Chapter IV: The Abrogation of the Forensic Laws.
CHAPTER IV: THE ABROGATION OF THE FORENSIC LAWS
The forensic laws have been abrogated in the New Testament.
§ 39. Next, because the forensic laws pertained solely to establishing and governing the Jewish political state, it is easy to see that they have been abrogated in the New Testament. We confirm this with the following proofs.
(1) Any law that has a certain endpoint to its observance is not perpetual and unchangeable. When the endpoint associated with it arrives, the law is judged to have been abrogated. But now, a certain endpoint was attached to the observance of the forensic laws by God Himself. Gen. 49:10: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the 
(’lawgiver’) from his thigh until Shiloh” (or, rather, the Messiah) “comes.” There the scepter and the lawgiver are connected, and a certain time is attached to the duration of both, namely, the coming of the Messiah. Consequently, with the coming of the Messiah the Jewish state itself, along with its laws, was abrogated. Mercerus (on Genesis, p. 731): “A 
is a scribe, lawgiver, director—so called because he prescribed rights and laws and carved and inscribed them onto bronze and stone that they may be remembered. In the New Testament, one who gives answers concerning the forensic law from the Mosaic Law is called a γραμματεύς.”
** In Matt. 19:7, when Christ abrogated the forensic law about the certificate of divorce in Deut. 24:1, He indicated, not obscurely, that the judicial laws of Moses had ceased in the New Testament, as the apostle in Eph. 2:14–15 also testifies as to how Christ has destroyed the dividing wall of hostility and the law of commandments which was placed in ordinances. Therefore whatever belongs to the dividing wall of hostility and is contained within the law of the commandments placed in ordinances has been abrogated by Christ and, consequently, is no longer binding in the New Testament. But now, the forensic laws of Moses belong to the dividing wall of hostility, etc. Gal. 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free; you are all one in Christ.” But now, the forensic laws make a distinction between Jews and Greeks, slaves and free. The obligation to the judicial law was of the same kind as the obligation to the ceremonial law. But now, the obligation to the ceremonial law was temporary, as we showed above [§ 27]. Therefore. The major premise is proved: (a) Because ceremonial as well as judicial statutes belonged to the dividing wall of hostility which has now been torn down. (b) Just as the temple of the Jews was destroyed, so also was the Jewish state destroyed, to which the forensic laws belong. (c) Both sets of laws belonged to the Old Testament, which is “obsolete” (Heb. 8:13). (d) Neither was written by God on tablets of stone or in the hearts of people or was put into the ark of the covenant. (e) Also, some judicial laws clearly pertained to the Aaronic priesthood. That which applied to special circumstances of place, time, cases, and persons does not obligate simply but rather ceases itself at the same time as those circumstances cease. The forensic law of Moses applied to certain circumstances of place, time, cases, and persons. Therefore. **
(2) Whatever did not obligate peoples who had converted to God in the Old Testament obligated them even less in the New Testament. But now, when the Jewish state still existed during the time of the Old Testament, the forensic laws were not imposed upon converted peoples. Rather, they were free to keep the laws of their fathers and forefathers, as is shown by the examples of Job, Jethro, the queen of Sheba, Nebuchadnezzar, the people of Nineveh, Cyrus, Darius, etc. Joseph governed Egypt and Daniel governed Persia without introducing the forensic laws. Therefore all the less can they be binding for Christians who have been converted from the Gentiles in the New Testament.
** A law obligates only those to whom it has been issued. The forensic law of Moses was issued only to the Jews. Therefore it obligates only them. **
(3) The destruction of the Jewish state is an obvious, public evidence of the abrogation of those laws. Take away a state, and its laws are also removed ([Corpus Iuris Civilis,] c. Innotuit 20, De elect.). But now, under the New Testament the Jewish state has been removed, seeing as for the whole time following the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews they have not had any kings, leaders, or Sanhedrin; so the prophecy of Hosea was truly fulfilled (3:4): “The children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or altar, without ephod or teraphim.” Therefore under the New Testament the forensic laws concerning the Jewish state have been removed. In the Roman Empire some laws are observed that were taken from the governments of the Athenians and of others, but this does not overturn our proposition. For those are observed not according as they belonged to the Athenians but because they were introduced by the Roman magistracy into our state and were given by right of the Roman Empire. However, the same thing cannot be demonstrated in regard to the forensic laws of Moses, namely, that Christ or the apostles so recalled them into the church and ordered them to be observed in the New Testament.
(4) Whatever magistrate we are bound to obey, it is fitting for us to be subject to his laws. Yet we are bound to obey even a heathen magistrate, as long as he is the legitimate magistrate. Rom. 13:1: “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no authority except from God, and the powers which do exist have been ordained by God.” Verse 5: “Therefore be subject of necessity, not only because of wrath but also for the sake of conscience.” 1 Pet. 2:13–14: “Be subject for God’s sake to every human creature, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as men sent by him.” Clearly the apostles are speaking about not refusing obedience even to a heathen magistrate, for the Christians at that time did not yet have another magistrate. Therefore Christians are clearly subject to the civil laws of a magistrate, however heathen he may be, and as a consequence are not bound simply to the forensic laws of Moses, which do not agree in every detail with the civil laws of the Romans or of other peoples.
** If we are bound to subject ourselves even to those magistrates who administer the state with laws differing from the laws of Moses, then clearly the laws of Moses are not binding upon all people simply. But the first [proposition] is true because: (a) The Gospel does not abolish governments. (b) During the Babylonian captivity, the Jews had to be subject to the Babylonian magistracy even before the coming of Christ (Jer. 17:8, 12). Is it not all the more fitting, then, that we subject ourselves to the present magistrates? (c) The apostles teach the same thing in Rom. 13[:1–7]; 1 Pet. 2[:13–17]. **
(5) What was not imposed upon the heathen who converted to Christ at the time of the apostles should all the less be imposed upon us. The logic of the consequence is obvious, because the Jewish synagogue and state was about to be buried with honor, and so if it had seemed expedient to the apostles for the forensic laws of Moses to be observed in the New Testament, they surely would have imposed them upon those very people of the Gentiles whom they had converted to Christ by the preaching of the Gospel. But now, the yoke of the forensic laws was not imposed upon the Gentiles who converted to Christ at the time of the apostles, as is seen by the examples of the centurion (Matt. 8:13), the Roman soldiers (Luke 3:14), Cornelius (Acts 10:1), and the proconsul Sergius (Acts 13:12). All these certainly carried out their official duties and arranged their lives on the basis of the prescript of Roman law, and yet we do not read that they were censured for this by Christ or John the Baptist or the apostles, nor can one provide any example to the contrary. Therefore the yoke of the forensic laws of Moses should not be imposed upon us.
(6) Whoever wishes to enjoy the privileges of any state must approve of its laws. Paul used the privileges of the Roman state. Acts 22:25: “It is not lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen and not condemned, is it?” Acts 25:10: “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal where I ought to be tried.” Therefore he approved of Roman laws even though they did not agree with the laws of Moses in every detail.
(7) The kingdom of Christ is not external, worldly, and political, and as such it does not need forensic laws, nor does it abrogate governments nor free citizens from obedience to their magistrates. Rather, it is a spiritual, internal, and heavenly kingdom; the external, Jewish state was a type for it, bound and tied together by the forensic laws. Therefore, since Christ has been exalted to His kingdom, the typological kingdom rightly ceases to exist.
** Nevertheless just as the learned look at the laws of some ancient states for the sake of developing historical examples, so Luther (Tract. de recte docendo Moyse) teaches with several examples that rulers can conclude and discover by conjecture moral reasons mixed in with the forensic laws of God’s government, as well as many other salutary statutes.6 **
Antithesis.
§ 40. Therefore Carlstadt’s error must be reproved, whom the Münster Anabaptists later followed. These strenuously fought to eradicate Roman law from Christian states and to have civil cases judged according to the laws of Moses. Martin Luther fiercely opposed them, as is clear from vol. 1 of his works.7
** On this question, see several [works] in Luther (Jena German, vol. 2 [1558], fols. 480ff.8), also Lobechius (Disp. 18 in Aug. Confess., De magistr, §§ 33ff.). Henricus Stephanus, in his book which was published on this specific question, argues: “The laws of the Hebrews should be considered as having come from God Himself upon all republics and consequently should be restored as the best of all.” However, what is best for that people is not immediately the best absolutely. **
There is no lack of other fanatics brazenly supporting this error, as is evident from Bernard Textor’s disputation (published in 1592). On this matter, see Wilhelm Zepper (Tractatus de legibus Mosaicis) as well as the preface of the jurist [Johannes] Calvinus in Themis Hebraeo-Romana. Actually, Calvin himself writes clearly (Instit., bk. 4, ch. 20, section 14): “There are some who say that a state is not rightly ordered if it neglects the political ordinances of Moses and is ruled by the common laws of the nations. Let others see how dangerous and destructive this idea may be. For me it will be enough to have demonstrated that it is false and stupid.”
** [Ibid.] (sect. 16): “Some object that the Law of God given through Moses is insulted when it is abrogated and other new laws are preferred to it. This is a completely vacuous charge. You see, other laws are not being preferred to it when they are more approved not by a simple comparison, but given the circumstances of time, places, and peoples; nor can that be abrogated which was never given to us, for the Lord did not hand it down through the hand of Moses to be published among all nations and to be in force everywhere. Rather, because He had taken the Jews into His protection, support, and guardianship, He also wanted to be their particular Lawgiver. He had a particular reason for the laws given to them, which is characteristic of a wise lawgiver.” **
Bucanus writes along the same lines (Instit. theol., loc. 19, p. 186): “No state is bound to accept the political laws of the Israelites.” Perkins presents that very thought more accurately (Anatom. consc., p. 26):
The juridical laws of Moses are of two kinds: some are laws of particular equity or justice, and some are laws of universal justice. Laws of particular justice are those which prescribe justice concerning a particular constitution or condition of the Jewish state, its circumstances, time, place, persons, property, actions, etc. None of these obligates us. The laws of universal justice, or equity, are those which are made and sanctioned in accordance with the law or instinct of nature common to all men. These, as far as their substance is concerned, obligate the consciences not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles. Hence a judicial law [of Moses] can be recognized as being also a law of universal justice or equity if either one of these two [conditions] is true of it: (1) If wise men, not only among the Jews but also among other nations, have judged that it is fair, just, and necessary according to natural reason and conscience, and at the same time have upheld their judgment by passing for their own states such laws which, as far as substance is concerned, are the same as many judicial laws given to the Jews. The Roman emperors, among others, are great examples of this. (2) A judicial law has that universal equity if it is in direct service to the explanation and confirmation of any commandment of the Decalogue or to the defense and preservation of the family, state, or even the church.
These are all Perkins’s words.
** Aretius (p. 1, probl. 54): “Just as the ceremonial shadows rightly ceased when the body came [Col. 2:17], so also the forensic laws were abrogated, which properly concerned the Jewish state.” The same thing is claimed by Musculus (Loci, p. 302, tit. De abrog. Mosaic.) and by P. Martyr (Loci, sect. 17, f. 715). **
§ 41. Let us take a look at the basic arguments of the Jews and Judaizers, who quite strictly argue for observing the forensic laws of Moses.
(I) “The author of the forensic laws is God, who is utterly wise and unchanging. Therefore He knows best what laws should rule governments, and He wants them to be observed unaltered.”
We respond. The forensic laws were promulgated in the utterly wise counsel of God in view of the Jewish state, and in that state they had to be observed unaltered. However, they were not promulgated for the other nations, and, furthermore, God Himself predetermined the time limit for these laws. Consequently, because they were not given to us and because their time limit has passed, there is no reason for us to fear that we are detracting from God’s wisdom by abrogating them. When a new covenant has been promulgated, the old one must become obsolete. Jer. 31:31: “Behold, the days will come, and I will make a new covenant, not according to the covenant I made with your fathers.” Heb. 8:13: “In speaking of a new covenant, He has made the former one obsolete; now what is obsolete and growing old is nearly destroyed.” Here one must note the following with precision: Roman laws are not preferred to the forensic laws of Moses as if, simply and absolutely speaking, Roman legislators were wiser than Moses himself, but because those [laws of Moses] were not promulgated for us and for our governments. Roman laws, then, are preferred to Mosaic laws not by simple comparison but given the circumstances of times, places, and people. Aristotle (Polit., bk. 2, ch. 4) requires that a legislator pay careful attention to the situation and the people, because there is remarkable dissimilarity among peoples and different temperaments for different places. (See [Corpus Iuris Civilis,] Lex Quod si 31, § Qui mancipia, ff. De aedilitio edicto; and Bodinus, De republica, bk. 5, ch. 1.)
(II) “The New Testament does not say that the forensic laws of Moses were abrogated by Christ or the apostles or that others were substituted in their place.” We respond. It is enough that Christ and the apostles did not use their right of postliminium9 to restore them to our governments. For since the Jewish government has been removed, its laws are also judged to have been removed. On the other hand, even though Christ and the apostles did not specifically pass new laws, they do generally grant the promulgation of [laws] to the magistracy and confirm this by ordering that the magistracy be given due obedience. Presenting oneself as obedient to the laws of the magistrate is not the least aspect of such obedience (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1; 1 Pet. 2:13).
(III) “Christ clearly asserts that He did not come ’to abolish the Law’ (Matt. 5:17). Therefore He approves the laws of Moses.”
We respond. Christ is speaking about the moral Law, which was not given temporarily but is the eternal wisdom and norm of righteousness in God. Christ did not abolish this but fulfilled it perfectly, and even renews believers for its obedience by giving them His righteousness and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the circumstances of the text show clearly that Christ is talking here about the moral Law. As far as the forensic laws of Moses are concerned, the apostle asserts (Eph. 2:15) that “Christ voided (καταργήσας) the law of commandments and ordinances,” not to mention the fact that in the same passage (v. 31) Christ disapproves of the certificate of divorce even though the law of Moses allowed it (Matt. 19:8).
Note here that some forensic laws had reference to a part of the ceremonial law and depended on it. For example, whoever had committed an accidental homicide was compelled to keep himself within a city of refuge until the death of the high priest. But because the Levitical priesthood was abrogated through the coming of the Messiah, who is the one and only high priest of the New Testament, it turns out that that forensic law was also abrogated. As a result, the words of Christ cannot refer to the forensic law of Moses.
(IV) “In John 8:6 Christ does not abrogate the law concerning the punishment of an adulteress.”
We respond. On the contrary, in this passage He does not approve the law of Moses but says to the scribes and Pharisees (v. 7): “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone at her.” But to the adulterous woman He says (v. 11): “If no one has condemned you, neither will I condemn you.” Of course, Jerome shows that this passage is not in all copies (Dial. 2, adv. Pelag.). Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Nonnus, and the Syriac paraphrase omit it, but Augustine (De adulterinis coniugiis ad Pollent., bk. 2) claimed that John really did record this account, but that “cruel husbands made sure it was expunged so that they would be free to kill their adulterous wives.” But even though we are not unwilling to accept these verses, it still cannot be proved from them either that Christ approved the forensic laws of Moses or that He removed the political punishments for adultery, because He only wanted to show this: that He had not come into the world for the purpose of exacting civil punishments or to take upon Himself aspects of political office. In this regard He also refused to take upon Himself the duties of a judge offered to Him in the case of dividing an inheritance (Luke 12:14).
(V) “A magistrate cannot be certain that his judgment, if based on Roman laws, is pleasing to God because it lacks the Word.”
We respond. On the contrary, God Himself commands us to obey the magistrate. Therefore He also grants him the authority to pass laws which are not contrary to the moral Law or right reason but are appendices to the moral Law, congruent with virtue, adapted for the safety and preservation of the state.
(VI) “In 1 Cor. 6:1 the Corinthians are rebuked for going to court before heathen magistrates. Therefore heathen magistrates, laws, and judgments are disapproved.”
We respond. One must distinguish the matter from the manner and cause of the matter. The apostle is not simply disapproving the fact that they were taking the judgment of their controversies to a heathen magistrate, to whose power the Corinthians were subject, for he clearly commands them to obey their magistrates who at that time were none other than heathen. Rather, he disapproves of their wicked manner, that out of their love for strife they were not ashamed to contend bitterly over any cause with great offense before heathen magistrates, even though the injustices could and should have been forgiven or at least settled through Christian arbiters for the sake of avoiding scandal and for public tranquility.
The moral Law was not abrogated in the New Testament.
§ 42. Therefore it is quite certain that the forensic laws of Moses were abrogated in the New Testament no less than were the ceremonial laws. The moral Law, on the other hand, which is summarized in the Decalogue, was not made obsolete by the coming of Christ because:
(1) It is the eternal and unchanging wisdom and rule of righteousness in God. Baruch 4:1: “This is the book of the Commandments of God and the Law which endures forever.”
(2) It was implanted and engraved upon the minds of men at the first creation, and the weak remnants and sparks of it are still perceived even now after the fall. Rom. 2:14: “The Gentiles are a law unto themselves, who show that the work of the Law is written in their hearts.”
(3) It was immediately revealed and repeated to the first people in Paradise, for the primordial law of not eating of the fruit of the forbidden and sacred tree required them to exercise the obedience, love, and fear due to God. Ecclesiasticus 17:[11]: (God) “gave” (to the first people) “the Law of life as their inheritance.”
(4) From the beginning of the world, even before Moses, the voice [of the Law] echoed in the church, as we showed in our preceding treatise [On the Law of God (Commonplace XV), §§ 14–24].
(5) In its actual promulgation through Moses, it was distinguished from the ceremonial and forensic laws, as we showed earlier in § 2.
(6) Christ clearly says that He did not come to abolish the Law (Matt. 5:17). Therefore the coming of Christ, so far from abolishing the moral Law, is actually clear proof of the perpetuity which we have assigned to the moral Law. It was necessary for our justification and salvation that Christ subject Himself to the Law and perfectly obey it in our place. Therefore the moral Law is eternal and unmoving.
(7) The prophets in the Old Testament and the apostles in the New clearly repeat the content of the moral Law in their sermons to the Gentiles. Therefore they actually demonstrate that the norm of the moral Law applies to all people.
(8) Believers are renewed through the Holy Spirit so that they begin to show obedience to the moral Law already in this life. [This obedience] will finally be completed and perfected in eternal life. Rom. 8:3–4: “By sending His Son because of sin, God condemned sin that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us.”
Whether it was abrogated at least to some extent.
§ 43. There are some who claim that the moral Law, which has to do with obedience, is eternal and unmoving, and that nevertheless one can say it has been abrogated in three respects: (1) As far as justification is concerned, because the moral Law is just as weak and useless to us for justification as the ceremonial and forensic laws. Gal. 3:21: “No law has been given which can give life.” (2) As far as its curse is concerned, because “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ” (Rom. 8:1). (3) As far as the rigor of its demand is concerned, because the works of the regenerate please God even though they do not satisfy the demanding rigor of the Law. Gal. 5:18: “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.”
To be sure, these statements are true: our justification does not depend on the works of the moral Law; believers are not under the curse; the works of the devout please God, though they are unclean and imperfect. But whether any abrogation should be attributed to the moral Law for these reasons and because of these respects must be carefully considered. The fact that the Law has no power for the justification and life of men after the fall does not bring a change or abrogation to the Law. Instead, it proves that a great change has occurred in us. It is for this reason that we cannot hope for justification and salvation from the Law, because it is “weakened through the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). In the same way, believers in Christ are not actually subject to the curse of the Law, but no change or abrogation can be attributed to the Law for that reason, seeing as the voice of the Law has the perpetual property and effect of accusing, cursing, and condemning. That it does not actually exert this power against believers occurs by accident, that is, because the shield of divine grace and the cloak of Christ’s righteousness protects them. The judgment must be the same regarding the rigor of the Law’s demand, which remains permanent and inviolate. Even believers and their works would be forced to experience it if they were not believers, that is, if they had not been reconciled to God through faith in Christ, because of whom their works please God even though they are unclean and imperfect in many ways. Therefore Chemnitz (Loc., de lege, p. 48) is right to remind us that Scripture does not say that the moral Law is dead, abrogated, or nullified, but we are called dead and abrogated from the Law to show that a change has taken place not in the norm of righteousness in God, but in us.10 Rom. 3:31: “We do not abrogate (καταργoῦμεν) the Law by faith,” but we are “abrogated [κατηργήθημεν] from the Law, having died” (Rom. 7:6).
The Law does not stop accusing, cursing, or working wrath, but “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed us (ἠλευθέρωσε) from the Law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2). The Law is not dead; in fact, in and of itself it is a “living oracle” (Acts 7:38). Rather, we “died to the Law” (ἐθανατώθημεν) (Rom. 7:4; Gal. 2:19). The word of the Law is eternal (Gal. 3:10, 13): “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in this book, to do them, but Christ has redeemed us (ἐζηγόρασεν) from the curse of the Law.”
1 sagae; or “fortune-tellers.”
2 See above, p. 14 n. 1.
3 Read Qui a with Cotta instead of Quia a.
4 Cf. Preface to the Old Testament (1523), AE 35:240 (WA DB 8:16–17).
5 Chemnitz’s Works 8:620.
6 See How Christians Should Regard Moses (1525), AE 35:166–68 (WA 16:376–80).
7 Volumes 1 of the Jena German, Jena Latin, Wittenberg German, and Wittenberg Latin editions do not include Luther’s writings against Carlstadt and the Münster Anabaptists. Luther’s writings against Carlstadt include: Eight Sermons at Wittenberg (1522), AE 51:67–100 (WA 10/3:1–64); Letter to the Christians at Strassburg (1524), AE 40:61–71, 49:94–96 (WA 15:391–97); Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525), AE 40:73–223 (WA 18:62–214); preface to Karlstadt, Defense (1525), AE 59:127–33 (WA 18:436–38). His writings against the Münster Anabaptists include: preface to New Report on the Anabaptists at Münster (1535), AE 60:91–98 (WA 38:347–50); see also That Secular Authority Is Obligated to Defend against the Anabaptists with Physical Punishment (1536), WA 50:8–15.
8 Luther, letter to Duke John Frederick of Saxony (June 18, 1524), WA Br 3:305–8; Trade and Usury (1524), AE 45:231–310 (WA 15:293–322); Sermon on the Summary of God’s Law, and on the Misuse and Proper Use of the Law (1525), WA 17/1:102–167 (AE 56); Was sich … Karlstadt mit D. M. Luther beredet zu Jena…Item die Handlung D. M. Luthers mit dem Rat und Gemeinde zu Orlamünde (1524), WA 15:334–47. The listing of the contents of vol. 2 of the Jena German edition of Luther’s writings can be found in Kurt Aland, ed., Hilfsbuch zum Lutherstudium, 4th ed. (Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag, 1996), 573–75. Gerhard was apparently referring to the first 1558 printing of this volume. Printings of other years have differing paginations.
9 iure postliminii, that is, the right Christ would have to restore Mosaic Law and implement it in the New Testament among Gentiles.
10 Chemnitz’s Works 8:629.