. The Jesuits also undoubtedly killed Pope Clement XIV with a terrible poison that took effect over a long period of time. The Pope himself said, when he signed the bull of suppression: “I am signing my death warrant.” No sooner had the bull been issued than he fell ill and died a miserable death. After his death, his entire body turned black, his head fell off his torso, and the capsule in which his heart had been enclosed burst because the fluids began to ferment violently. That is how terrible the poison was. There were Jesuits who wrote entire books on the preparation of poisons. They had a poison of which only a small speck was sprinkled on a letter; when the reader inhaled it, he had to die. Pius VII reestablished this shameful order in 1814, even though Clement XIV had said that it would be abolished forever. The current pope has solemnly reconfirmed it once again. Before he became pope, he was not a bad man; but since then, it seems as if the devil himself has entered him. He was previously a bitter enemy of the Jesuits; now, as pope, he has become their best friend. —

Since, according to God's Word, we do not grant any human being power over the conscience of another human being, we say, despite the great power given to parents over their children,

2. that parents have neither the right nor the power to rule over the faith and conscience of their children (Eph. 6:1, Matt. 10:34-37; Deut. 33:9; Luke 2:48-49; John 2:3-4; 1 Sam. 20:30-34; Gen. 24:58; Num. 30:5).

No father or mother can command anything that is against a child's conscience. If they did so, the disobedience

on the part of the children would be divine obedience. One can disobey a police officer without despising the authorities if the police commissioner is standing next to him and prevents the arrest. The one who stands above the police officer has the greater power. The Most High is God in heaven; what He says must be done. When creatures presume to give commands against God's will, these commands have no validity, whatever they may be, even if an angel or archangel were to bring them. God has reserved for himself the right to rule over consciences. For conscience is the voice of God within every human being, accusing and condemning him when he says with his mouth that he believes something he considers false in his heart, or when he does or wants to do something he considers sinful. We experience this every day and every hour. If we consider something to be wrong, but say “I believe it” out of fear, the voice within us says: “That is shameful and wrong, you are a liar and a hypocrite.” Or if someone wants to commit an act that they know is a sin, the voice of conscience immediately speaks up and says: “That is sin, you must not do it.” And if someone has committed a sin out of rashness, conscience does not remain silent, but says: “That was sin, you must ask God for forgiveness, or you cannot stand in His grace.” It is a great mercy of God that He left us our conscience after the Fall. Romans 14:20 says, “All things indeed are clean, but it is not good for the man to eat anything that causes his brother to stumble.” Paul means to say: Everything that God has caused to grow, man may eat and not sin; but if he eats or drinks it while he considers it to be sin in his conscience due to a lack of knowledge, then it also becomes sin for him, even though it would otherwise be a free thing, indeed, something extraordinarily good that he has done. God wants us to be guided by this inner divine judge. In everything we do, we must have a good conscience, or we are miserable people. If, therefore, children had to do something they considered wrong and unjust because their parents commanded it, the parents would have the power to lead their children to hell. That is a terrifying thought! Parents could then say: “Do this, for which you will be damned!” Then parental authority would indeed be a terrible power, not for good, but for evil, not for heaven, but for hell, not for salvation, but for damnation. But God has not given this power to parents, and if they presume to exercise it, they make themselves gods. Because God has power over the conscience, it remains silent as soon as the Lord speaks. A Christian often has serious doubts about whether something is right or wrong. They will not be reassured by simply being told, “Just do it, it is not

wrong,” but will only be certain and satisfied when they know what God has written in His Word. Those children who obey their parents against their conscience will be lost with their parents.

Eph. 6:1: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord.” The addition of “in the Lord” forms a powerful barrier to the power of parents. If we cannot do something in the Lord, that is, in the certainty that it pleases the Lord, we must rather tell ourselves that it is against the express will of the Lord, and we must not do it.

Matthew 10:34-37: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.” Everyone will immediately say to themselves: These words cannot mean that the Savior desires strife and quarreling, hatred, enmity, and persecution. Rather, he has come to put an end to all strife. This is what the holy angels meant at Christ's birth when they sang: “Peace on earth.” Rather, he means to say with these words: I have come to proclaim a teaching that most people will not accept, but will reject. They will be enraged by this teaching and will want nothing to do with it. When others accept my teaching, those people will become its enemies. — These words of Christ prove true at all times. When a father converts, his godless son becomes a leper to him. If the son converts, he returns to his father's house a completely different person, grieves over the sin he sees there, and punishes wrongdoing, even if in a loving manner, the others become his enemies. Wherever a righteous preacher goes, no matter how peaceful the conditions may have been before, when he begins to preach the word of conversion, that man must change and be born again if he wants to be saved, that one must pray fervently and lead a Christian life, and avoid the world and its pleasures, the living, powerful word of God will strike everywhere like lightning. Some will accept it with joy, be converted by God's power, and begin a new life. Others, however, remain in their wickedness and become bitter enemies of the word and of those who profess it. Then strife and contention arise where false peace had previously reigned, strife and contention even in the midst of families. This is what Christ's words mean. That is why the Savior even rejoices when this war begins, not over the war itself—for he wants all people to accept His Word

with faith—but over the fact that it reveals that the living word of God has entered a community and caught a number of fish in the net of the gospel. They have been converted and become different people. This also applies to Luke 12:49: “I have come to set the earth on fire; how I wish it were already ablaze!” Where the living Word is preached and the preacher also testifies to what he preaches in his life, it is impossible for the Word not to have an effect; it does not return empty, it makes Christians and pious people who work with fear and trembling to be saved. But then a fire of discord arises among people. Luther rightly explains the words, “What would I rather have, for it was already burning,” as a parallel to Matthew 10:34, 37. The devil does not depart because of polite words; he must be fought against. We are not only fighting against the devil, but also against the people through whom he works. There are many good Christians who think that we fight and argue too much in our periodicals and sermons, which only causes strife and discord where there was previously harmony and peace. But there is no other way. The devil must be cast out, or the kingdom of God cannot come. This is not to say that preachers are right to start polemicizing against sects, Methodists, Baptists, etc., in young, less knowledgeable congregations. A preacher must first lay the foundation of truth, and then, when the congregation is established, he can begin to gradually expose the false teachings of the sects and warn against them. Most preachers in our synod are certainly cautious in this regard. But sometimes there is no other option than for the preacher to warn of the danger that is clearly looming. He is responsible for the sheep that are snatched away from the shepherd by wolves.

A wonderful passage is Deuteronomy 33:9: “Whoever says to his father and mother, ‘I have not seen him’; and to his brother, ‘I do not know him’; and to his son, ‘I do not know him’; they will keep your word and observe your covenant.” When a Christian recognizes the truth that leads to salvation, he also speaks it out, whether people like it or not. Then no consideration for father or mother may hold him back. He must confess the truth and stand as if there were no father, no mother, no brother, no sister in the world. These connections do not belong to the kingdom of God, but to the kingdom of the world. He must confess the truth, come what may.

Luke 2:49: "Why did you seek me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" When Christ's parents wanted to punish him for staying in the temple, He did not suffer this punishment, but rejected it. So every child must speak to his father

or mother when they want to punish him for acting according to God's commandment, for that takes precedence over every commandment of father and mother.

John 2:4: “Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come!” Since the Lord is fulfilling his office as Messiah, He does not allow His mother to dictate to him. This is a remarkable statement from the Savior, who was otherwise so kind and respectful toward his mother. Since she wants to interfere with His office, His kindness ceases. — Mark 3:32-35 also belongs here: "They said to him, 'Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking for you. And He answered them, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? And He looked around at his disciples sitting in a circle around Him and said, 'Behold, my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.“In God's kingdom, father and mother do not count, but only God and His Holy Word.

1 Sam. 20:30-34:”Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, You disobedient villain, I know well that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your shame and to the shame of your wicked mother. For as long as the son of Jesse lives on earth, you and your kingdom will not stand. Send and bring him to me, for he must die. Jonathan answered his father Saul and said to him, "Why should he die? What has he done?" Then Saul shot his spear at him to kill him. Jonathan realized that his father was determined to kill David, and he rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no bread on the second day of the new moon, for he was distressed because his father had condemned David. This is an excellent example. Jonathan did not obey his father when he wanted to kill the innocent David, even though Saul argued that Jonathan would have no prospect of the kingdom if David lived. Jonathan willingly stepped aside and did not allow himself to become an instrument of David's destruction.

1 Kings 2:20 ff. tells us that Solomon, who otherwise treated his mother with the greatest reverence (see No. 1), did not comply with her wish when she wanted David's wife Abishag for her son Adonijah. Since she was asking for something so ungodly, she had to leave without having achieved her goal.

Genesis 24:58: “They called to Rebekah and said to her, ‘Will you go with this man? She replied, 'Yes, I will go with him.’” Parents do not have absolute power to marry their children against their will. They must also ask their children what they want. The bride and groom should give their consent freely. A forced promise is worthless; it is a word of the mouth and not of the heart.

The following testimonies from Lutheran theologians also support this view.

Balduin says: "How far does the obedience of children to their parents extend? Answer: The commandment of the Apostle Paul is a general one: ‘Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is pleasing to the Lord’ (Col. 3:20); but this general statement must be taken with a qualification, as Eph. 6:1 explains: ‘Children, obey your parents in the Lord,’ that is, in those things that are pleasing to the Lord, because there are many things in which children cannot obey their parents. Such things are: 1.) everything that is clearly against God and the law of nature, e.g., when parents command them to serve idols, to steal, or to murder others. In such cases, children are right to refuse obedience to their parents, because one must obey God more than men. Therefore, Christ commands that parents be set aside when they demand something from their children that is contrary to God; for it means “hating father and mother” (Luke 14:26) when someone disregards what parents impose contrary to God's commandment. For when parents once led their children into idolatry and self-chosen worship, the Lord called them back and said (Ezek. 20:18-19): ‘You shall not live according to the commandments of your fathers, nor keep their statutes, nor defile yourselves with their idols. For I am the Lord your God; you shall live according to my commandments, and you shall keep my statutes and do them.’… 2.) Children are also not always bound in matters that are by their nature matters of means, e.g., in the choice of a wife, in the choice of this or that vocation, in the acceptance of offices and honors, and in similar matters, in which many obstacles may arise that prevent the son from obeying his father unconditionally. In these matters, however, nothing should be done passionately; rather, everything must be done with due modesty, so that the father's mind is won over more by thorough evidence than by the son's mere refusal." (Tract. de cas. consc. 1628., p. 1228. sqq.)

Dannhauer writes: “A son is not obliged to obey his father if the father wants to force him into monastic life. A son is not obliged to follow his father if the father wants to lead him to a drinking party on Sunday, neglecting the sermon.” (Theol. casual., p. 387.)

Luther: “Where parents are so foolish and raise their children worldly, the children should not obey them in any way. For God is to be held in higher esteem than parents in the first three commandments. But I call it worldly to raise children in such a way that they seek nothing more than pleasure, honor, and wealth, or the power of this world.” (Sermon on Good Works. 1520. X, 1645 [StL 10, 1361; AE 44:83 f.])

The same: "Christ departs from the obedience of his parents, remains in Jerusalem, and therefore wants to be unpunished by his parents. … And this example of the child Jesus, our dear Lord, is intended to remind us of our ignorance and great blindness, which always tends to serve man rather than God. Therefore, when it comes to the point where we must disobey either God or our parents and superiors, we should learn to say with Christ: ‘I must be in that which is my Father's in heaven.’ Outside of this case, I will gladly and wholeheartedly obey my father and mother, emperor, king, masters, and women in the house; but here in this case, it means: Dear father, dear mother, I have another Father, and I should look to Him more than to you. Mary and Joseph had forgotten this, so He had to remind them of it and teach them here.“(Church Postil. W1 XI, 358)

The same remarks on Christ's words,”Woman, what have I to do with you?" as follows: “Notice here how harsh he is even to his own mother, in that he not only teaches us the above-mentioned example of faith, but also confirms that in God's affairs and service we should know neither father nor mother; as Moses says in Deuteronomy 33:9: ‘Whoever says to his father and mother,”I do not know them," he keeps your statutes, Israel.’ For although there is no greater authority on earth than the authority of father and mother, it is nevertheless null and void when it comes to God's Word and work; for in divine matters, neither father nor mother, let alone bishop or any other human being, but God's Word alone shall teach and guide. And if your father and mother tell you to do something, teach you something, or even ask you to do something against God and worship that is not clearly commanded and ordered by God, you shall say to them: ‘Quid mihi et tibi?’ What have I and you to do with each other? Just as Christ did not want to do the work of God here, since his own mother wanted him to." (Sermon on the Gospel on the 2nd Sunday after Epiphany, p. Church Postil. W1 XI, 646 f.)

Brochmand writes: "Can parents always prevent the marriages of their children? I deny this with the fullest right. For 1.) it is not given to all to live chastely outside of marriage. Therefore, it is right that parents observe this passage of Paul (1 Cor. 7:2): ‘Because of fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.’ 2.) It is an explicit admonition of the Spirit of God that parents should ensure an honest marriage for their children in good time. … 3.) Parental authority is not given to parents by God to harm their children, but for their benefit. 4.) Parents who prevent their children from marrying out of pure malice, since they lack natural parental love,

lose the right of parental authority through this complete lack of all parental love." (Syst. univ. theol. P. II. fol. 571)

The same: "Question: Can parents force their children to marry persons whom they have chosen and deemed suitable for them, if the children do not consider them suitable? Answer: We deny this. For 1.) A lawful marriage requires the free consent of the contracting parties. 2.) Parents must not provoke their children to anger, according to Eph. 6:4 and Col. 3:21. 3.) The examples described in Holy Scripture testify that the consent of the children is necessary for a lawful marriage, as can be read in Gen. 24:54: "And they called Rebekah and said to her, Will you go with this man? She answered, Yes, I will go with him; and in other places.“(Ibid. Tom. II. fol. 572.)

Ph. J. Spener wrote to a merchant's servant who wanted to devote himself to theological studies:”It should also be considered that the opposition of friends stands in the way. But... even if it were your parents, it would not be within their power to simply thwart such a Christian intention, which aims to further the glory of God, but they would have to give important reasons that would convince your son's conscience." (Theol. Bedenk. I, 431.)

Luther writes on 1 Cor. 7: 13-14: "St. Paul means to say: If a Christian spouse had grown children with a non-Christian spouse (as often happened in those days), and the children did not yet want to be baptized or become Christians (since no one should be forced to believe, but should be willingly drawn to God through the Gospel), then the mother or father should not abandon the children, nor withdraw or deny them their maternal or paternal duties, as if they were sinning and defiling themselves by their unbelieving children; but they should care for them physically and provide for them, just as if they were the most holy Christians.... So it should be now and always: Where children do not want to accept the Gospel, they should not be abandoned or rejected, but cared for and provided for, just as if they were the very best Christians, and their faith should be commended to God, provided that they are otherwise obedient and pious in other matters concerning outward behavior. For parents should and can resist and punish outward evil behavior and deeds; but no one can resist and punish unbelief and inner evil nature except God alone.“(From the year 1523. VIII, 1113 f. [StL 8, 1061 f.; AE 28:35f.])

Christian Chemnitz writes:”In the one who once wants to fruitfully preside over the church of God, a prerequisite is 1) a pious and, as it were, natural inclination toward it. For here parents, relatives, or guardians do not always act wisely when they force their sons, or

relatives, or wards to study theology, to which they are not naturally inclined. For although it is good to dedicate one's sons to the Lord, following the example of Hannah in 1 Sam. 1:11, it is nevertheless in accordance with Christian wisdom, which is sincere piety, to add: if it pleases God and God grants him a pious inclination and his gifts for this study. … Parents can be mistaken about their children, just as Eve, the mother of all living, was mistaken about her firstborn. Genesis 4:4." (Instruct, fut. ministri. Jen. 1660. p. 6.)

Thesis II.

That the woman 1. according to God's Word is bound in conscience to be subject to her husband as her lord and head and to obey him in all things (Gen. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:12-14; Rom. 7:2; Eph. 5:22-24; 1 Pet. 3:1, 6 [cf. Gen. 18:12]).

Just as the mutual relationship between parents and children is in a sorry state in our day, so too is the mutual relationship between husbands and wives. The spirit of independence, which has now taken hold of almost all peoples, is now also rampant among women. Entire societies of women have organized themselves, shamefully enough writing the words “women's emancipation” on their banners and making them their slogan. In the state, they demand to have a say and finally also to sit in the council of nations, to make laws, and so on. And miserable, worthless politicians, who themselves inwardly mock this, publicly support this deception because they fear that it will soon prevail and gain power and influence. In the church, however, such women do not want to be mere listeners, as the apostle clearly and unambiguously demands, but they also seek to take control of the pulpit, and miserable, enthusiastic souls who do not question God's Word already allow them to do so. It is therefore not surprising that the spirit of independence, which many shameless women now display in the state and the church, also manifests itself in the home toward men and seeks to assert itself. We will therefore now briefly examine what relationship between woman and man is right according to God's Word and our confessions.

The passages cited are the scriptural proof of this. Already in Genesis 3:16 we read: “Your will shall be subject to your husband, and he shall be your lord.” This submission to men should be

a lesson for the entire female sex, which should be constantly reminded of what Eve did. Eve is the mother of all living, but also the one who allowed herself to be seduced by Satan and as soon as she herself was seduced, she tried to draw her husband Adam into the misery of sin, which she succeeded in doing, to the temporal and eternal detriment and unspeakable ruin of the human race. Now, submission is not a punishment for believing women, but it is a chastisement to remind them of the Fall. Those women who are addicted to innovation now say, of course, that this Bible verse applies only to barbaric times, but not to ours, in which women have the same rights as men. But this is completely contrary to all reason and experience; for even a blind man can see that—to speak with the unbelievers—nature has not given women the gifts to rule and govern, and therefore even an atheist must admit that women do not have this calling, this vocation. To this, the Word of God now adds and explains this directly.

1 Tim. 2:12–14: “But I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Is this not terrible? The apostle says clearly and plainly that a woman should not be allowed to teach, and yet our pious Methodists, Baptists, etc. give women this freedom! They argue that we now live in a different time, as if time mattered when it comes to what is right or wrong. What all these souls lack, unlike the Lutheran Church, is that they do not hold fast to the written Word. The Lutheran Church alone is so simple-minded that it submits unconditionally to the word of the apostles and prophets. All other souls, however, blinded by the devil, live in this great godlessness, asking nothing of what is written in Scripture; but if something seems good to their reason, they simply do it. What reason do we have, then, to thank God, who has led us into a church that submits so simply to His Word that there can be not the slightest doubt that it has the right doctrine and is the right church! Woe, therefore, to those whom God has led into this church and who leave it as apostates! They will fare badly on the Last Day.

Verse 13: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” With this, the apostle seems to be saying: Even if humans had not fallen, even if Eve had not been tempted by the devil and had not subsequently tempted Adam, she would still not have been completely equal to Adam, at least not in all respects. That the apostle wants to say this is also

the opinion of many orthodox theologians. Even then, Eve was the weaker part in a state of innocence. That is why the devil did not dare to approach Adam, whom he feared would reject him. With Eve, the evil enemy succeeded in his temptation.

Rom. 7:2: “A woman who is under her husband while he lives is bound by law; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning her husband.” A Christian woman must therefore recognize, if she does not want to incur God's wrath, that she is under her husband (υπ ἀνδρός), that he is her lord.

Eph. 5:22-24: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the Savior of His body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives should be to their husbands in everything.” It is particularly wonderful that the apostle here introduces the relationship of the church to Christ as an example. From this we see that the woman is certainly not the man's slave, not his maid, although a righteous woman will not shy away from performing maidens' duties for her husband. But the husband should not treat her like a maid, let alone discipline her like a child. — “In all things.” It is well known that a few years ago there was great excitement in England because women in both the Presbyterian and Episcopal churches demanded that the promise of obedience be omitted from the marriage ceremony. This is clear proof that all these women do not belong with Christians. For God's Word speaks so clearly that they must know that their desire is not in accordance with the Bible. “In all things” naturally means only in those things in which the woman does not sin against God by obeying. But more on that later.

1 Peter 3:1, 6: “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;. … Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” Here the apostle Peter demands the submissiveness of the wife even to an unbelieving, pagan husband, and that is to be her preaching. She should not always be nagging her husband that he must be converted. That is precisely what prevents the conversion of such men. Without words, a woman should seek to win an unbelieving husband through her holy, chaste, humble, gentle, friendly, and loving conduct. Peter teaches that a woman should not run away when she feels she can no longer bear her godless husband. She must remain even with such a man, as with Abraham, whom his wife called “lord,” as we read in Genesis 18:12.

Where can we find women today who speak of their husbands as their lords? They would think they were making themselves ridiculous; it would not come from their hearts. They often even think that men should follow their lead. They want to be mistresses in the house. Woe to them! They will have a heavy responsibility on that day.

The following are testimonies to what has been said from the writings of orthodox theologians.

Luther: "Secondly, as God says in Genesis 3:16, the woman's will shall be ‘subject to the man,’ that is, the woman shall not live according to her own free will; for if Eve had not sinned, she would have ruled and reigned with Adam, the man, as his co-helper. But now that she has sinned and seduced the man, she has lost her authority and must do nothing without the man; wherever he is, she must go with him and bow down before him as before her lord, whom she must fear, be subject to, and obey." (Sermon on Marriage. 1525. StL X, 669. § 50)

Worldly-minded young men often promise, when courting a Christian girl, that she will always have complete freedom to attend church and that they will never move to areas where there is no Lutheran church or school. This then beguiles many parents, if everything else about the suitor is in order. But all these promises, even if they were confirmed with an oath, are of no avail if the man then moves away for some reason to a wild, foreign region. The wife's father may then run from one court to another, but he will receive no help. The poor woman must follow her husband as a sacrificial victim; if she does not, she commits adultery. It must be said, of course, that women who marry such men deserve no better, but the parents are mostly to blame. They have experience, should know better, and should never allow marriage to such a worldly man. — It is remarkable that the Apostle writes in Eph. 5:33: “The wife should fear her husband.” This word is rarely obeyed nowadays. A wife may well often fear her husband's passion, but the reverence for her husband that God demands here hardly exists anymore. The world says, “That is a fashion that does not suit our time and our country.” But then heaven and salvation do not suit our time either, for the way to salvation is to live in our state according to God's Word.

Balduin: "The president and, as it were, the head of the family is the man, to whom alone the household rule belongs according to divine and human law. For this is what God himself wanted (Gen. 3:16); this is what Paul repeated from God's mouth (Eph. 5:22 and Col. 3:18); this is why he also called the woman ‘under the man’ (Rom.

7:2); indeed, it is contrary to nature for men to be subject to women; it is also the greatest dishonor for men to be ruled by women.... The man therefore rules the household, but in such a way that he keeps the wife, the children, and the servants in check in different ways. He rules over the wife... as is customary among equals and comrades, so that the wife willingly respects the authority of the man and in this way a kind of aristocracy arises. This kind of aristocracy is the supreme power in which the nobles have one and the same right, but one among them has the supreme authority.... They are ‘in undivided goods’, as the Saxon says; but this mixed family has one prince, namely the man, and so the status of this household is aristocratic, but the administration is monarchical, and in this sense marriage represents a kind of kingship, not popular rule, as Chrysostom writes." (Disp. de cap. IV. Ep. ad Coi. 1617. p. A. 2. 3.)

What is questionable in this passage is the statement: “as is customary among equals.” There are forms of government in which certain families have the upper hand, the so-called aristocracy, i.e., government by the nobles. Together, they form the government, but none of them is actually the ruler of the others by birth. According to Balduin, this is also the case in the family. However, this seems to contradict the words: “The husband is the head of the wife.”

Baier writes about the original relationship between husband and wife in a state of innocence: "The bearer of the divine image was not only Adam, but also Eve, insofar as it existed in original righteousness. However, with regard to that which was not equally necessary for both to attain their intended goal, we do not assert equality between the two parents in all respects. With regard to the knowledge of natural things, Eve seems to have been inferior to Adam. It is also generally taught that Satan preferred to attack Eve, the weaker of the two, with his temptation; this is referred to in 1 Timothy 2:14: 'And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. However, they were not both given equal dominion, since the man was also the head of the woman and she was subject to him. Take, for example, 1 Corinthians 11:7 ff.: “But a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; for man is not from woman, but woman from man.” (Compend. P. I. c. 4. § 16. Vol. II, p. 157 sqq.)

In any case, one should teach this point with great modesty, because Scripture gives only hints at most. The Word of God is not there

to satisfy our curiosity, but to teach us the way to salvation. If we find no clarification on a certain point, we can be assured that what we wanted to know is not necessary for salvation.

2. But also that the husband has neither the right nor the power to rule over the faith and conscience of his wife [Col. 3:18, 1 Cor. 7:16, 1 Sam. 25:14-19].

As we have heard about children, so it is also written about wives in Scripture.

Col. 3:18: “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands in the Lord, as is fitting.” As soon as a woman has to say, “I cannot fulfill this command of my husband in the Lord,” she is also released from obedience, and even seriously warned not to be obedient in this case.

1 Cor. 7:16: “But how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” These words are interpreted in very different ways, but Luther is probably right when he says that this is a warning against trying to convert an unbelieving spouse by force. One should therefore not marry an unbelieving person in the hope of converting them. How can you convert them? Perhaps the harshest means is the greatest obstacle to conversion. Paul points this out to women who had converted while their husbands remained pagans. They should only obey their husbands as righteous women should, but not bombard them with admonitions day and night. This is what the dear Monica, Augustine's mother, did, who also had a pagan husband.

1 Sam. 25:14-19: "But Abigail, Nabal's wife, told one of the young men and said, 'Behold, David sent messengers from the wilderness to bless our lord, but he rebuked them. And yet they have been very useful to us, and have not mocked us, and we have lacked nothing as long as we have walked with them when we were in the field.... Now therefore, please consider and see what you will do, for there is certain evil upon our master and upon his house, and he is a man of no account, and no one may speak to him." This is a remarkable example of a woman doing something against her husband's will, for which the Holy Spirit apparently praises her. When David was persecuted and had to flee through the country like a hunted deer, he gathered a whole number of men around him, with whose help he protected himself against assassins and the like. He did no harm to anyone; on the contrary, wherever he was with his men, he kept good

order. This was also the case when David was staying near Nabal; he was like an iron wall for Nabal. But when David was in need and sent messengers to Nabal for food, while this rich miser was shearing his sheep, Nabal angrily spurned David's messengers and sent them away empty-handed. But what did Abigail do? “Then Abigail hurried and took two hundred loaves of bread, two skins of wine, five cooked sheep, five bushels of flour, a hundred pieces of raisins, and two hundred pieces of figs, and loaded them on donkeys, and said to her young men, 'Go on ahead of me; behold, I will follow after you. And she did not tell her husband Nabal about it.” The property of the house belongs to both the wife and the husband. Therefore, in case of need, she can give alms or do other good deeds without her husband's knowledge.

Luther says the following about 1 Corinthians 7:16 (see above): "That is: Therefore, you should live peacefully with each other in marriage, even with your non-Christian spouses (if they do not hinder your Christian way of life), and not defy them, nor drive them or force them to believe; for it is not your work or power to make anyone a believer, but God's alone. Since you do not know whether you are worthy that God will save them through you or not, you should be at peace with them, and no man should press his unchristian wife, or quarrel with her over the faith, nor a woman with her unchristian husband. But if God wants to convert them through you, he will also help you, and distribute grace and gifts among you who serve this purpose. This seems to me to be the correct understanding of St. Paul in this passage: that he does not want to compel anyone to faith or piety, but to live peacefully with everyone until God, through and with His grace, converts those whom He wants to convert, as St. Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 2:16. (Interpretation of Chapter 7 of St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. 1523. VIII, 1118 [StL 8, 1065; AE 28:38 f.])

Luther develops a great wisdom here. The Jesuits make it the duty of a woman who has married a Lutheran to convert her husband to the Catholic faith above all else; so she works on him day and night and makes his life miserable. This is shameful and abominable; but what does a Jesuit, a Roman priest, care about the Word of God? A Lutheran woman should know that she has no right to quarrel with her husband every day, to defy him, and to press him to convert.

Regarding the case of Abigail, Dannhauer writes: "If one's husband is a miser, can one, in good conscience, be secretly generous to others? Answer: One's conscience may waver between violating marital rights on the one hand and violating the virtue of charity on the other. However, one must obey God rather than men. ‘When you give alms, do not let your left

hand know what your right hand is doing,’ says the Lord in Matthew 6:3; almsgiving should therefore be directed entirely toward doing good.... The woman is not committing theft because she is spending what is rightfully hers from the joint funds. However, as the head of the family, the man is entitled to more than the woman in this case; although Abigail wisely and secretly refreshed David with a clear conscience, since Nabal was a miser, Ecdicia acted unscrupulously, according to Augustine, giving almost everything she had to two unknown wandering monks as alms, as poor people." (Liber conscientiae. Ed. II. P. I, 834 sq.) Properly and regularly, a woman should not steal a penny without the knowledge and consent, or at least not against the will, of her husband. But she may find herself in a situation where she is obliged to do good and must do so against her husband's will because he is a miserly wretch.

Luther: “You will achieve nothing by beating a woman to make her pious and obedient. If you beat out one devil, you will beat two into her (as they say).” (On 1 Peter 3:1 ff. IX, 753 [StL 9, 1051]) It is appalling to hear so often that men have beaten their wives. A wife is not under the rod like a child, but should be her husband's helper.

Thesis III.

That the household servants (the so-called servants and other servants taken into the house) 1. are bound by God's Word to honor their masters and mistresses as their superiors according to God's Word and to faithfully carry out the orders given to them in accordance with the agreement made (Prov. 22:2, Gen. 31, 38, 39-41; Gen. 39:2-6; Ps. 101:6-7; Col. 3:22-24; Eph. 6:5-8; 1 Tim. 6:1-2).

We have noticed that when Scripture speaks of servants and maids, it almost always refers only to bondservants. The Hebrew or Greek word in the original text refers to a slave. Therefore, the passages that deal with the obedience of servants and maids to their masters cannot be applied without restriction to our circumstances. For our servants are not bondservants, but free people who are bound to nothing more than what they have voluntarily committed themselves to. They become servants through a contract, and the contract states what the master requires of the servant or maid. The servant and the maid who enter into the contract also state

what they are willing to do. Therefore, a master cannot expect a servant whom he has hired for a specific job to do other work. In such a case, the servant, the maid, as we also tend to say, would not be obliged to obey, but could invoke the contract. However, if the servant and maid do what they have promised, the master must also faithfully and conscientiously uphold the contract. It should be noted that the thesis states: “in accordance with the agreement made.” If the servants are to be assigned other tasks, a new contract must be drawn up each time. Only a slave is so completely at the disposal of his master with all his strength, his limbs, and all his time that the master can dispose of him as he pleases. We see that a contractual relationship exists between masters and servants in Matthew 20:13: “He replied, ‘My friend, I am not wronging you. Did you not agree with me for a penny?’” “Agree” means nothing other than that a contract has been made regarding the daily wage and the work.

The following passages necessarily belong here because they do not deal with slaves:

Prov. 22:2: “The rich and the poor are of one family; the Lord is the maker of them all.” It is a shameful principle that the Communists put forward that all people should be equal. God's Word says the opposite. Rich and poor, high and low, masters and servants must be among themselves. The Lord does not let everyone be born high, but some are the sons of beggars, which they have received from God and must accept willingly.

Genesis 31:38-41: "These twenty years I have been with you, and your ewes and goats have not been barren; I have never eaten the rams of your flock; I did not bring you the animals that were torn by beasts; I had to pay for them; you demanded it from my hand, whether it was stolen by day or by night. By day I languished with the heat, and by night with the cold, and sleep did not come to my eyes. So I have served in your house for twenty years, fourteen for your daughters and six for your flocks, and you have changed my wages ten times." If all those who employ workers would study this passage, they would see what unheard-of cruelty it is to treat their servants as the godless Laban did. It is certainly appalling that a revolution is now being waged [by Communists & Socialists] because of this, but it is even more appalling that our misers have brought it to the point where unchristian people no longer tolerate and bear with them, but can put an end to the matter with bloody violence. Those who accept work have a wonderful example here in Jacob, who served this shameful miser faithfully despite everything. This is not written in Scripture to make us think that Jacob was

a simple-minded man who should have left long ago. Jacob put up with all of Laban's injustice [unlike Communists] and waited for the day of retribution.

Genesis 39:2-6: "And the Lord was with Joseph, so that he became a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master, the Egyptian. And his master saw that the Lord was with him, and that the Lord made all that he did to prosper before him. So he found favor in his sight and became his servant. He made him overseer of his house, and put all that he had under his hand.... So he left everything he had under Joseph's hands, and took no care of anything except what he ate and drank." From this narrative, Luther concludes, although he does not want to assert it with certainty, that Potiphar released Joseph, so that he was then only his paid servant.

Psalm 101:6-7: "My eyes are on the faithful in the land, that they may dwell with me; and I delight in blameless servants. I do not keep deceitful people in my house; liars do not prosper with me." From this, every householder should learn that he should not take ungodly servants into his house; by doing so, he would defile his house, so that because of these wicked fellows, it could no longer be regarded as a Christian house. Of course, one can also employ ungodly people, but one should not take them into the family, as one does when one makes them servants or maids.

Col. 3:22: "Servants, be obedient in all things to your earthly masters, not only when their eye is on you and to please them, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for God. “

Eph. 6:5-6:”Servants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with sincerity of heart, as you would Christ, not only when their eye is on you and to please them, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart, with good will."

1 Tim. 6:1: “Servants who are under the yoke should consider their masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.”

These passages do not really belong here, since they deal with bondservants; but since Luther has included them in the household rules, they should be cited. In Luther's time, slavery was already virtually abolished in Germany, and yet the Table of Duties, which assign each class its proper place, also finally state what is to be expected of servants, maids, day laborers, and workers. At the same time, however, this implies that there is a difference between these classes.

Luther: "This fourth commandment also includes further statements about all kinds of obedience to superiors who have the authority to command and govern. For from the authority of parents flows and spreads all

other authority. For where a father is not able to raise his child on his own, he takes on a schoolmaster to teach him; if he is too weak, he enlists the help of his friends or neighbors; if he leaves, he commands and hands over the reins and authority to others who are appointed for this purpose. Furthermore, he must also have manservants and maidservants under his house rule; so that all those who are called masters are in the place of parents and must take from them the right and power to rule. Therefore, according to Scripture, they are all called fathers, as they are to exercise the office of fatherhood in their rule and bear a fatherly heart toward their own.... But what a child owes to his father and mother, all who are subject to the household rule also owe. Therefore, servants and maids should see to it that they not only obey their masters and mistresses, but also honor them as their own fathers and mothers, and do everything they know is expected of them; not out of compulsion and reluctance, but with pleasure and joy, for the sake of the former reasons, that it is God's command and pleases Him above all other works, for which they should give thanks and rejoice that they may have such a joyful conscience, and know how they should do truly golden works; which has remained and been despised until now, and for which everyone has run in the devil's name to monasteries, on pilgrimages, and for indulgences, with damage and a bad conscience. If one could now impress this upon the poor people, a maid would go about her work, praising and thanking God, with neat work, for which she otherwise receives food and wages, and obtain such a treasure that all those who are considered the holiest do not have. Is it not a wonderful glory to know and say that when you do your daily housework, it is better than all the holiness and strict life of monks? And you have the promise that you will prosper and do well in all good things! How can you be more blessed or live more holy, as far as works are concerned?" (Large Catechism on the Fourth Commandment LC Ten Commandments, 141-146)

It is madness that the devil has led people to believe that they can all be equal. They would soon realize how well the world could then be governed. If there were no more rich people, who mostly only stockpiled large supplies for their own interests, the inhabitants of large cities would soon starve to death, people would soon have no clothes, etc. A single farmer cannot cultivate a large farm alone; he must have servants. Those shameful people who engage in agitation want to eat bread, but it is against their honor to help out as farmhands. There is no other way; there must be one above and one below the other. It is often a big question whether the one who is placed at the top

does not do harder work than the one who pants and sweats at his mechanical work. It is shameful when a worker addresses his employer as if he were not only his equal, but even below him. That is turning the world upside down. —

When girls are asked to take a job, they often ask if there are small children in the family. If the answer is yes, they usually do not go. They want little work and high pay. These are all signs that their Christianity is not in good order, and even if they go to church every day, it has not the slightest value. The church is there to make people Christians, so that they may then serve God and their neighbor. Those who do not do this are not Christians, but miserable hypocrites. Of course, one only hears this in our Lutheran Church. The sects always talk about prayer, struggle, and the like. God forbid that we should think little of prayer and struggle! But what good is prayer and struggle if one is unfaithful in one's calling? Then one is a hypocrite before God. We must try to bring our dear young people to realize that when they enter service, they have chosen a wonderful Christian state.

2. But also that those who are in charge of the household have neither the right nor the power to rule over the faith and conscience of their servants. (Gen. 39:8-9; Dan. 1:8)

Only two passages are cited here, for since most of the servants mentioned in Scripture were slaves, it is very difficult to cite passages that are appropriate to our circumstances.

Genesis 39:8-9: "But he refused and said, 'Behold, my master does not concern himself with anything in the house, and he has put everything he has under my authority. He has not withheld anything in the house from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a great evil and sin against God?" Joseph is a wonderful example. It is highly probable that he had been set free. He was a paid servant. Nevertheless, he was not unconditionally obedient to his mistress. When she tried to seduce him into fornication, he refused. Joseph knows that he would rise high if he sinned with her; he also knows that she could otherwise cause him the greatest harm. But he remains steadfast. This is an unsurpassable example of a pious servant who cannot be moved by anything to do evil for the sake of an ungodly master or mistress.

Dan. 1:8: “But Daniel resolved in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king's food and wine,

and asked the chief chamberlain not to defile him.” Daniel was not a slave, but a servant. The king had given strict orders to keep the Jewish boys well so that they could later become pages at court. But since Daniel knew that he would defile himself with the food from the king's table, he preferred to be given simple vegetables and water.

Brenz: "Can a householder with a clear conscience take unbelieving or papal servants into his service and force them to adopt our faith and the use of the sacraments? Answer: 1.) A householder has a similar office to that of the civil authorities, in whose territory Christians and pagans reside, all of whom they recognize as their subjects, provided they lead peaceful and honorable lives. Thus both Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41) and Daniel in Persia were rulers in heathen courts, and undoubtedly employed unbelieving servants in their courts. When the Syrian prince Naaman was converted, he did not dismiss his pagan servants, nor did he take only Jews into his service (2 Kings 5). Philemon did not drive his pagan servant Onesimus out of his house until he himself fled, and Onesimus was subsequently converted to Christianity by Paul (see the Epistle to Philemon). 2.) However, a householder must ensure that his unbelieving and papist servants are instructed in the true faith, following the example of Joseph, who was royal co-regent of Egypt (cf. Psalm 105:2, where it says, “He instructed his princes according to his way, and taught wisdom to his elders!”). If they accept the true doctrine, all is well; if not, it will lead to their damnation. But they are not to be forced to convert, but left to divine judgment; nor should instruction and admonition be neglected, because the hour of conversion is uncertain, as Paul says to the believing woman who has an unbelieving husband: “But how do you know, O woman, whether you will save your husband,” who is still an unbeliever? 2 Cor. 1:16. (Quoted in Miesler's Opus novum. Fol. 200. sq.) A master should not promise his servant more wages if he becomes a Lutheran. By doing so, he only makes the person concerned a hypocrite. He must live in such a way that the worker gains respect for his master's religion. However, if the servant wants to belong to the household in a different way, he must participate in the household worship. If the servant himself brings up the subject of religion, the master of the house should use the opportunity to explain to him the way to salvation.

The pious jurist Reinking writes: "If a councilor and servant, when he finds that his master is planning something wrong, and he himself advises against it, can he nevertheless carry it out with a clear conscience on his master's orders? For Joab advised against the census

of the people, along with other captains of the army; nevertheless, he went throughout Israel, counted the people, and carried out his master's command, even though the king's work was an abomination to him, as the Scripture says (2 Chron. 22:6-7). — In my opinion, this must be discussed and judged with distinction. If a master's command and decree in and of itself is against God, his commandment, and the love of one's neighbor, as when a master commands idolatry and the worship of idols, then no honest servant should or must carry it out.... But if the work is not in itself an unlawful thing, contrary to God's commandment and the love of one's neighbor, but becomes unlawful and evil because of the lord's evil intention, I believe that a servant should not worry about it and should not be advised to resist it. The payment of the people is and was not an unlawful thing in itself, but a an indifferent thing. Moses and others counted the people at God's command and therefore did no wrong, Numbers 11. David's mistake therefore stemmed from evil intent, because he carried out the census out of gluttony and Satan's inspiration, 1 Chronicles 21:1. Therefore, Joab, at his master's risk, could well have done such an indifferent thing, which is not wrong in itself, in my opinion. However, I do not want to decide this question, but leave others free to think about it." (Quoted by Dannhauer in his Liber conscientiae I, 846.)

Thus we have come to the end of our theses, which we have been discussing for thirteen years, in which it has been proven that our Lutheran Church gives all glory to God alone in all these teachings, and never ascribes to creatures the glory that belongs to the great God. What belongs to God, it gives to Him in full. May God now help us not only to rejoice in belonging to such a church, but also to give Him all glory in our faith, confession, life, suffering, and death. Our motto in life must be: Soli Deo Gloria. This is what the angels sang immediately after the Savior was born. That was the first thing, and it is also the most important thing. Through Jesus, God has regained His glory. We have suffered nothing but shame, but now that God has regained His glory, we have eternal salvation. Blessed are all who believe this from their hearts! They will then see all the holy angels at the right hand of God and continue to sing the song of honor, praise, and glory to God from eternity to eternity. May God help us, dear brothers, that we too may one day be among this multitude and then give all honor to the dear God with all our hearts. For here we cannot do so, our shameful flesh clings to us. But there, when God has taken the old flesh from us, our doctrine will not only be theory, but we will also practice it. O Lord Jesus, help us all to do so. Amen!