Duplex usus legis

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The usus civilis legis : panel with the ten commandments in the town hall of Wittenberg, Lucas Cranach d. Ä., 1516
The usus elenchticus legis : frightened to death by the law (the tables of the ten commandments), man flees to the cross of Christ. Lucas Cranach the Elder Ä., Law and Grace, 1529 (Ducal Museum Gotha)

Duplex usus legis ("double use of the law") is a term used in Lutheran ethics.

Martin Luther has consistently used the following terminology since the church postil (1522):

  • First use of the law ( usus civilis or politicus ): maintaining social order. Luther believed that people would attack one another like wild animals if the secular authorities did not protect a peaceful coexistence through laws and punishments.
  • Second use of the law ( usus elenchticus , spiritualis or theologicus ): knowledge of sin ( cognitio peccati ). "So God 'needs' his law (makes it effective) to expose sin in the hearts of men."

Luther did not know of a tertius usus legis (“third use of the law”). Werner Elert and Gerhard Ebeling proved independently of one another that the only source of information on this in Luther's works, WA 39 I, 485, 16–24, is an adaptation of the text (Elert: "Falsification") by Philipp Melanchthon . Against the followers Melanchthons ( "Philippists") which held Gnesio-Lutherans on duplex usus legis fixed.

Luther formed the term usus legis in connection with the Bible verse 1 Tim 1,8  LUT . The content was specified in two steps, first in dealing with the so-called "enthusiasts" by Luther (here especially with Karlstadt ), later in dealing with the Antinomists.

"Iconoclasm" as a supposed consequence of Luther's theology ( Thomas Murner , Von dem Lutherischen Fool , 1522)
  • For Karlstadt, the validity of the Old Testament law for Christians was based on the ban on images . The removal of cult images from churches was described by Luther as “ iconoclasm ” and thus discredited as violent “storming”. Luther claimed against Karlstadt that imperial law applied to Christians instead of the Old Testament law. The Torah is “the mirror of the Jews in Saxony ” and no longer concerns the Christians. In doing so, Luther advocated the independence of bourgeois righteousness ( iustitia civilis ), the norms of which are not derived from biblical principles.
  • For Johann Agricola , faith only has to do with the Gospel; the law belongs in the town hall and not in the pulpit. Luther did not go that far. The law could not contribute anything to justification . But it describes a basic human constitution. The human being will from the law z. B. confronted with the demand of humanity: if he ignores it, he is guilty; If he fulfills it, according to Luther, this only serves as self-affirmation and ends as fatal self-righteousness.

Does Luther have a general human experience of the law? According to Ebeling's definition, this could be assumed: “For Luther, law is not a statutory, revealed norm to which man behaves in one way or another, but ... an existential category in which the theological interpretation of factual human existence is concentrated. Law is therefore not an idea or a sum of sentences, but the reality of the fallen person. ”Against the background of modern philosophy, the assumption that there is a natural knowledge of God is at least controversial. Luther saw it this way, however: the law, in the form of the Ten Commandments, is impressed on every person's heart and conscience. For Luther, the law belonged on the pulpit, not as a (educational or moralizing) sermon on the law, but as a guide to the gospel. Luther partially relativized the statement that the Torah was the Jews' mirror of Saxony and that it was none of the business of Christians: there are laws in the Torah, especially the Decalogue, which correspond to the natural law. The same law that God revealed to Moses on Sinai is also written in the hearts of all people.

Looking at the first use of the law ( usus civilis ) there are perspectives for a modern Lutheran ethic. “The 'law' is the same for Christians and non-Christians. Only its meaning, effect, 'function' is different for Christians and non-Christians, ”says Martin Honecker . In Christian freedom, new laws can therefore be drafted, according to Luther even a new Decalogue. But one always remains prone to errors. The development of new laws is therefore a communicative event in which Christians remain in conversation with one another, but also with the Bible.

literature

  • Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics. Basics and basic concepts. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1990. ISBN 3-11-008146-6 .
  • Wilfried Joest: Dogmatics , Volume 2: The way of God with man . 3rd, revised edition, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1993. ISBN 3-525-03264-1 .
  • Svend Andersen: Power out of love: For the reconstruction of a Lutheran political ethic ( Theological Library Toepelmann . Volume 149) Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2010.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics , Berlin / New York 1990, p. 63.
  2. ↑ Svend Andersen: Power out of love: To reconstruct a Lutheran political ethic , Berlin / New York 2010, p. 22 f.
  3. ↑ Wilfried Joest: Der Weg Gottes mit dem Menschen , Göttingen 1993, p. 494.
  4. ↑ Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics , Berlin / New York 1990, p. 63.
  5. ↑ Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics , Berlin / New York 1990, p. 75.
  6. ↑ Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics , Berlin / New York 1990, p. 64.
  7. ↑ Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics , Berlin / New York 1990, p. 65.
  8. ↑ Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics , Berlin / New York 1990, p. 66.
  9. ↑ Gerhard Ebeling, Wort und Glaube I, p. 64 5., quoted here from: Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics , Berlin / New York 1990, p. 66 f.
  10. ↑ Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics , Berlin / New York 1990, p. 67.
  11. ^ Svend Andersen: Power out of love: For the reconstruction of a Lutheran political ethic , Berlin / New York 2010, p. 61.
  12. ↑ Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics , Berlin / New York 1990, p. 68.
  13. ↑ Martin Honecker: Introduction to Theological Ethics , Berlin / New York 1990, p. 69.