Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  As to Lyra thinking that a knowledge of the opinion of philosophers concerning matter is necessary, and that on such knowledge must depend a man’s understanding the six days’ work of creation, I question whether Lyra himself really understood what Aristotle calls matter. For Aristotle does not, like Ovid, call the original unformed chaotic mass matter. Wherefore omitting these unnecessary subjects altogether, let us come at once to Moses as a far better teacher, whom we may more safely follow than we may philosophers, who dispute without the Word about things they do not understand.

  II. GOD’S WORK ON THE SIX DAYS IN PARTICULAR.

  PART I. GOD’S WORK ON THE FIRST DAY.

  I. V. 1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

  A necessary and a very difficult question arises here, in that Moses speaks of the creation of the heavens and the earth, and yet does not mention the day on which nor the Word by which they were created. For one naturally inquires why Moses did not rather use the same form of words here, as he did subsequently, where mention is made of the Word thus: “In the beginning, God said, Let there be the heavens and the earth?” For Moses mentions “the heavens and the earth” before God had spoken anything, whereas both the Decalogue and the whole Scripture testify that God made the heavens and the earth, and all that in them is, “in six days.” But as I said before, we enter on this path without a guide. We leave therefore to others to follow their own judgment here, while we will expound it according to our views.

  Not those elements which now are, but the original rude and unformed substances Moses calls “the heavens and earth.” The water was dark, and because it was by nature the lighter element it surrounded the earth, itself also as yet unformed was a kind of mud. God formed this first material, if I may so call it, of his future work, not before or apart from the six days, but, according to the express words of the Decalogue, in the “beginning” of the first day.

  As I view the matter therefore Moses does not mention here the first day, because these confused substances of the hitherto rude heavens and earth were afterwards formed, and as it were fully adorned and distinguished. For what he immediately calls the “deep” and the “waters;” that is, the rude and unformed water which was not yet distributed nor adorned with its proper form, he here calls “the heavens;” whereas, had Moses spoken otherwise and had said, “In the beginning God said, Let there be the heavens and the earth;” there would have been no need of afterwards saying, “God said;” seeing that these unformed waters would have been already illuminated and the light would have been already created.

  The meaning of Moses therefore in all simplicity is that all things which now exist were created by God and that “in the beginning” of the first day were created the mass of mud or of earth, and of dark mist or of water; on which afterwards, in the after part of the first day, God shed the light and caused the day to appear, which might discover this rude mass of “the heavens and the earth;” which was in all respects like undeveloped seed, and yet adapted to produce whatever God should require.

  V. 2a. And the earth was waste and void.

  In the Hebrew words TOHU and BOHU there is no more meaning than can be expressed in any other language, yet these terms are frequently used in the sacred Scriptures. TOHU means “nothing,” so that a TOHU earth means, in its simple reality, that which is in itself “empty” or “waste;” where there is no way, no distinction of places, no hill, no vale, no grass, no herbs, no animals, no men. And such was the first appearance of the waste and untilled earth, for while the water was mixed with the earth no distinctions of those various objects could be discerned, which are clearly seen since the earth’s formation and cultivation.

  Thus Isaiah, 34:11, when threatening destruction to the whole earth says “There shall be stretched upon it the line of TOHU, confusion; and the plummet of BOHU, emptiness;” that is, it shall be made so desolate that neither men nor beasts shall be left upon it; all houses shall he devastated and all things hurled into chaos and confusion. Just as Jerusalem was afterwards laid waste by the Romans and Rome by the Goths, so that no vestige of the ancient city as it once was could be pointed out. You now behold the earth standing out of the waters, the heavens adorned with stars, the fields with trees, and cities with houses; but should all these things be taken away and hurled into confusion and into one chaotic heap, the state of things thus produced would be what Moses calls TOHU and BOHU.

  As the earth was surrounded with darkness or with waters over which darkness brooded, so also the heaven was unformed. It was not only TOHU because it was destitute of the garnishing of the stars, and BOHU because it was not yet separated and distinguished from the earth, but because it was as yet altogether destitute of light and a dark and deep abyss which like a dense cloud enveloped the earth, or that mass of mud; for the division of the waters from the waters follows later.

  Here then we have the first thing which Moses teaches: that the heavens and the earth were created on the first day; but, that the heaven was as yet unformed, not separated from the waters, destitute of its luminaries, and not elevated to its position; and the earth in like manner was as yet without its animals, its rivers and its mountains.

  As to Lyra’s argument that this original matter was mere power and was afterward rendered substance by its own power, or as to what Augustine says in his book of “Confessions,” that matter is as it were nothing, and that no medium matter can be thought of between the Creator and the thing created; such subtle disquisitions I by no means approve. For how could that be a mere nothing which was already of such material and substance that Moses calls it “the heavens and the earth”? Unless indeed you would call it artificially the same kind of matter which you call wood, which is not yet wrought into a chest or a bench. But this latter substance is what true philosophers would call matter in a secondary state.

  We should rather consider the whole subject, as Peter considers it, 2 Pet. 3:5, where speaking of the wicked, he says “For this they wilfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” For Peter seems to intimate that the earth consists of water, and was made out of water, and that after it was produced out of water and placed as it were in the light, it swam as it now seems to do in the water. This, says he, the wicked knew, and therefore being confident of this condition of things, they feared no peril from water, which they knew to be the fundamental substance of the earth. Yet the water destroyed that earth which it preserved, buoyed up and bore; just as at the last it shall be destroyed by fire. From this intimation of Peter, it would appear, that the earth was made to stand in the water, and out of the water. But let this suffice concerning the original matter or material. If any one should discuss the subject with greater subtlety of argument, I do not think he would do so, with any profit.

  V. 2b. And darkness was upon the face of the deep.

  The “water,” the “deep,” and the “heavens,” are here put for the same thing; namely, for that dark unformed substance which afterwards was divided by the Word. For it was the office of the second Person of the Trinity, namely Christ, the Son of God, to divide and adorn that chaotic mass produced from nothing. And this may have been the very design of Moses in not mentioning the Word in the first place; that is, in not saying at first, “And God said.” For some maintain that this was done by Moses purposely.

  V. 2c. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

  Some consider “the Spirit of God” here to mean merely the wind. But if anything material is here to be understood by “Spirit,” I should rather refer it to the first moving of the original unformed mass of heaven and earth, which is called “the deep,” which is always in motion to this day; for water is never still, its surface is always in motion. But I prefer here to understand the Holy Spirit. For the wind is a creature which did not exist, while as yet the heavens and the earth la
y in that confused chaotic mass.

  There is moreover an universal agreement of the Christian Church concerning a revelation of the mystery of the Holy Trinity in this first creative work. The Father through the Son, whom Moses here calls the Word, creates “the heavens and the earth” out of nothing. Over these the Holy Spirit broods. And as a hen sits upon her eggs that she may hatch her young, thus warming her eggs and as it were infusing into them animation, so the Scriptures say the Holy Ghost brooded as it were on the waters; that He might infuse life into these elementary substances which were afterwards to be animated and garnished. For the office of the Holy Spirit is to give life.

  These explanations, as far as I see, are sufficient for our present purpose. Wherefore casting away all other diverse opinions, let us set down this as the truth, that God created “the heavens and the earth,” as yet a rude mass, out of nothing; so that the earth, as an unformed chaotic mass, enveloped the heaven as yet also an unformed mass, like a dark, circumfluent, nebulous cloud.

  It is necessary however that we discuss the terms here used. At the very beginning of this discussion we are met by the expression “In the beginning.” Some have expounded the words “In the beginning” as meaning “In the Son,” from John 1:1; seeing that Christ also gives to the Jews when they inquired “who He was?” this answer, “The beginning, who also speak unto you,” John 8:25. This same exposition is given also from Ps. 110:3, “With thee is the Beginning, in the day of thy power;” which passage nearly all commentators expound as meaning, “With thee is thy Son in divine power.” But it is well known to those acquainted with the Greek language that the expression tan Archan should be rendered by an adverbial phraseology “at first” or “in the beginning,” etc. It is a figure of speech which we frequently meet in Greek. Wherefore let those who will, amuse themselves by thus interpreting the expression “In the beginning.” I prefer the simplest explanation which can be at once understood by the less learned.

  My belief is therefore that the design of Moses was to signify the beginning of time; so that “In the beginning” has the same meaning as if he had said, “At that time before which there was no time.” Or he means that when the world began it so began that the heavens and the earth were created by God out of nothing; but created in a rude shapeless mass, not formed and beautified as they now are. Though they lay not long thus, but began immediately on the first day to be garnished with the light.

  The Arians imagined that angels and the Son of God were made before “the beginning.” But let us pass by this blasphemy. We will omit also another question, “What was God doing before the beginning of the world;” was he in a state of entire inaction or not? To this question Augustine introduced in his Confession the reply, “He was making a hell for all searchers into his secrets.” This reply says Augustine was made to ridicule the violent and audacious blasphemy of the question.

  The modesty therefore of Augustine pleases one, who elsewhere candidly says that in all such cases he draws in the sails of his thoughts. For if we speculate and dispute to infinity, these things still remain incomprehensible. Even those things which we see we can understand but little. How much less then shall we grasp in our knowledge such things as these. For what will you determine concerning things that were before and beyond time? Or what can be your thoughts of things God did before time was? Wherefore let us away with all such thoughts and believe that God before the creation of the world was incomprehensible in his essential rest, but that now since the creation he is within and without and above all creatures; that is, he is still incomprehensible. This is all that can be said, because that which was outside of time our intellect can not comprehend.

  Wherefore God does not manifest himself in anything but in his works and in his Word; because these can in some measure be comprehended, all other things which properly belong to his divinity, cannot be comprehended or understood, as they really are; such as those things which were beyond time and before the world’s creation, etc. Perhaps God appeared to Adam unveiled; but after his sin he may have shown himself to him in “a noise,” Gen. 3:8, under which he was covered as with a veil. So also later in the tabernacle God was veiled by the sanctuary; and in the desert by the pillar of a cloud and by the pillar of fire. Wherefore Moses also calls these things “appearances” or “shadowings” of God, by which he then manifested himself. And Cain calls that the “face” and the “presence” of God where he had before offered his sacrifices, Gen. 4:14. For our nature is so deformed by sin, yea corrupted and lost, that it cannot understand God naked and unveiled nor comprehend what he really is. Therefore it is that these covering veils are absolutely necessary.

  It is moreover insanity to dispute much concerning God as to what he was beyond and before time, for that is to desire to comprehend naked divinity or the naked divine essence. And it is for this very reason that God has wrapt himself in the veils of his works and under certain visible appearances, just as at this day he veils himself under baptism, absolution, etc. If you depart from these veiling signs, you at once run away beyond measure, beyond place and beyond time into the most absolute nothing; concerning which, as philosophers say, there can be no knowledge. Therefore it is that we with solemn propriety enter not into this question; but rest content with this simple meaning of the expression, “In the beginning.”

  II. But it is more worthy of observation that Moses does not say “In the beginning, ADONI, the Lord created the heavens and the earth;” but he uses a noun of the plural number ELOHIM; by which name, in the Books of Moses, and in other parts of the Scriptures both angels and magistrates are sometimes called. As in Ps. 82:6, “I have said ye are gods.” It is certain however that here it signifies the one true God, by whom all things were made. Why therefore does Moses here use a plural noun or name?

  The Jews cavil at Moses in various ways. To us however it is clear that the intent of Moses is to set forth directly the Trinity; or the plurality of persons in the one divine nature. For as he is speaking of the work of the creation it manifestly follows that he excludes angels, who are creatures, from the creative work. There remains therefore this sacred conclusion of the whole matter; that God is One, and that this most perfect Unity is also a most perfect Trinity. For how otherwise does Moses use the plural number, “In the beginning ELOHIM created.”

  The cold and wicked cavilling of the Jews therefore is to be altogether exploded, when they say that Moses used the plural number for the sake of reverence. For what place is there here for the exercise of reverence? Especially since that which is an idiom among us Germans is not common to all languages; namely, that it should be considered a point of reverence to use the plural number when speaking of one person.

  Although the Jews make so much noise about this term ELOHIM being applied to angels and to men, be it remembered that it is in the plural number in this place where it cannot possibly be applied to any but the one true God, because Moses is treating of the Creation. There were moreover many other singular nouns which Moses might have used had he not purposely intended to show to the spiritually minded, that in the divine nature there is before and independently of all creation and all creatures, a plurality of persons. He does not indeed say in plain terms, there is the Father, there is the Son, and there is the Holy Ghost; and they are the one true God; because that was reserved for the doctrine of the Gospel. It was enough for him by the use of a plural noun though afterwards applied to men also, to set forth this plurality of the divine persons.

  Nor ought it to offend us that this same term is afterwards applied to creatures. For why should not God communicate his name unto us, seeing that he communicates to us his power, and his office? For us to remit sins, to retain sins, to quicken to spiritual life, etc., are the works of the divine Majesty alone; and yet these same works are a sign to men and they are wrought by the Word which men teach. Thus Paul said, “That I may save some of them that are my flesh,” Rom. 11:14. And again, “I am become all things to all men, that I may by all m
eans save some,” 1 Cor. 9:22. As therefore these works are truly the works of God, although they are assigned also unto men and are wrought by means of men; so the name of God truly represents God though it is applied also to men.

  Arius could not deny that Christ existed before the world was created, because Christ himself says, “Before Abraham was, I am,” John 8:58. It is written in the Proverbs, 8:22, also, “Before the heavens were, I am.” Arius is obliged therefore to confess that Christ or the Word was created before all things, and that he afterwards created all things, and that he was the most perfect of all creatures though he did not exist from everlasting. But to this fanatical and impious opinion we ought to oppose that which Moses so briefly expresses by the term “In the beginning.” Nor does Moses place anything before “the beginning” but God himself; and him he here represents by a plural noun.

  Into these absurd opinions do minds fall when they speculate on such mighty things without the Word. We know not ourselves; as Lucretius says, “Man knows not the nature of his own soul.” We feel that we can judge, enumerate, distinguish quantities, and, if I may so call them, spiritual creatures, such as truth and falsehood, and yet we cannot to this day define what the soul is. How much less then shall we be able to understand the divine nature! We know not for instance what is the motion of our will; for it is not a motion of quality or of quantity; and yet it is some motion. What then can we know of things divine?