Are Rulers to Uphold Both Tables of the Law?

Every week, in the Prayers of the Church, millions of Lutherans around the world pray for their civil rulers. Undoubtedly, many pray not only for these men to govern effectively and fairly, but also for their souls—that they would be Christians. But should we also pray that these men would rule as Christians? And, if so, to what extent?

Reading the Scriptures, it seems straightforward enough. Rulers who feared the Lord, turned away from idolatry, and led the people in following God’s Word were blessed and commended by God. The Scriptures hold up men like Joshua, David, Hezekiah, and Josiah as faithful examples of pious rulers. On the other hand, those who turned away from the Lord and His Word were cursed. When the prophets condemned Gentile nations and their rulers, God’s wrath was similarly connected to their rejection of the Lord and His Word. When reading church history, it is natural to “root for” rulers such as Constantine, Theodosius, Clovis, Charlemagne, and the Lutheran Electors of Saxony. These men actively, and in their official capacity as rulers, promoted the Church and defended lands that were part of what once was called Christendom. Should we not still pray for such rulers? It is rather dissatisfying, yet common, to claim that these scriptural and historical examples are inappropriate or inapplicable to life in America and the modern West. 

Ever since Constantine became the champion of the Christian Church in the Roman Empire, there have been vastly disparate reactions to cooperation or alliance between throne and altar. Undeniably, this momentous event presented new challenges and different dangers. But did it signal the beginning of a fundamental corruption of the Church or relief and victory from God? Were well-intentioned Christians sinfully mixing together the Church and the state? Or, should Christians strive for their civil communities, as they certainly do for their families, to be Christian? Should they pray that their nation be a part of Christendom?

As Christians in the West are increasingly marginalized and driven from the public square, questions concerning the proper relationship between Church and state are in the forefront of the minds of the faithful. In such times, it is wise to listen to our forefathers and their testimony concerning the proper relationship between civil government and the Church.¹

But to zero in on a critical aspect of this debate, I would narrow the focus to the question: What are the duties of the civil government in regards to the Ten Commandments? To guide us in our thinking, let us look at how our forefathers answered this question.

The Two Tables of the Law

Some would assert that civil rulers are to govern on the basis of natural law and reason and thus are to be concerned only with the second table of the law (commandments 4-10) and not the first table of the law (commandments 1-3). There are at least three serious problems with this viewpoint. 

First, both tables of the commandments are part of the natural law, not just the second table. The first two chapters of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans make this very clear. 

Second, attempting to divide the tables of the commandments according to matters of faith and matters of common morality quickly falls apart (as if the first table has to do with inward matters and the second table has to do with outward matters). While the first table certainly focuses on our relationship with God and the second table with our neighbor, outward and inward aspects of the law run through the commandments. The two tables are not to be sundered by such a distinction. Both the Small and Large Catechisms make this plain. We are not to despise the Word of God by outwardly absenting ourselves from worship nor by inwardly spurning His Word in our heart. We are not only to refrain from outwardly harming our neighbor, but also from inwardly hating him in our heart. 

Third, if we were to claim that civil rulers are only to concern themselves with the second table of the law, we will have cut ourselves off from our forefathers and joined the ranks of the Anabaptists. 

At the time of the Reformation, the Anabaptists believed that the fall of the Church coincided with the reign of Constantine and the melding of Church and empire. Luther and the other reformers did not believe this to be the case nor evaluate church history in this fashion.² It was the rise of the papacy, in conjunction with the teaching of salvation by works and elevation of monasticism, that led to spiritual tyranny over the Church, home and civil government. Though they insisted on maintaining the proper distinction between ecclesiastical and civil authorities, the reformers praised Constantine, Theodosius and other Christian rulers who aided the Church by convening councils, promoting unity, and combating heresy. The reformers believed that civil rulers were custodians of both tables of the law concerning outward matters. To this day, many American Christians follow in the Anabaptists’ footsteps, denying that any type of supportive or cooperative relationship can exist between the Church and civil government. This is especially strange because this view is out of step with our nation’s history during the colonial period, the vast majority of the founding fathers, and our history from the early republic until the mid-twentieth century.³ 

Luther on Civil Government and the Church

Martin Luther recognized that God’s Word establishes distinct institutions that have different purposes, goals, and methods.⁴ The distinction between civil government and the Church was an important distinction that he maintained throughout his life.⁵ A related distinction, the distinction between inward, spiritual, matters and outward, earthly, matters was fundamental for Luther when approaching the roles and responsibilities of civil government and the Church and their respective duties to the Word of God.⁶ However, there was also a fundamental unity underlying the institutions of civil government and the Church. Luther recognized their common origin in creation and that both were ruled by Christ.⁷ Another important point of commonality is that both civil and ecclesiastical authority flow from the family and that rulers and pastors are a type of father under the fourth commandment. Luther’s teaching of the three estates undergirded and enriched his understanding of the two kingdoms.⁸ He recognized the universal responsibility to acknowledge and serve God in accordance with one’s particular station.

Luther understood that the heart of the Church’s mission was to bring men to saving faith by the forgiveness of sins—the eternal peace of God. The heart of the government’s mission is to maintain as much earthly peace as possible in a fallen world for the sake of order and the glory of God. Peace is the goal of both the civil government and the Church.⁹ Both institutions reflect God’s love for and bestow His blessings upon mankind. Each of them teaches and directs men towards God’s will and the appropriate good works within each person’s vocation.¹⁰ While each has its distinct purpose and focus, each institution is to aid and serve the other one.¹¹ Civil government aids the Church’s mission by maintaining earthly peace so that the Gospel may be preached and men may be given the peace of God by the forgiveness of sins. The Church assists in the civil government’s furtherance of earthly peace by teaching how people are to lead godly lives and to honor the civil authorities. 

Luther recognized the duty of the Church to preach on what God’s Word taught concerning our relationship with both God (first table) and our neighbors (second table), connecting the spiritual, inward meaning of the commandments to faith and trust in Christ. However, the Church was not to execute temporal punishment against those who did not follow the Ten Commandments. Similarly, while civil rulers were not to rule over their subjects through preaching or directly attempting to heal men’s souls, they too had a responsibility to acknowledge and honor the Lord. They were to uphold the outward keeping of both the first and second table and punish outward violations of the commandments.¹² 

Luther believed that there ought to be a supportive and cooperative relationship between the Church and civil authorities. He was careful to maintain the distinction between the kingdoms, but the distinction of duties did not ultimately lie between the two tables of the Ten Commandments, but the distinction between inward and outward matters.

Blasphemy

Luther never questioned the magistrate’s duty to suppress blasphemy.¹³ Throughout his lifetime, he lobbied the magistrates to support Lutheranism in their lands and suppress heretical practices and preaching. To note two specific examples, he was insistent in his desire for Lutheran princes to repress Roman abuses concerning the mass,¹⁴ and wrote that it was the princes’ duty to suppress false preaching¹⁵—particularly of the Anabaptists and other sectarians.¹⁶ Significantly, he not only justified punishment of heresy on the grounds of the threat to public peace, but also on the grounds of blasphemy.

Luther believed in social responsibility for publicly committed sins. As is vividly clear in the Scriptures, Luther believed that public blasphemy calls down God’s punishment on the community that tolerates it. In The Abomination of the Secret Mass of 1525, Luther noted the civil government’s duty to punish blasphemy and warned of consequences if it does not:

For the authorities [secular rulers] are responsible for the prevention and punishment of such public blasphemy of God, but if they tolerate it and simply look on where they could be preventing it, God will not wink at such conduct but will terribly punish both the blasphemers and those who approve them.¹⁷

In his Commentary on Psalm 82, Luther also demonstrated his understanding of the duty both Israelite and Gentile rulers had towards both tables of the commandments—especially regarding questions of blasphemy and the suppression of heresy. He wrote:

If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed . . . such teachers should not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers. For they are not mere heretics but open blasphemers; and rulers are in duty bound to punish blasphemers as they punish those who curse, swear, revile, abuse, defame, and slander. With their blasphemy such teachers defame the name of God and rob their neighbor of his honor in the eyes of the world.¹⁸

Luther consistently maintained that no one could force faith; however, outward suppression of blasphemy and the preaching of false doctrine were distinct from compelling faith.¹⁹ Luther believed that only the Word of God could cure heresy, and that private false belief was an inward matter not to be dealt with by the magistrate. However, Luther considered false teaching an outward matter since it both disturbed the public peace and openly blasphemed the name of God. Thus, he held that false teaching was to be suppressed by civil rulers in accordance with their duty to further God’s Word.

Luther saw Psalm 82 teaching not just Israelite kings, but every king, how he ought to conduct himself in his office. In his commentary, Luther pointed to both Israelite and Gentile rulers who were overthrown for their rejection of God and His Word as examples of those who refused to rule according to the virtues taught in Psalm 82. He wrote, “Read the books of Kings and see how He wipes out the kings Jeroboam, Ahab, Jehoram, Ahaziah; and among the heathen, the emperors, Julius, Nero, Domitian. Our own times, too, give us illustrations in plenty, if we consider or regard them . . . They deserve this overthrow, it [verse 5] says, because . . . they do not accept the duty of advancing the Word of God.”²⁰ Luther understood that Gentile nations were not bound to the particulars of the civil and ceremonial code given to Israel since it was for a specific time and people. However, he also understood that the moral, or natural, law included both tables of the commandments, which the Lord expected all nations and peoples to follow. Thus, he viewed David and the godly kings of Judah as a positive example for Christian nations to follow, especially in matters pertaining to the first table of the law, such as idolatry and blasphemy.

Rulers as Fathers

Luther, and the Lutheran orthodox fathers, emphasized the paternal role rulers had towards their subjects. They rooted this understanding in the fourth commandment, and, thus, in creation itself. This can especially be seen in Luther’s catechetical writings. In his Ten Sermons on the Catechism (1528), Luther taught that the civil rulers were responsible for instructing their subjects to “fear God” according to their “paternal office.”²¹ Luther stated in the preface to the Small Catechism that parents and employers should not feed those who refused to learn the Catechism, and should “notify them that the prince will drive such rude people from the country.”²² He also emphasized the distinction between inward faith and the outward maintenance of religion:

For although we cannot and should not force anyone to believe, yet we should insist and urge the people that they know what is right and wrong with those among whom they dwell and wish to make their living. For whoever desires to reside in a town must know and observe the town laws, the protection of which he wishes to enjoy, no matter whether he is a believer or at heart and in private a rogue or knave . . . .

As the context makes clear, the knowledge of “what is right and wrong” included religious instruction in the Catechism.

In the Large Catechism, Luther more fully expounded his understanding of the relationship of civil rulers to fatherhood and the fourth commandment. Luther identified the civil rulers as fathers of the nation who occupied an office that flowed from the fourth commandment.²³ And, when describing the duty of all fathers, including civil rulers, he said that they are to train those under their care in the fear of God.

. . . they should earnestly and faithfully discharge their office, not only to support and provide for the bodily necessities of their children, servants, subjects, etc., but, most of all, to train them to the honor and praise of God. Therefore do not think that this is left to your pleasure and arbitrary will, but that it is a strict command and injunction of God, to whom also you must give account for it.²⁴ 

Phillip Melanchthon

Melanchthon also held the long-standing conviction that the civil government was to support the true religion and suppress heresy.²⁵ In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon, appealing to Charles V, wrote:

Therefore, most excellent Emperor Charles . . . To God most of all you owe the duty [as far as this is possible to man] to maintain sound doctrine and hand it down to posterity, and to defend those who teach what is right. For God demands this when He honors kings with His own name and calls them gods, saying, Ps. 82:6: I have said, Ye are gods, namely, that they should attend to the preservation and propagation of divine things, i.e., the Gospel of Christ, on the earth, and, as the vicars of God, should defend the life and safety of the innocent [true Christian teachers and preachers].²⁶

Seven years later, in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Melanchthon again asserted that civil rulers were to support the Church and suppress error. He wrote:

But especially the chief members of the Church, kings and princes, ought to guard the interests of the Church, and to see to it that errors be removed and consciences be healed [rightly instructed], as God expressly exhorts kings, Ps. 2:10: Be wise, now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. For it should be the first care of kings [and great lords] to advance the glory of God. Therefore it would be very shameful for them to lend their influence and power to confirm idolatry and infinite other crimes, and to slaughter saints.²⁷ 

It is also important to note that the students and followers of the reformers did not dissent from Luther and Melanchthon on this matter. As Dr. Cameron MacKenzie writes, “. . . throughout the Reformation period, no one understood the two kingdoms theology as requiring a Christian ruler to refrain from establishing authentic Christianity in his state. Indeed, quite the opposite, temporal rulers were supposed to support and maintain the Church.”²⁸ For all the other disagreements between the Gnesio-Lutherans, Crypto-Calvinists, Osiandrians, etc. after Luther’s death, the belief that the civil government was to serve the Church by promoting the true faith and suppressing error was not a point of contention.²⁹ We see this conviction reflected in the Preface to the Christian Book of Concord, which was written and compiled by Chemnitz, Andreae, and other faithful Lutherans, and presented and signed by the Lutheran princes and other rulers subscribing to the Book of Concord. It states:

Wherefore, mindful of our duty, which, we know, has been divinely enjoined upon us, we think that we ought diligently to apply ourselves to the labor of attacking in our provinces and realms the false teachings which have been disseminated there, and are gradually insinuating themselves, as it were, into the intimate acquaintance and familiarity of men, and that we should see to it that the subjects in our government may persevere in the straight way of godliness and in the truth of the heavenly doctrine. . . it has always been our purpose that in our lands, dominions, schools, and churches no other doctrine be proclaimed and accurately set forth than that which is founded upon the Word of God, and contained in the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, (and that, too, when understood properly in its genuine sense,) and that opinions conflicting with these be not admitted . . . we understand that we owe our subjects this, viz., that we should diligently care for the things which pertain to this life and the life to come, and that we should take pains, with the greatest earnestness and to our utmost ability, to attend to those matters which promote the extension of God’s name and glory, the propagation of His Word, (from which alone we hope for salvation,) the peace and tranquility of churches and schools, and the instruction and consolation of disturbed consciences . . . whereby the glory of God and the common welfare in both temporal and eternal things may be promoted.³⁰

Would that we were blessed with such rulers today! Let us pray that it may be so.

Confessional Lutherans in America

We ought to keep in mind that, as orthodox believers, we have a “right” to practice our religion, not because of some inalienable “right” of every man to blaspheme as he sees fit, but because the King of all creation commands all men to acknowledge and worship Him. Luther and the other reformers recognized that there was no neutral ground when it came to acknowledging God and His Word (Mt. 12:30). A fundamental belief of our forefathers was that a government would always support religion—the only question was, “Which one?” Practically speaking, we ought not consider it our duty to defend the supposed right of others to blaspheme. Nor should we consider the acknowledgement of the Triune God, the furtherance of His Word, and the suppression of blasphemy by the government inappropriate or transgressive. We should calm the earthly fear that, by teaching this, tyrants might be strengthened. Luther, in his typically blunt way, responded to such fears of his time with full confidence in God’s Word, saying, “What do I care? If we were to hold back necessary instruction because of the tyrants, we would long since have had to give up the Gospel altogether . . . Nevertheless we must not abolish or hide the commandment to stone false prophets.”³¹ Tyrants, by definition, will abuse their power whether the laws give them such authority or not. Governments will protect that which is held sacred with blasphemy laws, whether they be referred to as such or not–for example, hate-speech laws. If confessional Lutherans can again recognize the duty of all rulers and nations to acknowledge God and further His Word, we will have made great strides in walking in the footsteps of our fathers. And, we will be far more ready to face the challenges of today and our swiftly changing world as a Church and citizens of our nation.

Endnotes

1. Some good starting places would be: Cameron A. MacKenzie, “The Challenge of History: Luther’s Two Kingdoms Theology as a Test Case,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 71, no. 1 (January 2007).        https://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/mackenziechallengeofhistory.pdf; David P. Ramirez, “Martin Luther and Religious Liberty” (S.T.M. Thesis, Concordia Theological Seminary, 2020). https://www.academia.edu/89633865/Martin_Luther_and_Religious_Liberty; and James M. Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon (Leiden: Brill, 2005).
2. Luther’s view of this aspect of Church history is well summarized in John M. Headley, Luther’s View of Church History (London: Yale University Press, 1963), 156–157, 169.
3. It is often forgotten that multiple states had established churches after the Constitution was ratified. Numerous religious tests for public office remained in state law long after “disestablishment,” but were held unconstitutional in the 1961 case Torcaso v Watkins. In New Hampshire, members of the State legislature had to be Protestant until 1877. In North Carolina, public officials had to be Protestant until 1835, Christian until 1876, and atheists are still prohibited (though it is now unenforceable) to this day. A wide variety of laws concerning school prayer, Bible reading, outlawing the teaching of evolution, joint state and religious undertakings, etc. continued to be enforced until the 1947 Everson decision. Everson v. Board of Education, together with Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), completed the incorporation of the First Amendment clauses concerning religion into the Fourteenth Amendment and created a national law of “religious liberty” applied to all levels of governments. However, Sunday laws (blue laws) and other vestiges of religious “establishment” continue in some ways in local laws to this day. Six states (Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wyoming) still have laws (also unenforceable) that reference blasphemy.
4. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 45–48.
5. William J. Wright, Martin Luther’s Understanding of God’s Two Kingdoms: A Response to the Challenge of Skepticism, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 15.
6. Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 45. See also On Secular Authority (1523) AE 45: 96.
7. Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 54–56. See also Commentary on Psalm 101 (1534) AE 13: 196.
8. Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development, trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 322–324.
9. Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 59–60. See also Michael Parsons, Martin Luther’s Interpretation of the Royal Psalms: The Spiritual Kingdom in a Pastoral Context (Lampeter, Wales: Edwin Mellen Press, 2009), 25–32.
10. Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 60, 70–71. See also Parsons, Royal Psalms, 33–35.
11. Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, 60. See also On Secular Authority (1523) AE 45: 92.
12. Regarding the relationship between the civil government and the Church and examples of improper mixing and proper service towards each other, see: Commentary on Psalm 101, AE:13. 
13. Jarrett A. Carty, God And Government: Martin Luther’s Political Thought (Montreal & Kingston: McGill–Queen’s University Press, 2017), 119.
14. Estes, Peace, Order and the Glory of God, 42–45.
15. Commentary on Psalm 82 (1530), AE 13: 61–67.
16. John S. Oyer, Lutheran Reformers against Anabaptists: Luther, Melanchthon and Menius and the Anabaptists of Central Germany, vol. 13, The Dissent and Nonconformity Series (Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., 2000), 126–139.
17. AE 36:328
18. AE 13:61.
19. See AE 13:62.
20. AE 13:68.
21. AE 51: 151.
22. Small Catechism Preface.
23. Large Catechism, Part I.103–158. “. . . so that all whom we call masters are in the place of parents and must derive their power and authority to govern from them. Hence also they are all called fathers in the Scriptures, as those who in their government perform the functions of a father, and should have a paternal heart toward their subordinates . . . Thus we have two kinds of fathers presented in this commandment, fathers in blood and fathers in office, or those to whom belongs the care of the family, and those to whom belongs the care of the country. Besides these there are yet spiritual fathers . . . .”
24. Large Catechism, Part I.168–169. (emphasis mine)
25. Estes, Peace Order and the Glory of God, 91–92. Estes traces Melanchthon’s development and the formulation of his teaching on civil government in chapters 2–4 of this work. It was Melanchthon who was to be the formulator of what would become the standard Lutheran teaching on civil rulers and the duties before God. See especially Philipp Melanchthon, The Chief Theological Topics: Loci praecipui theologici 1559, trans. Jacob A. O. Preus, 2nd ed. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2011), 430–431.
26. Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XXI.44.
27. Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.54. 
28. MacKenzie, “The Challenge of History,” 25.
29. For a collection of quotes concerning civil authority from the Lutheran orthodox fathers, see: Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1875), 616-9. Also see: Aegidius Hunnius, The Christian Table of Duties, trans. Paul A. Rydecki, (Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2013), 40–41. 
30. Preface to the Christian Book of Concord.6, 21-22.
31. AE 13: 67.