JamesPolk.net

Christ did not yield the sword and David did not build the Temple because he himself did though not wrongly

This is a good passage from Luther’s “On Being Christian” on Temporal Authority about why there must always be a sword wielded by government because the Church itself does not wield the sword, and until kingdom come, there will always be those against whom it must be wielded. what of government administered by notChristians and of moral teaching like the true Church but not of proper Doctrine did Luther write? by what authority is Church to be determined to be Church? and by what authority is Government to be determined as official?
———————————

Great passage. Luther’s answer hangs on his “two kingdoms” (or two realms) teaching:
Christ rules His Church by the Word and Spirit (no sword), and He preserves the world through temporal government (the sword).

1) Can government be ruled by non-Christians?

Yes. For Luther, the office is what matters, not the ruler’s personal faith. God institutes temporal authority to curb outward evil and keep civil peace (Rom 13). Therefore:

  • A pagan, Muslim, or atheist magistrate can be a rightful ruler if he punishes wrongdoers and protects the good.

  • Christians owe obedience in all civil matters unless commanded to sin. If a ruler commands what God forbids (or forbids what God commands), we must “obey God rather than men.”

  • Tyranny should be borne with patience unless and until lawful “lesser magistrates” act to correct or resist it; private rebellion is condemned.

2) What about “moral teaching” that looks churchy but lacks true doctrine?

Luther distinguishes civil righteousness from Christian righteousness:

  • Many teachers (philosophers, jurists, even heretics) can teach admirable ethics and produce decent outward behavior. That’s useful for the left-hand kingdom (society) but it does not make a church.

  • The Church’s unique treasure is the Gospel—the free forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake—delivered through Word and Sacraments. Any group that majors on morals while corrupting or obscuring the Gospel is, to Luther, no true church, however pious it may appear.

3) By what authority is the Church recognized as “Church”?

By its marks (notae ecclesiae):

  • Pure preaching of the Gospel (justification by faith alone in Christ).

  • Right administration of the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as instituted by Christ).
    From these follow the ministry/keys, prayer, catechesis, and cross-bearing—but Word and Sacrament are the determinative marks. Where these are present, Christ’s Church is present—even if rulers, structures, or personalities are unimpressive.

4) By what authority is a Government recognized as “official”?

By God’s ordination of the temporal office and its lawful exercise:

  • It bears the sword to punish wrong and preserve external peace and justice.

  • Legitimacy rests in the office and law (established order, courts, due process, protection of the innocent), not in the ruler’s holiness.

  • Bands of private men who coerce without lawful office are not “government” in Luther’s sense, even if they claim moral aims.

In short:
The Church is found where Christ’s Gospel is purely preached and His Sacraments rightly given. Government is found where the God-given office lawfully bears the sword to restrain evil and protect the neighbor—no matter the ruler’s creed. The sword belongs to Caesar; salvation belongs to Christ.

———————————
what if a government were to be instituted that did not allow for the Church? what if a government were to postulate a reversal of the concepts that Luther wrote in his book “on the Jews and their Lies” about what it is that keeps people Christian and how to take away those things to elicit a deconversion the way Luther sought to cause an elicitation of Jewish people to become Christian?
———————————

Short answer: in Luther’s framework, a state that tries to erase the Church steps outside its God-given lane. When rulers command what God forbids or forbid what God commands, Christians must disobey them and keep the Gospel and Sacraments—even if that means suffering.

1) What if a government “does not allow” the Church?

  • Limits of the sword. For Luther, temporal authority is for bodies, property, and external order; it has no jurisdiction over conscience or the Gospel. When it invades that realm, it abuses the office.

  • Obey God rather than men. If rulers outlaw preaching, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Scripture, or catechesis, Christians are bound to continue them. That can mean underground worship and accepting the cross (imprisonment, loss, even death).

  • Role of lesser magistrates. If higher powers persecute the true faith, lawful lower authorities (princes, councils, judges, sheriffs) have a duty to interpose and protect the innocent. Private rebellion is out; lawful protection by those with office is in.

  • Marks will persist. Even without buildings or legal status, the Church remains where the Gospel is purely preached and the Sacraments rightly administered. The Church does not depend on state permission to exist.

2) What if a government tried a “reverse-Luther program” to deconvert Christians?

Luther’s notorious proposals against Judaism targeted the external supports of Jewish life. Reversing that against Christians would mean targeting the means by which Christ keeps people Christian—namely, the means of grace and the common life of the congregation. A state might try to:

  • Ban or license preaching; censor or confiscate Bibles and catechisms.

  • Close churches, seminaries, and schools; dissolve monasteries or church charities.

  • Outlaw Baptism and the Supper; criminalize ordination and pastoral care.

  • Break up Christian associations; seize presses; surveil and punish Christian assemblies.

Luther’s answer: such measures are unlawful in God’s sight, because they usurp Christ’s rule over His Church. Christians must refuse compliance in those matters, continue Word and Sacraments as they are able, catechize their households, and pray for and admonish rulers. Where God provides lawful protectors, they should shield the Church; where not, the Church bears the cross and endures.

3) Bottom line in Luther’s terms

  • Church recognition: wherever Word and Sacrament remain, Christ’s Church remains—legal or illegal.

  • Government recognition: only those authorities that preserve outward justice and remain within their temporal lane are acting as true “ministers of God” in the left-hand kingdom. The moment they attack the Gospel, they act tyrannically and lose moral legitimacy in that act, even if they still carry the sword.

So, a government that “does not allow the Church” has exceeded its office. Christians are bound to keep being the Church anyway, and magistrates who can lawfully protect them should do so.

———————————
where in Luther’s writing can each of the above concepts be found? can you please make a bullet point list? also, did he write at all about a concept akin to our USA First Amendment that argued that Government needed to allow people freedom of sincerely held religious belief and not just true Church?
———————————

Here’s a quick “where-to-find-it” map in Luther’s own writings (English titles; year first published):

  • Two kingdoms; the Church has no sword, the State does

    • Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523) — core treatment of the two realms and their distinct tools (Word vs. sword).

    • The Freedom of a Christian (1520) — inner/outer person; why the Gospel does not coerce.

  • Government may be led by non-Christians and still be legitimate

    • Temporal Authority (1523) — office, not the person’s piety, establishes legitimacy.

    • Exposition of Psalm 82 (1524) — magistrates as God’s “gods/judges” bound to protect the weak, regardless of personal faith.

    • Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved (1526) — vocation in civil offices under imperfect rulers.

  • Obedience to rulers, except when they command sin (“We must obey God rather than men”)

    • Temporal Authority (1523) — explicit limit of obedience at the point of conscience/Word of God.

    • Sermons and tracts throughout (e.g., appeals to Acts 5:29).

  • No private rebellion; only lawful resistance by those in office (lesser magistrates)

    • Temporal Authority (1523) — forbids private revolt; allows action by authorities acting within office.

    • Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (1525) and Open Letter on the Harsh Book (1526) — condemns popular insurrection; reaffirms ordered, lawful correction of tyranny.

  • “Moral teaching” vs. the Church’s unique treasure (Gospel)

    • The Freedom of a Christian (1520) — civil righteousness vs. righteousness by faith.

    • Lectures on Galatians (esp. 1535) — the “two kinds of righteousness”: civil/external vs. Christian/justifying.

  • How to recognize the Church (the marks/notae ecclesiae)

    • On the Councils and the Church (1539) — classic list of the marks: pure preaching of the Gospel and right administration of the Sacraments (and the related marks flowing from these).

  • How to recognize government as official (its divine office and limits)

    • Temporal Authority (1523) — God institutes civil office to punish evil and preserve outward peace/justice; scope limited to bodies, property, external order.

    • Exposition of Psalm 82 (1524) — duties and accountability of magistrates.

  • If a government outlaws the Church (bans Word/Sacraments)

    • Temporal Authority (1523) — the state has no authority over conscience; princes must not command faith or suppress the Gospel; Christians must continue Word and Sacraments and suffer rather than sin.

    • On the Councils and the Church (1539) — the Church endures where the marks endure, even under persecution.

  • If a government tries to “deconvert” Christians by removing supports

    • Temporal Authority (1523) — forbids rulers from intruding into the Gospel/means of grace.

    • On the Councils and the Church (1539) — identifies precisely what must be attacked to unchurch (Word and Sacraments), and therefore what Christians must preserve.

Did Luther argue for something like a U.S.-style First Amendment?

  • Yes and no.

    • Yes: Luther repeatedly insists that civil rulers have no jurisdiction over conscience and must not coerce faith—“God wants willing hearts.” This is most plainly argued in Temporal Authority (1523) and echoed in Freedom of a Christian.

    • No (by our standards): Luther did not develop a universal, pluralistic “freedom for all religions.” He thought the magistrate should curb public blasphemy and heresy that shattered civil peace or destroyed souls, and later he endorsed harsh measures against certain groups. So while he helped clear conceptual space for liberty of conscience (no forced belief, Church and State have different tools), he didn’t advocate a modern, blanket First-Amendment regime.