De discrimine Veteris ac Novi Testamenti; item de abrogatione legis

De discrimine Veteris ac Novi Testamenti; item de abrogatione legis

From what we've said about the law and the gospel, and about the role of the law and the gospel, it's easy to see what the difference is between the Old Testament and the New. In this matter, schools struggle in the same way regarding the distinction between the law and the gospel, as they call the Old Testament a law that demands only external actions, while the New Testament presents a law that requires not just external actions but also inner affections. This leads to the obscuring of the majesty and fullness of grace, which should be displayed in a prominent place, clearly visible to all, and proclaimed alone. We'll address the matter briefly. Ask what the law is and what the Gospel is from those who know. In the use of words, this is what is worked on. Those who simply call the Old Testament what the law names seem to follow the custom of speaking more than the reasoning behind it, and they commonly use the name of the testament for the constitution or institution. I call the Old Testament a promise of earthly things, joined with the requirement of the law. For God demands justice through the law and promises a reward for it, the land of Canaan, riches, and so on. God requires justice through the law and promises rewards, such as the land of Canaan and wealth. As it appears from Deuteronomy 39: You stand today, all of you, before the Lord your God: your leaders, your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your children, your wives, and the foreigners living among you in your camp, who are here with you today, in order to enter into the covenant of the Lord your God and into his oath, which the Lord your God makes with you today, so that he may establish you today as his people and that he may be your God, as he promised you and as he swore to your ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The New Testament offers nothing other than the promise of all good things without the law, with no regard for our own righteousness. In the Old Testament, good things were promised, but at the same time, they were demanded from the people through the law's impiety; in the New Testament, good things are promised without conditions, since nothing is required from us in return. And here you see the magnitude of grace, which is the abundance of divine mercy. In short, what is the glory of the Gospel, since it freely grants salvation without regard to our own justice or the merits of our works? Will the human heart not cry out in wonder at such an outpouring of grace? Who would believe this testimony? And this distinction is V. Jeremiah, chapter. Thirty-one indicates. In order for it to be understood more clearly, we need to discuss the abrogation of the law. And since the law has three parts, let us follow them as each is abrogated, especially since they do not seem to be antiquated in the same way. And the consensus of the writers has established that the judicial and ceremonial laws have been abolished, while the moral laws remain in effect. First, we'll speak about moral matters. The first proof that the part of the law referred to as the Decalogue or moral precepts is outdated in the New Testament is found in what is reported from Jeremiah in the letter to the Hebrews, where the prophet argues that the law must be abolished because the people have made it void. However, it is not about ceremonies that we stand XXIX. The places are common. Israel has sinned greatly, but as Christ calls it in the Gospel, it is primarily the part of the Law known as the Decalogue. Moreover, when the prophet calls the new covenant the gospel, he senses that the old is passing away, as the author of the epistle states. As it is written in Hebrews. (VIII) It is argued that the new has made the old obsolete. And to I. I: There is no law set down for the just. This kind of testimony about freedom is found both in Romans and in Galatians. Who doesn’t know the well-known saying from Galatians: "You are free, but don’t use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh"?^✦ Indeed, if Christian freedom is the most worthless of all, it is still more than servitude, if it only removes the mere ceremonies, which are the easiest part of the law to bear. Who wouldn’t sacrifice a lesser animal for anger, love, or similar desires? Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge that the Decalogue is also outdated. Therefore, it will be permissible to kill the innocent, to lie, and so on. ? The same question is raised by Paul in Romans. For it is said, 'Since we are not under the law, will we then sin?' There is freedom in the fact that all rights to accuse and condemn us have been taken away from the law. The law condemns those who do not keep the whole law even once. But does the whole law not demand the greatest love for God and the most intense fear of God? Since our entire nature is so alien to Him, we can only present the most beautiful form of Pharisaic righteousness, yet we remain under the curse. Christ took away the curse of the law, so that even if you sin, you can still remain in His grace. You write about the covenant. You believe that you are in this state so that you can fulfill your vow, if it could not be kept, lest the vow remain with sin. I beg you, are you saying this very obscurely: are you not saying that, if you want, the vow does not stand because it is impossible to fulfill? And for this reason, you should also allow divine commandments to be fulfilled. See the note above. It is allowed. If you have sin, you should use the words of Scripture, for you will still be saved. He broke the power of death, the power of sin, and the gates of hell. This is what Paul writes to the Galatians. Paul writes: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us. Also, when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem those who were under the law.^✦ And Romans. Sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace.^✦ And this security is what the prophets celebrate with full voice everywhere, that no power of the law can condemn those who are in Christ, even if you sin, even if you have sin, you cannot be condemned, according to that saying: Death has been swallowed up in victory; where, O death, is your victory?^✦ These truths should be instilled in Christians, especially in those who are nearing death, for to them this is the only remaining anchor, truly sacred, as the saying goes. And this freedom is what Paul preaches almost everywhere. Ceremonies barely touch on one or two aspects. The New Testament is nothing other than the proclamation of this freedom. This is what the psalmist aptly expressed. The prophet said, 'I have set my king on my holy mountain, Zion.' Here the Father says that He will designate a king over Mount Zion; afterward, He reveals what kind of kingdom it will be, namely, where God will reign not by human power or the might of the world. Therefore, He subjects H, s. I will proclaim the command, the Lord said to me: You are my son. What will this new preaching be? Is the word of God proclaimed on Mount Zion, namely, the law? But now, with this new proclamation, it is set aside where the message about the Son of Christ is established. But if nothing else is proclaimed except that the Son is Christ, then the righteousness of the law follows, and works are neither required nor anything else commanded, except that we embrace that Son. What it says a little later is clearer: Blessed are all who trust in Him; your wisdom won't save you, but this Son will save you, your King, your stronghold, and so on. There are many such things in the Scriptures that commend this freedom to us. For what else is the gospel in the world but the proclamation of this freedom? Ultimately, Christianity is freedom, because those who do not have the Spirit of Christ cannot fulfill the law and are under the curse of the law. Those who are renewed by the Spirit of Christ are now led freely, even without the law guiding them, to do what the law commands. The will of God is the law. The Spirit of God is not anything else. It is only the living will and motion of God that matters; therefore, where we are led by the Spirit of God, who is the living will of God, we are already willing, of our own accord, to do what the law requires. In this regard, it has been stated by Paul in 1 Timothy. I: It is not just to have a law established; and Romans. The law, which is the spirit of life, is the motion of the life-giving spirit that has freed me from the law of sin and death. Augustine discusses Christian freedom in great detail in his book on spirit and letter. And Hierem. XXXI, —: Ecce dies venient, dicit Dominus, et feriam domui Israel et domui Juda foedus novum, non secundum pactum, quod pepigi cum patribus vestris in die, qua apprehendi manum eorum, ut educerem eos de terra Aegypti, pactum, quod irritum fecerunt et succensuieis, dicit Dominus. But this will be the covenant I make with the house of Israel: After those days, says the Lord, I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no one will teach his neighbor or his brother any longer, saying, 'Know the Lord.' He says: Know the Lord. Everyone will know me, from the least of them to the greatest. The Lord says. For I will be merciful toward their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more. In this place, the prophet mentions a double covenant, both old and new; the old one speaks of justification through the law, declaring that it has become void. Who can express the law? Therefore, since the requirement has been removed, the law is now to be inscribed in our hearts so that it can be expressed. Therefore, freedom is not about doing the law, but rather about wanting and desiring from the heart what the law requires. No one could do that before. The same is true for Ezekiel. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, so that they may walk in my commandments and keep my judgments and do them, and they shall be my people. You are free from the Decalogue as far as you are concerned. First, although sinners cannot be condemned if they are in Christ; and second, those who are in Christ are drawn by the Spirit to fulfill the law, and by the Spirit they act, love, and fear God, accommodating themselves to the needs of their neighbors and desiring to do what the law commands, even if no law were laid down. Their will, which is the spirit, is nothing other than the living law. In that way, the fathers who lived before the incarnation of Christ were free, as many as had the spirit of Christ. This is what Peter saw. XV, when he denies that they were able to keep the law: "Neither can we, he says, nor can our fathers bear it." But they are justified by faith, that is, when the fathers could not fulfill the law, they acknowledged that they too were free through Christ and were justified by faith in Christ, not by works, nor by the merits of their own righteousness. For Peter does not speak only about the ceremonies in the Acts, but about the entire law. For the law of ceremonies cannot be upheld unless you offer them with a willing heart. For ceremonies don't happen before God unless they are performed with a faithful and willing heart. And Peter did not do this: he could not honor external works with a ceremony. Above all, he pays too little attention to what is similar in time. Köstlin a. It has been left behind by the evangelical church. . What is it to be made of nothing? What could be easier than to get by with just a few ceremonies? For if you count, you'll see that there are far more papal rituals today in the Church than you can find in Moses, and you can only encompass the Mosaic ceremonies in a few verses, while the papal ones fill vast volumes of decrees and decisions that aren't enough. How different the Roman pontiffs are from Peter, whose successor they claim to be! He abolished a few ceremonies that were handed down by divine law; these have no place in any age, and they are new and foolish inventions. Therefore, it cannot be said that Peter acted only regarding ceremonies in the Acts, but about the whole law. In his letter to the Romans, the Apostle discusses this freedom more extensively. VI, VII teach that only a free man is new. Therefore, as we are renewed in spirit, we are free to that extent; but as we are flesh and oldness, we are under the law. Although for those who believe, what remains of the old ways will be forgiven because of faith. In summary, as far as we believe, we are free; as far as we doubt, we are under the law. In the Anti-Latomo, Luther argued extensively about the sins of the saints. Regarding the remnants of the old ways in those who are reborn, it's not necessary for me to discuss this with many, especially since Paul clearly states that he is still a captive to sin.^✦ Augustine and Cyprian both say the same thing in more than one place. For we have begun to be justified here, but we have not yet completed our justification. Thus, Paul frequently urges us to be renewed in the spirit of our minds. And in Philippians 3, it says: "I have not yet received it, nor am I yet perfect, but I press on to make it my own."^✦ Therefore, when discussing the abrogation of the law, it would be more appropriate to consider how the Gospel fulfills the Decalogue than to focus on the ceremonies or the judicial aspects that have been set aside. For the greatness of grace can be understood from the abrogation of the Decalogue, since believers can be saved without the demands of the law, regardless of our works. Therefore, the law is abolished, not so that it doesn't happen, but as a refutation of the sophists of the Lovaniensis school regarding the reasoning of Luther. But it’s not enough that things are done; they shouldn’t be done in a way that leads to condemnation. Regarding judicial matters and ceremonies, I wish those who attributed freedom solely to these had discussed it more accurately. And it must be observed carefully in both cases, as Paul states. In Galatians 5, it says: Circumcision is nothing. In Galatians 5, it says: In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only a new creation matters. Moreover, that which is I. As it is written: "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it"; this proves that true Christian freedom is to either use such external things or not use them. In this way, Paul circumcised one person, but he did not circumcise another. On one hand, he adapted himself to those who observed Jewish rites; on the other hand, he opposed them. Let this same freedom be ours. Neither those who are uncircumcised nor those who stop circumcision are guilty. It is therefore more difficult, as Jerome has noted, regarding the outdated ceremonies. However, this is what many follow today. But those sin who think that circumcision is necessary, and who are circumcised for this purpose, so that they may be justified and do good works. Again, they sin who insist that circumcision is necessary, and who are circumcised in order to be justified. Hieronymus errs just as much in forbidding circumcision as the Jews did in requiring it. It's just as wrong for someone to command eating unclean meat as it is for someone to forbid it. And this was the reason for Paul. He didn't want to circumcise Titus because he saw that the Jews were demanding circumcision, which would obscure the teaching of faith, since they attributed justification to circumcision rather than to faith. The same principle applies to moral actions: just as you don't eat or drink to be justified, you shouldn't give alms to be justified either; rather, just as you eat and drink to serve the needs of your body, you should give alms to love your brother, and so on. You should serve the common needs, restrain your desires, so that your body may be subject to the spirit, and so forth. Eating, drinking, sleeping, standing, and sitting do not justify you; nor does circumcision, but neither do those moral acts, chastity, or serving the needs of your brothers and similar things. For we are justified by faith alone, according to that saying in Romans. The just shall live by faith. Furthermore, the works of Melancthon. Common places. This freedom in moral matters, which is necessary to know, is so obscure that it can only be understood by those who are spiritual. Therefore, let it be that what we said is not to consider judicial matters or ceremonies as completely abolished, so that anyone who uses any of them might sin. But since Christianity is a certain kind of freedom, it's up to us whether to use those things or not, just as it's up to us to eat or drink. Moreover, I would prefer that Christians adopt the form of judgments that Moses provided, along with many of the ceremonies. For it would be necessary, since this life cannot be without the need for judgments, nor, as I believe, without ceremonies, to use those Mosaic ones, just as with the laws of the Gentiles and the ceremonies of the papists. To get closer to the matter at hand, there is one and the same reason why the entire law is abolished, not just the ceremonies and forms of judgment, but also the Decalogue, which could not be upheld. Peter revealed this reason for the abrogation of the law in the Acts and in Jeremiah, since he teaches that a new covenant must be established, which we have rendered the old one void. And in this regard, it takes no part of the law, so that it may be clear that it speaks of the whole law. However, in those who have believed in the later covenant, that is, the Gospel, the old law is set aside. Therefore, those in whom the Spirit of Christ dwells are completely free from all law. What the saints do according to the Decalogue is what matters, and the Decalogue does not require specific distinctions of places, times, things, or persons beyond the righteousness of the heart and the justification of the spirit. One cannot help but acknowledge the Augustinians in Wittenberg at the beginning of the following years. The Decalogue has been abolished by the law. Just as it cannot happen that the sun rises without shining, so the Decalogue cannot fail to be fulfilled, poured out into the hearts of the saints by the Spirit. Moreover, the spirit is so free that unless it brings with it the fulfillment of the law, we wouldn't even be able to fulfill it. Now, when the Spirit brings forth such a will, which is the very fulfillment of the Decalogue, it becomes law; not because it is required, but because it cannot be different from a spiritual one. Judicial matters and ceremonies, apart from the justice of the heart, are limited by circumstances, people, places, and times. Such observations do not necessarily bring the Spirit with them, so there’s no reason for us to make them. The Spirit of God cannot dwell in a human heart without expressing the Decalogue. Therefore, the Decalogue is necessary. The Spirit can dwell in the human heart even without those external observances. Therefore, judicial matters and ceremonies do not necessarily occur. This shows why the Decalogue mostly contains negative laws: to signify that no specific action is defined by persons, places, or times, but rather that justice of the heart is what is required. The remaining laws govern external matters and distribute responsibilities. But I leave this understanding of abundance to be pondered by higher spirits. I’m content to remind you that the ancient Decalogue exists, not so that it doesn’t happen, but so that it doesn’t condemn us if we sin; and then, so that it can also be expressed. Therefore, this freedom is... It is the knowledge of faith that allows a sentient being to have their sins forgiven. They judge that the ceremonies have been abolished because the shadows of the Gospel were present, and now that the body, which is the very Gospel, exists, there is no longer any need for them. I don't know what reason there is, or if Paul ever followed it anywhere. Colossians. II, he says: Let no one judge you regarding food or drink, or in relation to a festival day, or a new moon, or a Sabbath, which are shadows of things to come, but the body of Christ. This may perhaps be seen as a cause for the type in place of the reality. Indeed, in Galatians, it rejects the ceremonies because they cannot justify. The same is discussed in the Hebrews throughout the entire letter, not just about ceremonies, but about the whole law being set aside because it could not justify, or, as we said earlier, because it could not be expressed. Thus it is written. YH, it is written: Digitized by Google Loci commanes. The rejection of the previous commandment is due to its weakness and uselessness. And where he extensively discussed the priest, he established that the Levitical priesthood should be set aside because it did not secure the forgiveness of sins; however, our high priest, Christ, does. You see one reason for the abrogation of the law pressed and urged in the Scriptures; the law is therefore set aside because it did not justify or because it could not be expressed. Schools take away the ceremonies, because they were types of the Gospel. The Decalogue remains, even if it seems to be overlooked. But what does this have to do with the commendation of grace? Scripture speaks of the abrogation of the law in such a way that it clearly commends to us the abundance of grace found in it. Thus, it removes the ceremonies so that the entire law may appear to be abolished; likewise, it rejects the ceremonies so that it may be evident that the ceremonies are being abolished because of the need to annul the Decalogue. This is the commendation of grace, both alone and in its fullness. Therefore, the ceremonies have been abolished, not so that they may not happen, but because they can neither occur nor be omitted without endangering the conscience, which would not condemn the omitted ones nor justify them if you do them. This should be enough to indicate the reason, which you can find in the Epistle to the Galatians and in the Hebrews. Augustine, inquiring somewhere about the reason for the abrogation of the law, finds nothing but figures. Scripture therefore abolishes the law because it does not justify. So what was the reason for the law being imposed? To show sin, or to make sin evident, it is necessary for us to have the mercy of God. Regarding the forms of judgments, I believe they too are outdated, since external observations are not different from ceremonies, which the free spirit can choose to use or not use. Christians aren't allowed to contend in judgment; however, that doesn't serve as a reason for the law to be abolished. For those who are in conflict, it is necessary that there be laws and judgments to which they can be held accountable, even if they may still sin. For those who are guilty, it is necessary that there be laws and judgments to restrain them. They don't sin who exercise judgment or declare the law. The law of Moses is not meant to be a matter for litigation among citizens, but rather a guideline for judges. Therefore, it's not up for debate whether someone can use the Mosaic law or any other law if they want to engage in litigation. A Christian is not one who litigates. But should a Christian judge only use the law of Moses? Here I respond: it is up to the judge to decide whether to use the law of Moses or not. There is indeed a certain arrangement of external things that has nothing to do with Christianity, just as eating and drinking do. Paul only asks for a wise man and one in whom the spirit of Christ dwells to be a judge. Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? So it is. Indeed, there is no wise person among you who can judge. In those places, it is clear that he does not require any specific law, but rather the judgment of a spiritual person. The sword also proves the authority of nations, about which we will speak later, and it is called the ordinance of God. Moreover, the most important part of the sword is the laws. And so, Naaman the Syrian, Nebuchadnezzar, and others among the righteous leaders of the nations made use of the sword and the laws of the nations. And I don't know if Daniel and other Israelites lived among the Assyrians. Certainly, the Roman guard imposed a sword upon the people of Judea. And John proved this. Hi, don't harm anyone or slander anyone, and be content with your wages. Such was Cornelius, as recorded in the Acts. Such was Sergius, the proconsul, as recorded in the Acts. I wrote this so that it can be understood that nothing in the civil and external administration of things pertains to the justice of the spirit, just as farming a field, building, or putting on shoes has no bearing on the justice of the spirit; and whether Christians choose to use or not use the Mosaic forms of judgment, I would prefer that the Mosaic laws be accepted for the Gentiles, even though they are often foolish. We are, indeed, like those grafted onto the olive tree. We are indeed grafted into that olive tree. And it was fitting to prefer the word of God over human laws. Today, there is hardly any other use of that Roman law than in litigation, so that they may have what they need to support themselves as legal advocates. As far as the law is considered outdated, I believe it can be understood in part from what we've discussed. The Spirit will teach you more certainly through the use of Scripture. This freedom can only be understood through a spiritual lens. You might say, if those who have the Spirit of Christ are free, then both David and Moses were free too? Above all. For this is what Peter says in the Acts. Neither we nor our fathers could bear it, but we believe we are saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, just as they were; that is, the fathers recognized that all their works were sins, and they acknowledged that they did not merit salvation by any of their works, but depended on the mercy of God. Therefore, they believed and were saved by trusting in God's mercy, and through the Spirit of God, they realized they were free from the curse of the law and from every burden or demand of the law. But the reason they didn't abandon the ceremonies is that the freedom had not yet been revealed, and the gospel of freedom had not yet been proclaimed. Therefore, they did not take away the law lightly, since they felt they were justified by faith. Sometimes, people rightly use the privilege of freedom, as I do. David indeed ate from the showbread, which it was not lawful to eat except for the priests. And David, speaking excellently about freedom, said: "The way is indeed polluted, but it can be sanctified in vessels; that is, one must be pure oneself, so that one may be faithful and sanctify all things, including food, works, and so on." by the faith of the saints. It's not different from what Paul says in Titus. I: All things are clean to the clean, but nothing is clean to the unclean. In summary, we are free through faith from the entire law; but faith itself, which is the very spirit of Christ that we have received, mortifies the remnants of sin in our flesh. The law doesn't demand this, but because it is the very nature of the Spirit, it cannot help but put the flesh to death. . This is what Paul says in Romans. This is what Paul says in Romans. Köstlin. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, meaning those who believe, because they have been redeemed from the curse of the law and are saved; however, they do not walk according to the flesh, but rather, because the Spirit reigns in them, the remnants of the flesh are crucified. And laws are prescribed for the faithful, through which the Spirit puts the flesh to death. Freedom has not yet been fully realized in us, but it is being claimed as the spirit grows and the flesh is put to death. The use of the Decalogue is for mortifying the flesh; the ceremonial or judicial laws are not needed in the same way. Thus, the Decalogue is necessary for the faithful, while the other laws are not. But the spirit conceives ceremonies and external observances according to its own discretion.