Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  There is therefore in this syllogism or argument of our adversary, the two-fold unsoundness of unjust connection and unjust division. There is in it moreover a double equivocation. The first is in not making it plain that the law before sin is one thing, and the law after sin another. And in the second place, the equivocation lies in not making it equally plain, that the righteous man before sin and the righteous man after sin are each righteous, but in a different sense; that the one is righteous by nature the other by new-creation and justification.

  It is most useful to examine thus the arguments and reasonings of our adversaries, and in this manner to apply the science of sound logic to good purpose in these momentous discussions. For the arts of logic were not seriously intended to be used in the dead disputation of the school only; but that the gravest and most sacred subjects might by them be soundly explained and taught. And it is by the very false reasoning now in question, that Satan does a great deal of business in denying original sin. Whereas to deny original sin, is to deny virtually the passion and resurrection of Christ.

  Let the passage of the apostle Paul therefore, 1 Tim. 1:9, hinder us not from determining with Moses in the text now before us, that a law was here commanded of God to Adam though a righteous man, “That he should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” in the same way as commandments were also given to angels. And because Adam transgressed this commandment he sinned, and begat and propagated his children after him also sinners.

  III. V. 17b. For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

  This penal threat also thus expressly added proves that it was a law, not an admonition, that was given to Adam. And it moreover shows that Adam was created in a state of innocence and righteousness. For as yet there was no sin in existence because God did not create sin. If Adam therefore had obeyed this command he would never have died, for death entered into the world by sin. All the rest of the trees of paradise therefore were created to the end that they might aid and preserve unto man his animal life, sound and whole, and without the least evil or inconvenience.

  Now it naturally appears wonderful to us at this day, that there should have been an animal life without any death and without any evils or accidental causes of death, which now abound, such as diseases, boils and fetid redundancies, in bodies, etc., etc. The reason is that no part of the body in the state of innocency was foul or impure. There was no unpleasantness in the evacuations or secretions. There were no impurities whatever. Everything was most beautiful and delightful. There was no offense to any of the organs or senses. And yet the life was an animal life. Adam ate, digested, performed the functions of, and managed and regulated, his body. And had he continued in his innocence he would have done all these and other things the animal life does and requires, until he had been translated to the spiritual and eternal life.

  For this deathless translation also we have lost by sin. And now, between this present and a future life, there exists that awful medium passage, death. That passage, in the state of innocence, would have been most delightful; and by it Adam would have been translated to the spiritual life, or as Christ calls it in the Gospel, the life “as the angels in heaven,” Math. 12:25; in which state all animal actions cease. For in the resurrection we shall neither eat nor drink nor are given in marriage. So with respect to Adam, all animality would have ceased and a spiritual life in glory would have followed; even as we also believe it will be with us “in the resurrection” through Christ. So also Adam would have put off his childhood glory of innocence, if I may so term his natural life of innocency, and would have put on his heavenly glory. He would have done with all inferior actions, which however, in that childhood glory of innocency, would have been pure and unattended with that sorrow which mars all things since the fall; and would have been translated from his infantine glory of created innocence, to that manhood of glorious innocence, which angels enjoy; and which we also who believe shall enjoy in the life to come.

  I call Adam’s primitive, creative innocence the childhood of glorious innocency, because Adam, if I may so speak, was in a middle state, or a state of neutrality or liability; in a state where he could be deceived by Satan; and could fall into that awful calamity into which he did fall. But such a peril of falling will not exist in that state of perfect manhood of glorified innocency, which we shall enjoy in the future and spiritual life. And this indeed is that which is signified in this threat of punishment. “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” As if the Lord had said, thou mayest remain indeed, if thou obey me, in this life, in which I have created thee; yet thou wilt not even then, be immortal, as the angels are. It is a life placed as it were in a middle, neutral or liable, state. Thou mayest remain in it by obedience, and afterwards be translated into an immortality, which cannot be lost. On the other hand if thou shalt not obey me, thou shalt fall into death and shalt lose that immortality.

  There is a great difference therefore between the created spiritual state of angels and the created natural innocency of Adam. Angels as they now are cannot fall, but Adam could fall; for Adam was created in a state in which he might become immortal, that is, in which he might continue in his original innocency without death, for he was free from all sin and stood in a condition from which he might be translated out of the childhood glory of original innocency into the manhood glory of immortality, in which he could never sin afterwards. On the other hand, Adam could fall out of this childhood glory of natural innocence into sin, the curse and death, as indeed it sadly happened. Adam was in a state of natural immortality, or which might have been a natural immortality, because he had recourse to certain created trees, the virtue of whose fruits produced preservation of life. But this natural immortality was not so secured to him, as to render it impossible for him to fall into mortality.

  Why God willed to create man in this middle, neutral or liable state is not for us to explain or curiously to inquire. Equally impossible is it for us to say and unlawful to ask, why man was so created that all mankind should be propagated from one man by generation, while angels were not so created. For angels generate not nor are propagated, because they live a spiritual life; but the counsel of God in the creation of man is worthy the highest admiration, in that he created him to an animal life and to corporeal actions, which also the other animals have, and gave him also a power of intellect, which indeed the angels also possess. So that man is a compound being, in whom are united the brute and the angelic natures.

  Moreover, as we have here come to consider the nature of angels, we must not keep back the written opinions of some of the fathers, that there is a certain similarity between the creation of man and that of angels. This similarity however cannot be extended to the properties of generation, which in the spiritual nature has no existence, but to the imperfection that subsisted in each nature as to liability to fall. For since man, as I have shown, was created in a kind of a middle, or liable or pendent state, so also angels when first created were not so confirmed in their natural standing that they could not fall. Hence it is that Christ says concerning the devil, that he “abode not in the truth,” John 8:44. On these grounds the holy fathers supposed that a battle or sedition arose between the angels, some of those beings taking the part of some very beautiful angel, who exalted himself above all the rest on account of certain superior gifts bestowed upon him. These things are very probable nor are they at variance with that which Christ here affirms by the Evangelist John, that the devil “abode not in the truth;” nor are they inconsistent with that which Jude also affirms in his epistle, that the angels “kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation,” Jude 6.

  In confirmation of these sentiments, the fathers adduce the passage, Is. 14:12, 13. But with reference to Isaiah, he is evidently speaking of the king of Babylon, who wished to sit in the throne of God, that is, to rule over his holy people and his temple.

  Whether, therefore, there really was this dissension and war among t
he angels, or whether, which is more agreeable to my views, certain proud angels, filled with envy and taking offense at the humility of the Son of God, wished to exalt themselves above him, it is quite certain that the angels also like man were in such a state of innocence as could be altered. After the evil angels however had been judged and condemned, the good angels were so confirmed in their standing that they could not sin after that confirmation, for they were all elect angels, but the reprobate angels were cast out.

  So also, if the great dragon, or the evil angels, mentioned in Revelations, had continued in their innocence, they also would afterwards have been confirmed therein and could never have fallen. The fathers, speaking on this subject, hold that the elect angels were created in righteousness and were afterwards confirmed therein; but that those who fell, “abode not in the truth,” John 8:44. But we are not to think that the angels are few in number, for Christ affirms, Luke 11:18, that Satan has a kingdom, and that he is as the chief one among robbers and governs all things in his kingdom by his authority and counsels; and it is also said, in the same chapter that the devils or evil angels have their prince Beelzebub, who was at the head of this sedition in heaven.

  But there has arisen a question here, in the discussion of which the books of all the sophists are idly employed, and after all they explain nothing. The question to which I allude is, “What was original righteousness?” Some make it a certain quality, others give different definitions. We however following Moses, will define original righteousness to be so termed, because man was originally created righteous, true and upright; not in body only, but especially in soul, and because he acknowledged God; because he obeyed him with the utmost pleasure; because he understood the works of God without any instruction concerning them. This last faculty of Adam is wonderfully exemplified by the fact, that when he had been in a profound sleep and God had formed Eve out of one of his ribs, the moment he awoke he recognized Eve as the work of God, saying “This is now bone of my bones.” Was not this a marvelous proof of intellect, thus at the first sight to know and comprehend the work of God?

  From this same original righteousness also it arose that Adam loved God and his works with all purity of affection; that he lived among the creatures of God in peace without any fear of death or any dread of disease, and that he enjoyed a body also the most obedient to the will of God, without any evil desires and utterly free from that impure lust, which we continually feel. So that a most beautiful and most certain picture of original righteousness may be portrayed from its entire contrast to that deep corruption, which we now feel throughout our whole nature.

  When human reasoners speak of original sin, they consider only its wretched and unclean lust or concupiscence. But original sin is in truth the entire fall of the whole human nature. The intellect is so darkened that we can no longer understand God and his will, nor perceive nor acknowledge the works of God. Moreover the will is so wonderfully depraved that we cannot trust in the mercy of God nor fear God, but living in security and unconcern, we disregard the Word of God and his will and follow the concupiscence and violent lusts of the flesh. The conscience also is no longer at peace and in quiet, and when it thinks of the judgments of God it sinks into despair, and seeks and follows after unlawful supports and remedies. And all these sins are so deeply rooted in our nature that they cannot be entirely eradicated through our whole life. And yet these miserable sophistical reasoners do not touch upon these deep corruptions even in word. But by taking this true view of original sin, it clearly demonstrates, according to the nature of correlative proofs, what original sin really was by its awful contrariety to that original righteousness. Thus it is evident that original sin is the essential and entire loss and deprivation and absence of original righteousness; just as blindness is the privation or absence of sight.

  Yes! the divine matters of original sin and original righteousness extend much more widely and deeply than is imagined by the monks, who understand original righteousness only as it refers to sexual chastity. Whereas they ought first to look at the soul of man as the seat of all sin and corruption and then turn to the body, and view it as deriving all its defilement and pollution from the soul. With reference to the soul the great proof of its fallen state under original sin is, that we have lost the knowledge of God; that we do not always and everywhere give thanks unto him; that we do not rejoice in the works of his hands and all his doings; that we do not wholly trust in him; that we begin to hate and blaspheme him whenever he visits our sins with deserved punishments; that in our dealings with our neighbor we follow our own interests, desires and objects, and are plunderers, thieves, adulterers, murderers, cruel, unkind, unmerciful. The ragings of lust are indeed a certain part of original sin, but those sins and corruptions of the soul, unbelief, ignorance of God, despair, hatred, blasphemy, of which calamities of the soul Adam knew nothing in his state of innocence.

  And in addition to these reflections, the numberless punishments of original sin are to be contemplated. For whatever is now lost of those endowments with which Adam was created and gifted, while his nature was yet unfallen, is rightly considered the consequence of original sin. Adam for instance was of a most perfect and sagacious intellect. For the moment that Eve was presented to him he understood that she was his own flesh. He had also the most minute knowledge of all the other creatures. He was not only just and upright, but of a most perfect and wonderful understanding in all things. He had moreover a most upright will, yet not a perfect will; for perfection itself was deferred from the state of the animal life to that of the spiritual and eternal life. Let these comments suffice upon the sacred text before us, Vs. 16 and 17, in which the church is constituted. Moses now proceeds to marriage and domestic government (oeconomia).

  PART IV. THE CREATION OF EVE.

  V. 18. AND Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an helpmeet for him (which may be before him).

  We have just seen how the church was constituted by the Word and by the establishment of a certain day, place and order of worship. For civil government (politia) there was as yet no need, while nature was innocent and without sin. Now domestic government (oeconomia) is instituted. For God now makes the solitary Adam a husband by giving him a wife and uniting her to him of whom Adam had need also for the generation and multiplication of the human race. And as we have observed above with reference to the creation of Adam that God created him with deep purpose of mind and counsel, some here see that Eve also was created with profound counsel and wisdom of design. By all this Moses would show that man was a singularly excellent creature and that he partook both of the human and the divine natures, of divinity and immortality. Man therefore is a more excellent creature than the heaven or the earth or any other creature which God made.

  And Moses would also impress us with reference to the other part of human nature, namely, woman, that she also was created with a peculiar counsel and design of God. And the object of Moses in this particular point of his divine instruction is, to show that this sex also had great concernment, in that state of animal but innocent life, in which Adam was created, and in that state of a spiritual and eternal life also, which he expected. For the female sex was necessary for the generation and multiplication of the human race. Hence it follows that if the woman had not been deceived by the serpent and had not sinned, she would have been in all respects equal to Adam. For her now being subject to her husband is the punishment laid upon her of God since sin and on account of sin; as are also all her other troubles and perils, her labor and pain in bringing forth children, with an infinite number of other sorrows. Woman therefore is not now what Eve was at her creation. The condition of woman then was inconceivably better and more excellent than now; she was then in no respect whatever inferior to Adam, whether you consider the endowments of her body or those of her mind.

  But we may here inquire when God says, “It is not good that the man should be alone,” what is that “good” of which God is speaking,
seeing that Adam was righteous and had no need of the woman as we have, who bear about with us our flesh all leprous with sin? My reply is, that God is speaking of a common “good,” or the good of the species; not of personal good. All personal good Adam already possessed. He enjoyed perfect innocency. But the common good of which all other animals partook, he possessed not. He could not propagate his species by generation. Adam was alone. Nor had he as yet a companion for that wonderful work of generation and the preservation of his species. The “good” therefore here divinely expressed, signifies the multiplying of the human race. In the same manner also Adam, although innocent and righteous, did not as yet possess that high good to which he was created; namely, a spiritual and glorious immortality, to which he would have been translated of God in his appointed time, if he had continued in his innocency. The meaning of “good” therefore in the text is, that Adam being himself a most beautiful creature possessed, as far as his own person was concerned, everything he could require. But there was yet wanting to him one thing, the “good” of God’s “blessing;” the generating and multiplying of his species; for he was alone.

  Now, as nature is corrupted by sin, woman is necessary, not only for the multiplying of the human race but also for the companionship, help and protection of life. For domestic government needs the ministration of women. Nay, such is our wretchedness by the fall of Adam, that, to our shame and sorrow be it confessed, we have need of woman as a remedy against sin. Wherefore, in contemplating woman, we must consider not only the place in domestic government which she fills, but the remedy for sin, which God has made her to supply; as the apostle Paul says, “To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife,” 1 Cor. 7:2. And a certain master of divine sentiments also eloquently observes, “Marriage was instituted in paradise as a duty and an obedience to God; but since the fall it is a remedy also for sin.” Wherefore we are obliged to adopt a union with this sex to avoid sin. This is indeed a sad and disgraceful confession to make; but it is the truth. For there are very few now who take unto themselves wives, purely as a duty of obedience to God; according to his original will in the creation of man as male and female!