Some Aphorisms on the “Two Kingdoms”

1. God, the Creator and Preserver not of heaven only but of “heaven and earth” (Gen 1:1), deals with His creation under two terms: 1) Law and 2) Gospel.
2. Properly speaking, the Law speaks to what people, who have been made in God’s image (Gen. 1:27), are compelled to do and to avoid doing in the exercise of his free choice. The Gospel speaks to what man receives from God without any compulsion but freely, in accord with his will yet apart from his free choice.
3. Since the Law invariably purveys threats as well as rewards, its function belongs to the present age only. Conversely the Gospel, which is free of any threat, was first pronounced in the blessing of the first creation and will be eternally proclaimed in the new creation.
4. The function of the Law, as said above, is to curb evil impulses and reward good behaviour. It is an indispensable rule and guide touching a man’s well-being in this present age. Thusly it is lauded by Bl. Dr. Martin Luther in the first of his Heidelberg Theses as “the most salutary doctrine of life”.
5. For the preservation of this present life, though not necessarily for moral advancement (which should, however, naturally result from obedience to the Law), God has instituted earthly authorities. These three authorities are, as per the Large Catechism as well as Luther’s non-Confessional writing On the Councils and the Church, are divided into three holy “estates”: 1) the family, 2) the Church, and 3) the state.
6. The promulgation of the Law, itself being holy, belongs to all three estates. By way of contrast, the proclamation of the Gospel belongs solely to the Church.
7. That the proclamation of the Gospel is the exclusive function of the Church is evident throughout Holy Scripture, but particularly in Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23, in which the Lord Jesus grants the power of remission of sins to the Church. Remission of sins belongs to the Gospel as defined in 2 above, as it is given freely and without regard to choice or, for that matter, merit. The Law, on the other hand, threatens and rewards based on choices made by people made in the image of God who invariably fall under the authority of the state or family.
8. It is therefore an error either to assert or to imply that the state or family exercise their duties without reference to the Law, or with a different Law intrinsically at odds therewith.
9. The Confessions in certain places speak not of three holy “estates” but instead of two kingdoms – more accurately, two “swords.” The very word “sword” implies that the Law with its threats (and, by way of extension, rewards) must be adhered to.
10. As is evident from a number of cases in Holy Scripture (e.g. Gen. 20; II Sam. 7), the above is not to say that in all families or states the precise wording, observance, or meting out of threats and rewards (“positive law”) must in all respects be identical with the Law as revealed in Holy Scripture. The concept of “natural law” has been helpfully devised as a pattern for congruency.
11. This understood, it bears to recall Luther’s correct observation in How Christians Should Regard Moses that the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue), that “Moses agrees exactly with nature” concerning them, the Third Commandment excepted.
12. Thus it must be maintained that an unruly family, church, or state exists in a state of rebellion.
13. They are wrong, therefore, who either assert or imply that the positive law may be so distanced from that which the Church promulgates that her Law has no word in common with the positive law promulgated by either estate.
14. The only way of justifying the above error is choosing between one of these alternatives: 1) that authorities which promulgate a contradictory law to God’s have not been authorized by Him, toward the very practical conclusion that they are not in any way accountable to Him; or 2) that God has authorized those who contradict his Law, in which case the Law would invariably contradict itself, which by necessity yield the same conclusion.
15. The authors and signors of the Lutheran Confessions endorse neither of the above alternatives.

Father Heide