Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1: Luther on the Creation

by Martin Luther

The above example therefore will furnish a very useful rule to be observed in our disputations with these fanatical tools of Satan. For those who are not on their guard are often deceived when crafty men transfer their arguments, after their own manner, from connected to unconnected portions of the Scripture; or adopt dishonest connections or divisions of the sacred text; but adduce not passages in their integral state as they stand in the Word. Now this is the very method adopted in the present case by my adversary, when he argues as above from these two detached portions, "That law is not made for a righteous man," and "Where there is no law, there is no transgression." He who is not on the watch-tower of wisdom and caution here is entangled before he is aware of it, and drawn into the horrible conclusion, that there was no real sin in eating the first apple; because, as our crafty opponents would argue, there was no law; and, as they further argue, which is indeed true in itself, because "where there is no law there is no transgression."

And I am by no means certain that some even in our day have not been deceived by this very argument of the devil. For they so speak of original sin as to make it not a sin itself, but a punishment of sin only. Hence Erasmus, discussing this point with his famous eloquence, observes, "Original sin is a punishment, inflicted on our first parents, which we their posterity are compelled to bear for another's fault, without any desert of our own. Just as the son of an harlot is forced to endure the infamy, not by his own fault but by that of his mother. For what sin could any man commit who had as yet no existence?" These sentiments flatter human reason, but they are full of impiety and blasphemy.

Wherein then is the syllogism of our crafty adversary unsound? It is because, according to Satan's common artifice, the text on which it is founded is not quoted entirely, but most perfidiously mutilated. For the whole text stands thus, "The law is not made for a righteous man, but for murderers, for adulterers," etc., etc. Wherefore nothing can be more evident, nothing else can be concluded than that the apostle Paul is here speaking of that Law which God revealed unto man after sin was in the world; not of that law, which the Lord gave unto Adam in paradise, while he was yet righteous and innocent. The Law, says Paul, "was not made for a righteous man;" wherefore it insubvertibly follows, that the Law of which Paul speaks was given to nature, when not innocent, but sinning and liable to sin.

Is it not then the height of wickedness thus to confound passages of Scripture in causes of such solemn moment? Adam after his sin was not the same as he was before, when in his state of innocency. And yet these men make no difference between the law delivered to man before sin and the Law delivered to man after sin. But what the apostle says concerning the Law, which was delivered to the world after it was filled with sin, these instruments of Satan, lyingly and with the greatest blasphemy, transfer and apply to the law, delivered to Adam in paradise. Whereas, if no sin had existed the law prohibiting sin would not have existed. For as I have said above, civil government and laws, or cauteries, and the sword, and the "schoolmaster," as Paul terms "the Law," would not have been needed in a state of innocent nature. But the boy because he is now bad needs the "schoolmaster" and the rod. So the prince, because he has disobedient citizens, equally needs the crown-officer and the executioner. It is of this law that Paul is really speaking; the law which nature when corrupted by sin needed.

With respect to the need which Adam had of this commandment of God concerning the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," I have shown that need above. It was that Adam might have a settled external worship of God and a work of external obedience towards him to perform statedly. Thus the angel Gabriel is without sin, a creature most pure and innocent, and yet he received a commandment from God to inform Daniel concerning things of the utmost importance, and to announce to the virgin Mary that she was to be the mother of Christ promised to the fathers. These are positive commandments, given to a creature perfectly innocent.

In the same manner there is here a commandment given of the Lord to Adam before his sin that he should not eat of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," which commandment Adam would have fulfilled willingly and with the highest pleasure, had he not been deceived by the craft of Satan. But Paul is referring to quite another law; for he is plainly speaking of a law which was given, not to the righteous, but to the unrighteous. Who is there, then, so stupid or so insane, who will after all conclude that a law was not given to Adam because he hears us affirm that Adam was a righteous man? For no other conclusion can follow than that the law, which was made for the unrighteous, was not the law that was given to the righteous Adam; and on the converse it must follow that as a law was given to righteous Adam, that law was not the same as the law which was afterwards made for the unrighteous.

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.