Page 1 of 6 Original Research

Was Karlstadt ‘Insane’ on Mosaic Law like

Melanchthon said?
Author: This article reviewed claims made by modern scholars Ford Lewis Battles and G.H.
Joel McDurmon1,2 Williams, as well as charges made by Melanchthon, against Andreas Karlstadt (1486–1541)
in regard to the imposition of Mosaic Law upon the civil realm. Melanchthon called Karlstadt
Affiliations:
1
American Vision, Inc., ‘insane’ based on this charge, whilst Battles claims Karlstadt proposed to replace European
Powder Spring, United States civil law completely with the ‘entire Mosaic code’. This study examined some of Karlstadt’s
writings in regard to images, the pace of reforms in Wittenberg, and the preference for
2
Faculty of Theology, reform to be carried out by the princes and not the masses. It also consulted the secondary
University of Pretoria, source analyses of Ulrich Bubenheimer and Calvin Augustus Pater – both of which present
South Africa
views opposite to that of Battles, and both would have been available to Battles in 1986. The
Note: results of the literary review conducted in this study demonstrate that the claims of Battles,
This research is based on a Williams, and Melanchthon are not supported by the evidence.
PhD degree at the University
of Pretoria (2012) in
Systematic Theology under
the supervision of Prof. Dr Introduction
Johan Buitendag. In regard to the issue of Mosaic Law during the early Reformation, it is not uncommon to
encounter the name of Andreas Karlstadt1 – the early colleague of Luther and Melanchthon. Some
Correspondence to:
Joel McDurmon scholars even cite Karlstadt as a radical on the subject. Ford Lewis Battles, for example, states that
Karlstadt ‘had proposed literally substituting the entire Mosaic code of the Old Testament for
Email: the civil laws of European nations’ (Battles 1986:lix).
[email protected]
Battles was not alone in his view. G.H. Williams considered Karlstadt alongside preachers Jacob
Postal address:
3150A Florence Road, Strauss and Wolfgang Stein with the claim, ‘All these radical preachers ... held fiercely to the
Powder Springs, GA 31057, view that with the overturn of papal authority Mosaic law should obtain in Evangelical lands’
United States (Williams 1957:47–8).
Dates:
Karlstadt was openly accused of this offense by his own contemporaries. Melanchthon, in his
Received: 29 Mar. 2012
Accepted: 14 June 2012 1531 Defense of the Augsburg Confession, called Karlstadt ‘insane’ for ‘imposing upon us the judicial
Published: 13 Sept. 2012 laws of Moses’ (under Article 16, Political Order). Around the same time (1530–1531) he elsewhere
complained about Karlstadt’s allegedly mandatory view of Mosaic judicial code:
How to cite this article:
McDurmon, J., 2012, ‘Was But some persons assign piety as a pretext to this case and deny that the laws of the Gentiles are to be used
Karlstadt “Insane” on Mosaic by the Christian. Therefore they try to pass new laws or call us back to the laws of Moses, as for example,
Law like Melanchthon said?’, Carlstadt, who very violently contended that, abandoning Roman laws, the laws of Moses were to be
HTS Teologiese Studies/ received. (Battles 1986:333)
Theological Studies 68(1),
Art. #1252, 6 pages. http:// It would seem just from this that Battles’ claim has strong support. Melanchthon was, after all,
dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts. Karlstadt’s colleague and was close to Karlstadt. Melanchthon was certainly in a good position to
v68i1.1252 know Karlstadt’s views. But we must remember that Melanchthon in this case is a secondary
source. As well, his statements must also be considered within their particular historical context.
Melanchthon penned this particular accusation against Karlstadt in 1530 – eight to nine years
after Karlstadt’s earliest writings on the subject. This comes after nearly half a decade of
polemics from Luther, the social upheaval of the Peasant War (1524–1525), political and
economic pressures against Mosaic teachings, and a drama that led ultimately to exile for Karlstadt.
During this period, Luther protested Karlstadt’s views even more derisively than Melanchthon did
or probably could have. Luther would characterise Karlstadt’s view of Moses as ‘new monkery’
and ‘legalism’, deriding his followers in Orlamünde as ‘Jewish saints’ (Luther 1967:159, 163, 166).

So was Karlstadt as ‘insane’ as Melanchthon insisted? Did he really intend to replace

European civil law with ‘the entire Mosaic code’ as Battles claimed? This study will review some
of Karlstadt’s positions on Mosaic Law to demonstrate that these claims are untenable.

© 2012. The Authors.

Licensee: AOSIS
Karlstadt on images
OpenJournals. This work Part – though by no means all – of Karlstadt’s scriptural justification for the magistrate to remove
is licensed under the
images derived from Moses. The references to Moses include both the lawgiver’s injunction
Creative Commons
Attribution License. 1.The author employs the original spelling for ‘Karlstadt’ except where the name appears in citation of other sources as ‘Carlstadt’.

http://www.hts.org.za doi:10.4102/hts.v68i1.1252
 Page 2 of 6 Original Research

against idolatry and his commands to destroy the idols of (though he would elsewhere argue the Decalogue was
Canaan. In his 1522 tract On the Removal of Images, Karlstadt indeed part of natural law, and thus retained some usefulness).
engaged the rulers with duties for Christian magistrates. As we shall see in a moment, he would dismiss Karlstadt’s
After the dedication, the first sentence of the tract begins first point coming from the First Commandment, and then
with Moses: ‘To have images in churches and houses of God proceed all the more strongly to denounce the idea that the
is wrong and contrary to the First commandment, “You judicial code of Moses in general bound Christian princes
shall have no other Gods before me” [Ex. 20:3]’ (Carlstadt to action.
1995b:102). His followers would later hurl this verse at
Luther in Orlamünde. In his opening justifications, however, Whilst this was not exactly the point Karlstadt had argued, he
nevertheless anticipated the objection, likely having heard it
Karlstadt also went outside of Moses to the Gospels: ‘“My
personally from Luther and others (the writings of Aquinas,
house is a house of prayer and you have turned it into a den
from his university studies) many times before. He wrote,
of murderers” [Mt. 21:13]’ (Carlstadt 1995b:102). For the rest
‘several admirers of images will say, “The old law prohibits
of the tract, he proceeds to quote and apply passages from
images, but the new one does not. We follow the new and not
various places in the historical books, the prophets, Gospels,
the old law”’ (Carlstadt 1995b:119). He responded that the
Acts, and Paul, all forbidding idolatry and images.
new law instead subsumes and includes the old:
Christ verifies his teaching through Moses and the prophets. He
After this exposition, Karlstadt moves to discuss the actual
says that he did not come to break the law but to fulfill it, [Mt.
physical removal of the images, and this is perhaps where
5:17] ... Christ did not trespass on the smallest letter in Moses’
the real controversy lies (it was one thing to speak against law. Neither did he add or subtract anything from Moses. In
images, but actual removal would constitute a serious affront short, Christ did not set aside anything which pleased God in the
to Rome). For scriptural support he cites Moses and the old law. Christ stood by the old law both in intent and in content.
examples of the Hebrew Kings. In Deuteronomy 7:5, God Anyone who can reconcile the two sayings, namely, Fide legem
had commanded them to destroy the heathen altars, smash antiquamas and Fide vel gratia legem stabilimus – ‘Faith supersedes
their images, and burn their idols (Carlstadt 1995b:118). The the law’ and ‘Faith and grace strengthen the law,’ understands
Hebrew Kings who performed this task thoroughly, such Moses, the prophets, Christ, and Paul. (p. 119)
as Hezekiah and Josiah, received praise from God. Those Karlstadt (Carlstadt 1995b) then addresses his critics by
who did not, received condemnation, such as Manasseh showing the social consequences of denouncing Moses, were
and Ammon. According to Karlstadt (1995b), these obedient they to carry it out consistently:
Hebrew kings provided direct examples for the German Dear chaps, you claim that the old law prohibits images. For this
princes to follow: reason you will allow them in houses of God, considering such
Now if our authorities had accomplished the divine counsel prohibition to be insignificant. Why then do you not also say that
and resolution by ordering the wicked and deceitful wooden we are not obligated to honor father and mother, because the
blocks from our churches and consigning them to their deserved old law commands it? Further, murder, unchastity, stealing, and
punishment, we would have to praise them, as the Holy Spirit suchlike evil deeds which are prohibited in the same tablets of
praised Hezekiah ... Would to God that our lords were as the the law which prohibit images – with the prohibition of images
worldly, righteous kings and lords of Jewry, whom the Holy being the first and foremost law, while prohibition of murder,
Spirit praised. According to Holy Scripture, they always have unchastity, stealing, etc., are placed at the bottom as lesser and
the power to take action in their churches and to put away smaller. Why do you not say that we shall indulge in adultery,
everything that might annoy and hinder believers. They are stealing, murder, and suchlike? Why not tolerate them in our
also able to teach and lead priests to the laws of God and stop churches because they have been prohibited in the old law?
deceptive and harmful practices. (Carlstadt 1995b:118) (p. 119)

Just as Josiah ordered the priests and high priest to throw Karlstadt then again reminds his readers that not only Moses
down the altars and vessels of Baal worship and burn them but Christ and Paul also promoted the same view of law
outside the city, so should modern kings purge the houses and the attack on images and idolatry. Christ showed this
of God: ‘We see from this that priests are subjects to Kings in answering the rich young ruler who asked what he must
by divine right’ (Carlstadt 1995b:118). This, of course, was do to inherit eternal life: he directed the young ruler to the
Mosaic Law. Karlstadt asked, ‘why, in this case, should I not
not a Mosaic doctrine, but a confusion of jurisdictions on
also lead you to the law of Moses?’ (Carlstadt 1995b:119–
Karlstadt’s account – (a confusion that Karlstadt’s very
120). Isaiah and Jeremiah were both upheld as ‘evangelical’
antagonists, Luther and Melanchthon [as well as other
prophets by his critics – yet both also prohibited images and
reformers] would themselves engage in). Nevertheless,
supported their removal (1995b:120). Paul likewise decried
Karlstadt (1995b) continued:
idolatry and the pagans’ images of gods (Rm 1:23), and
On this account our magistrates should not wait until priests commanded his disciples to shun idolatry on more than one
begin to carry out Baal’s and their wooden vessels and occasion (1 Cor 5:9, 8:4, 10:14) (1995b:107). In fact, ‘Paul says
obstructions. For they may never begin. The supreme temporal that anyone who does these things will not be saved’ (see
power must order and undertake action. (Carlstadt 1995b:118)
1 Cor 6:9–10; Gl 5:21; Eph 5:5) (1995b:108). Karlstadt therefore
It was this type of ‘must’ to which Luther would, at that concludes, ‘Moses and Paul agree. And I have shown from
moment, so violently protest. In his view at the time, the the epistles of Paul that no one who honors images comes to
entire Mosaic Law, including the Decalogue, was abrogated God’ (1995b:120).

http://www.hts.org.za doi:10.4102/hts.v68i1.1252
 Page 3 of 6 Original Research

It is clear from this brief overview of Karlstadt’s tract against Karlstadt responded that ‘little by little’ referred to driving
images that his position indeed referenced Mosaic Law, out the gentile people, but the issue of the gentile people’s
most particularly the Decalogue, and also the Old Testament idols presented a separate issue. He urged his critics to read
historical examples of kings who upheld the Decalogue. Yet a little further:
he also based this doctrine on the words and injunctions of You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. They
the Gospels and the letters of Paul. [their gods] shall not live in your land, lest they make you sin
against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to
The pace of reform you. (Ex 23:32–33)

In 1524, Karlstadt wrote to a friend in Joachimstal concerning The ‘little by little’ applied to the people, yes, Karlstadt
an issue over which he and Luther (and the princes) argued, but God absolutely prohibited their idols to remain
obviously disagreed: the haste of reform on the issue of at all. The destruction of the pagan idols themselves should
removing images. Karlstadt desired to move more swiftly; commence immediately:
his opponents retained images, et cetera, citing concern for So God commanded the Jews two kinds of expulsion: one was
the weaker brethren and ‘brotherly love’. Karlstadt suspected the expulsion of their enemies; the other, the removal of the gods
this as ‘an unchristian cover-up’ (Carlstadt 1995c:251). His and idols or images of the Gentiles. The first was to happen at
argument amounts to the case that ‘brotherly love’ must have leisure; the other, immediately and suddenly [Ex 23] ... Therefore,
some substantial basis, lest we risk making ‘love’ a phantasm. whenever they were able to do so and were in control, the Jews
That basis, according to Karlstadt (1995c), must be Christ’s were to destroy the idols of the Gentiles and not allow them to
remain. (Carlstadt 1995c:265)
commandments:
To say that one should make concessions to brotherly love means
nothing, because it is not clear whether the sort of brotherly love is
The princes not the people
an unchristian cover-up, readily as evil and harmful as any of the Karlstadt reiterated what he had argued before, that God
little inventions of the pope ... Christ has cancelled and nullified upheld this standard for the Judges and the Hebrew kings.
all brotherly love if it stands over against his commandments or Christ had done the same when he wrecked the tables
turns one even slightly away from God. (p. 251) and drove the moneychangers from the temple (Carlstadt
The commandments Karlstadt intended were, of course, 1995c:266–267). This destruction of idols should, however,
the Law of Moses. Despite the argument between him and not entail an international crusade: ‘God did not order the
Luther having persisted for at least two years to this point, Jews to do it in the entire world, but only in places which they
and Karlstadt having been expelled from Saxony at Luther’s were to conquer and in which they were to rule’ (1995c:267).
urging (which Luther denied), Karlstadt maintained his This meant, however, that Christian rulers indeed ought to
views. The common law ethic promoted by Luther and take action in the places they ruled:
others left their laws inconsistent, Karlstadt (1995c) chided: Accordingly, the conclusion is that where Christians rule, they
I am very much surprised by our rulers and those learned in are not to look to any magistrate [Oberkeit], but are to strike out
Scripture who punish carnal adultery but leave spiritual adultery freely and of their own and throw down what is against God
[idolatry and images] unpunished. Spiritual adultery they intend even without preaching. (Carlstadt 1995c:267; Pater 1984:88)
to conquer with their breath and wind, but they fend off carnal
This was perhaps the most unfortunate sentence Karlstadt
adultery with swords, iron, fire, and wheels ... Moses commands
ever wrote in regard to civil law, for his opponents would
that idolatrous or spiritual adulterers are to be put to death just
misinterpret it to mean that the masses should ignore laws
like carnal adulterers [Dt 13 & 17]. (p. 255)
and magistrates with which they disagreed, and execute
Not only Moses, however, but Paul also equated the two sins: vigilantism at will. But Karlstadt expressly did not mean this.
If they would only look to their Paul properly, they would surely Pater (1984) explains:
find that Paul punishes those who are enslaved to idols no less This passage does not favor untrammeled violence. The axe
severely than those who are enslaved to whores. (Carlstadt smashes wood, not human beings, and in that crucial respect
1995c:255) Karlstadt is much more peaceful than most magisterial
For Karlstadt, the inconsistency reflected the princes’ and reformers. Moreover, the axe is wielded ‘where Christians rule.’
Luther’s arbitrary whim that itself amounted to an idol: Karlstadt encourages Christian magistrates to alter the old forms
‘Yet it has to be right because they want it that way, and of worship even when other authorities do not condone this. He
they defend their honor and beautiful image of themselves’ intends to accomplish this in Wittenberg through town council,
when the elector opposes further reforms. (p. 88)
(Carlstadt 1995c:255).
Thus, Karlstadt in principle called for these reforms to be done
Karlstadt’s critics referred to Exodus 23:29–30 in order to through the princes, not the masses. He also understood, as
persuade him to take the removal of images slowly for the the other reformers would, that they could use the hierarchy
weak. This, after all, was how God told Moses to confront of magistrates to the advantage of reform. Where one
the gentiles: authority refused to advance reform, another body or ruler
I will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land could pressure, protect, oppose or impose. When Frederick
may not become desolate, and the beasts of the field become too the Elector slowed action on promised liturgical reforms,
numerous for you. I will drive them out before you little by little, Karlstadt prayed against his duplicity from the pulpit. But
until you become fruitful and take possession of the land. when lower magistrates halted their reforms four years later

http://www.hts.org.za doi:10.4102/hts.v68i1.1252
 Page 4 of 6 Original Research

in Rothenberg, Karlstadt petitioned the emperor himself to ecclesiastical aspects. His writings in this regard say little
impose. The point was, always look to the ruler willing to act about his views of civil law: ‘Whether that statement of
according to Christian principles, whether higher or lower Karlstadt’s on the continued validity of the Mosaic Law
(Pater 1984:84–85). This very principle had saved Luther’s applies also for the judicial law, from the writing on images
life. After the Diet of Worms in 1521, Emperor Charles V here remains entirely open’ (Bubenheimer 1977:247).6
declared Luther an outlaw. After his safe passage home, he Bubenheimer goes on to argue that Luther, in his own
would be subject to arrest or murder without consequence. writings, engages the argument with Karlstadt in terms of
It was the lesser magistrate Frederick the Elector who had
Divine law in regard to the church, and thus confirms the
Luther ‘kidnapped’ on his trip home. His captors, defying
view that Karlstadt had in mind ecclesiastical reform and not
the highest magistrate of the land, hid the outlaw safely
Mosaic revision of the common law of nations:
at Wartburg Castle. Karlstadt simply wished Luther and
Frederick to show the same Christian courage in further so it follows that Luther, while composing his book, clearly did
matters of reform. not know of a radical demand of Karlstadt’s for replacement of
Roman law by the Mosaic. Had Karlstadt raised such a demand

Bubenheimer’s review as Luther, in view of his polemical nature had imagined as

generally reckoning with the ‘fanatics,’ he certainly would not
In a detailed study of Karlstadt’s views on theology and have failed to turn this claim against Karlstadt.7 (Bubenheimer
law, legal scholar Ulrich Bubenheimer (1977) argues that 1977:248)
Karlstadt’s views on Mosaic Law do not support the views Thirdly, Karlstadt presented no more radical a view of
that Melanchthon attributed to him. Bubenheimer (1977) Mosaic Law than did Luther and Melanchthon themselves
writes: (Bubenheimer 1977:249). Indeed, in light of Melanchthon’s
We must point out, however, that we can in no way assume with and Luther’s preferences for certain Mosaic Laws in civil
certainty that the views attributed by Melanchthon to Karlstadt polity, Karlstadt seems little more than a fellow traveller –
regarding the secular law were actually representative of
at best attempting to apply selective Mosaic Laws ‘without
Karlstadt. From the position of the sources to a secure assertion
there stand several problems in the way.2 (p. 247)
trying thereby to displace the Roman law completely’
(Bubenheimer 1977:249).8 It is certainly possible that
This conclusion, Bubenheimer demonstrates, rests on several
Karlstadt tried to go further than the other two, but, ‘in this
issues arising from the original sources. The first issue
regard, however, the sources let us down’ (Bubenheimer
pertains to the content of the original sources themselves.
1977:250),9 especially considering that Saxony had banned all
Bubenheimer flatly states: ‘The demand to replace the
publications by Karlstadt during the relevant era, 1526–1529.
Roman law with the Mosaic Law cannot be demonstrated in
Karlstadt’s own writings’ (Bubenheimer 1977:247).3 Instead,
the only contemporary attestation of this view to Karlstadt Fourthly, by the time Karlstadt is able to publish again in the
by name comes from the pen of Melanchthon. It is, thus 1530s, in Basel, he ‘to a striking extent positively consults
unsubstantiated hearsay: ‘we know of this alleged claim of texts of Roman law in his writings’ (Bubenheimer 1977:250).10
Karlstadt’s only second hand. It is furthermore joined with But during this same period in which he positively consulted
the name of Karlstadt in express terms only after 1530 by Roman law texts in his writings, he maintained his former
Melanchthon’4 (Bubenheimer 1977:247). views against ecclesiastical law:
Although he, the doctor of laws, has given the canon law an
Furthermore, this lone second-hand reference comes at a
uncompromising rejection, he has nevertheless maintained ties
suspicious juncture and thus has a propagandistic aura. The to the Roman law until the last phase of his work. (Bubenheimer
charge comes only: 1977:250)11
after Karlstadt had left town in Saxony in the beginning of 1529,
Based at least on these four reasons, Bubenheimer concludes
and the break between Wittenberg and Karlstadt was final.
Under these circumstances, a polemical exaggeration of the
that the sources do not support the claim that Karlstadt
opinions of Karlstadt on Melanchthon’s part is not surprising.5 wished to impose Mosaic law as civil polity and replace the
(Bubenheimer 1977:247) pagan civil laws of the land: ‘that he ever wanted completely
Secondly, Karlstadt’s 1522 argument against images 6.Ob jene Aussage Karlstadts über die Weitergeltung des mosaischen Gesetzes auch
für die Judizialgesetze gelte, bleibt von der Bilderschrift her durchaus offen.
references Mosaic Law only in regard to ceremonial, or
7. ... so ergibt sich, daß Luther bei Abfassung seiner Schrift von einer radikalen
2.Wir müssen allerdings darauf hinweisen, daß keineswegs mit Sicherheit Forderung Karlstadts nach Ersatz des römischen Rechts durch das mosaische
angenommen werden kann, daß die von Melanchthon Karlstadt zugeschriebenen offenbar nichts bekannt war. Hätte Karlstadt eine solche Forderung erhoben so
Auffassungen hinsichtlich des weltlichen Rechts tatsächlich so von Karlstadt hätte Luther angesichts des polemischen Charakters seiner als Generalabrechnung
vertreten wurden. mit den ‚Schwärmern’ gedachten Schrift sicher nicht versäumt, diese Forderung
gegen Karlstadt zu kehren.
3.Die Forderung, das römische Recht durch das mosaische Recht zu ersetzen, läßt sich
in Karlstadts eigenen Schriften nicht nachweisen. 8. ... ohne dadurch das römische Recht völlig verdrängen zu wollen.

4.Wir kennen diese angebliche Forderung Karlstadts nur aus zweiter Hand. Sie 9.Jedoch lassen uns die Quellen in dieser Hinsicht im Stich.
wird außerdem erst ab 1530 von Melanchthon expressis verbis mit dem Namen
Karlstadts verbunden. 10. ... wieder in auffallendem Umfang Texte des römischen Rechts in seinen Schriften
positiv heranzieht.
5.nachdem Karlstadt Sachsen Anfang 1529 verlassen hatte und der Bruch zwischen
Wittenberg und Karlstadt endgültig war. Eine polemische Überzeichnung der 11.Er, der Doktor beider Rechte, hat zwar dem kanonischen Recht eine kompromißlose
Auffassungen Karlstadts von Seiten Melanchthons wäre unter diesen Umständen Absage erteilt, Bindungen an das römische Recht hat er jedoch bis in die letzte
nicht verwunderlich. Phase seines Wirkens festgehalten.

http://www.hts.org.za doi:10.4102/hts.v68i1.1252
 Page 5 of 6 Original Research

to replace the Roman law with the Mosaic Law seems to me teaches, but realise that any decision or judgement made
unlikely in any case for the reasons mentioned’ (Bubenheimer must, by the very uniqueness of its nature, expand upon
1977:250).12 those cases that are revealed:
God has widely undertaken to have us know through Holy
It is worth noting here that Bubenheimer’s monograph Scripture what is pleasing in his sight and what displeases him.
dedicated to the issue of Karlstadt and law was published But there are certain faults and things which are not contained in
in 1977. It had thus been available to Battles for at least nine Holy Scripture. Yet no one is to begin or do anything wantonly.
years before the translation and publication of the 1536 We will have to give account of all our words and deeds and
Institutes (Battles 1986; Calvin 1986). answer to whether or not we sought God’s will in these, and
sought it gladly.
What Karlstadt really said Therefore, I do not mind seeing many Christian folk following
the accounts of the apostles and not letting go or running away
The truth about Karlstadt’s view of law comes out a bit
from it any more than they have to, but earnestly desiring to
differently than the way Melanchthon and others have
know God’s will. And in cases where God did not sufficiently
portrayed it. Far from ‘legalism’ or strictly instituting inform them, they would cast lots when through Holy Scripture
Mosaic Law: they were not able to grasp and decide, like the apostles received
Karlstadt is quite free in applying the laws of Moses, and he does Matthias by lot in place of Judas Iscariot, Acts 1, although
so in a way that is much more progressive than the Sachsenspiegel, the apostles could have been chosen according to Scripture.
the law code of Saxony that meted out ’justice’ according to one’s (Carlstadt 1995a:224; cf. Pater 1984:19)
standing in society. (Pater 1984:17) Whilst Karlstadt hardly held views of separation of church
Whilst he did argue for some changes in civil law, he and state comparable to Western civilisation in the twenty-
nevertheless appealed (just as Calvin would later) for the first century – none of the Reformers ultimately practiced
equity of Old Testament principles and that this must be anything like such a standard – ‘nevertheless, Karlstadt
understood through New Testament concepts of mercy, does not unite the institutions of church and state, for they
including compassion toward unbelievers. Parts of the Old are seen as parallel entities with separate functions’ (Pater
Testament are outdated and must yield to the New (Pater 1984:80). Neither institution has absolute power over the
1984:17), and the civil sword cannot serve to impose ‘belief’ other; each should check and reform the other when they
or rid the land of other views. As early as 1520, Karlstadt had go astray. Yet the issue of the limits of the institutional
powers stands separately from the issue of the standard of
explained:
law. What is important for this study is that when he does
I do not want [unbelievers] to be killed that way, neither do I pray speak of imposing Christian values as civil law (whether we
in the Judaic manner: ‘May sinners perish from the earth, so they would judge this today as good or evil), he does not do so
will be no more’—that is, may [they] be killed. Away, away, with
with sole recourse to the laws of Moses, let alone the entire
that! Rather, let malice perish, let error be destroyed, and let the
Mosaic code.
truth and knowledge of Christ replace error. (Pater 1984:17)

Karlstadt thus rejected the idea that magistrates could Furthermore, Karlstadt argues for limited civil power.
spread the kingdom of God with the sword and he rejected Christian rulers may not advance religion with the sword,
the idea of anything like holy war. In these instances again for this deifies the State and makes it an idol:
he ‘links the Old Testament with the New, for opposition to [Hope in God] is one reason why the prophets often make the
unbelievers continues, but now with the sword of Scripture’ claim: ‘I shall not place my hope on my bow. My sword will not
(Pater 1984:17). In the end, Karlstadt ‘always chooses the make me blessed’ [Ps 44:6]. ‘You shall not put your confidence
New Testament model for salvation’ and ‘harmonizes Old in princes’ [Ps 118:9]. They do this because they do not wish to
and New Testament in terms of the latter’ (Pater 1984:17). make a false god. They do not want to have an image in their
hearts. They only want to confess him who cannot be depicted.
For Karlstadt, then, all of Scripture provides norms for good For God does not permit it. (Pater 1984:83)
works and therefore direction for civil society. He made Rather, for Karlstadt, Christian rulers have a higher calling
this point very clearly. Pater notes what we have already than that of religious executioners. They must act in Christ’s
observed above in regard to the debate over images: mercy to offenders: ‘Christ has ordered the rulers to search
Christ did not subjugate anything that was pleasing to God under out in mercy those who have strayed, and bring them back’
the old law. Christ remained within the will and the content of (Pater 1984:85).
the old law. One who can add the following two sayings – ‘by
faith we overcome the law’ and ‘by faith or grace we establish Even when rulers act contrary to good religion or principle,
the law’ – understands Moses, the prophets, Christ, and Paul. (Pater Karlstadt does not find justification for revolt. We should
1984:18) respect and avoid confrontations with established rulers
Further discrediting the idea that Karlstadt promoted a whenever possible (Pater 1984:85). We see this exemplified in
Moses-only view of civil law, he emphasises that some cases Karlstadt’s own letter to Frederick after the Elector moved to
and matters exist which Scripture does not even touch upon. pull him from the pulpit:
In these scenarios we must first consider what Scripture I understand that you do not wish to keep me in the parish of
Orlamünde. Thus I do not know a more submissive way to serve
12.Daß er das römische Recht jemals ganz durch das mosaische Recht ersetzen wollte,
erscheint mir jedenfalls aus den genannten Gründen unwahrscheinlich. you than that I humbly defer to you and resign. (Pater 1984:85)

http://www.hts.org.za doi:10.4102/hts.v68i1.1252
 Page 6 of 6 Original Research

Nor did he wish to receive a pension from the government law with the entire Mosaic code. Melanchthon made this
which the regulations allowed, so he declined: ‘Therefore I complaint against Karlstadt’s only for allegedly ‘imposing
surrender to you and resign my archdeaconate and the rights upon us the judicial laws of Moses’ – a more general statement.
I originally received with it’ (Pater 1984:86). Karlstadt did Thus, to the extent that Karlstadt claimed that any of the
remain in his pulpit unofficially by call of the congregation, Mosaic laws should apply to the civil realm of his day, we
but the State attempted to replace him with its own State- could regard him as fitting Melanchthon’s description to the
sanctioned preacher. Karlstadt and the congregation degree of such selective applications. To the same degree we
withstood the replacement on the grounds of separation could apply Melanchthon’s charge of ‘insane’. Nevertheless,
between civil law and ecclesiastical affairs. Thus Karlstadt in such a case, the same charge would apply to Luther,
obeyed the magistrate, yet would resist the magistrate from Melanchthon himself and most of the other magisterial
overstepping his God-determined bounds – withstanding reformers – and nearly everyone in the Reformed traditions
the civil ruler from interfering in ecclesiastical affairs (in this since – for all of these have held that selective applications of
action he was more consistent than Luther and many of the Mosaic Law can apply to the civil realm in different ways and
other Reformers in general). Thus we see Karlstadt’s view of at different times. In this light, Melanchthon’s charge seems
the separation of powers: ‘Government is to be obeyed even more like a political tool to disenfranchise the influence of
when it persecutes, but not when it requires a positive act Karlstadt than a sincere theological opinion.
against God’s law’ (Pater 1984:86).

Considering these substantial qualifications then, we can Acknowledgements

better understand Karlstadt’s view of civil law. Granted, he Competing interests
did wish to consider Moses as a starting point, a standard, The author declares that he has no financial or personal
but he hardly limited civil law to Moses and even argued relationship(s) which may have inappropriately influenced
we should leave behind parts of Moses including many of him in writing this article.
the death penalties. Pater summarises Karlstadt’s view as
believing that ‘the letter of the Mosaic law may have been
surpassed, but the spirit may not be violated’ (Pater 1984:83– References
84.) Even this may be stretching the evidence. Again, we see Battles, F.L., 1986, ‘Introduction,’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536 ed. &
transl. F.L.Battles, Eerdmans and the H.H. Meeter Center for Calvin Studies, Grand
from Karlstadt that his view of godly law involved the Bible Rapids, MI.
in general and not just Moses or even Moses in particular. The Bubenheimer, U., 1977, Consonantia Theologiae et Iurisprudentiae: Andreas
standard is simply the Bible in general as opposed to worldly Bodenstein von Karlstadt als Theologe und Jurist zwischen Scholastik und
Reformation, J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen.
law: ‘I call worldly law [weltlich gesetz ] [sic] all teaching that Calvin, J., 1986, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1536 Edition, transl. F.L. Battles,
is not based on the Bible, yet wishes to serve God’s honour, Eerdmans and the H.H. Meeter, Center for Calvin Studies, Grand Rapids, MI.
praise, or will’ (Pater 1984:84). Carlstadt, A., von 1995a, ‘The Manifold, Singular Will of God, The Nature of Sin’, in E.J.
Furcha (ed.), The Essential Carlstadt: Fifteen Tracts by Andreas Bodenstein, pp.
185–228, ed. H. Wayne Pipkin, Herald Press, Waterloo/ Ontario/ Scottdale, PA.
(Classics of the Radical Reformation 8).
Conclusion Carlstadt, A., von 1995b, ‘On the Removal of Images and That there Should be no
Beggars Among Christians’, in E.J. Furcha (ed.), The Essential Carlstadt: Fifteen
Enough has been shown of how Karlstadt, despite receiving Tracts by Andreas Bodenstein, pp. 100–128, ed. H.W. Pipkin, Waterloo/Ontario/
Scottdale, PA. (Classics of the Radical Reformation 8).
censure by name from Melanchthon, as well as Battles and
Carlstadt, A., von 1995c, ‘Whether We Should Go Slowly and Avoid Offending the Weak
Williams in the twentieth century, did not wish to replace the in Matters Pertaining to God’s Will’, in E.J. Furcha (ed.), The Essential Carlstadt:
Fifteen Tracts by Andreas Bodenstein, pp. 247–268, ed. H.W. Pipkin, Herald Press,
common law with Mosaic theocracy, did not look to Moses Waterloo/Ontario/Scottdale, PA. (Classics of the Radical Reformation 8).
exclusively as a basis for civil law, certainly did not want Karlstadt see Carlstadt, A., von,
to substitute ’the entire Mosaic code of the Old Testament Luther, M., 1967, Against the Heavenly Prophets In the Matter of Images and
Sacraments. Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1523–1526, ed. T.G. Tappert,
for the civil laws of European nations’ as Battles (1986:lix) Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA.
claims, and in fact argued against instituting the totality Melanchthon, 1969, ‘Loci Communes’, in W. Pauck (ed.), transl. W. Pauck & L.J. Satre,
of Moses’ Law. We must therefore dismiss these charges Melanchthon and Bucer, pp. 18–152, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA.
(The Library of Christian Classics 19).
against Karlstadt. Pater, C.A., 1984, Karlstadt as the Father of the Baptist Movements: The Emergence of
Lay Protestantism, The University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Melanchthon’s particular charge of ‘insanity’, however, did Williams, G.H., 1957, ‘Sermon Before the Princes: Introduction’, in G.H. Williams (ed.)
Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, pp. 49–70, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia,
not specify the wholesale replacement of European civil PA. (The Library of Christian Classics vol. 25).

http://www.hts.org.za doi:10.4102/hts.v68i1.1252
Copyright of Hervormde Teologiese Studies is the property of African Online Scientific Information System
PTY LTD and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.