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

by Martin Luther

Lyra and others in their reply to this question say that this tree of life had indeed the power of preserving life for a length of time, but not forever; and therefore it could not have restored that life which was lost by sin. For Adam was not created with the design of his remaining in this corporal life forever; but he was designed to be translated from this corporal life and from this corporal nourishing of it into that spiritual life, for which he was ultimately designed and into which he would have been translated, if he had not sinned. Just in the same way as when a man is created a consul from his former private life, no death is taken into consideration in his being created to that office, but his glory and dignity alone are increased; so Adam, had not death intervened by his sin, would have changed his mortality for an immortality without any death at all; being translated from the life corporal to the life spiritual and eternal. This "tree of life" however, according to the view of Lyra, served only for the preservation of the corporal life. And therefore he interprets the present text, "Lest he should live an age;" that is, a life of long duration. Such is Lyra's opinion.

My understanding of the text however is different. My belief is, that if Adam had been admitted to eat of the tree of life he would have been restored to that life which he lost; so that he would not have afterwards died, but would have been simply translated from the life corporal to the life spiritual and eternal; for the text contains both these statements most clearly; that Adam was prohibited from eating of "the tree of life," that he might not be restored to the life which he had lost; and also, that if he had eaten of that tree he would have lived LEOLAM; that is, for an age or a length of time.

My rejection of the opinion of Lyra, however, is especially on the ground that he attributes the power of giving life to the nature of the tree itself simply; whereas it is quite certain that the tree possessed not this property of its own nature, but from the power of the Word absolutely. Just in the same manner as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had its peculiar property from the same Word. It did not kill, because its fruits themselves were deadly, poisonous or pestiferous; but because the Word, as a certain paper, was added to it; on which paper God had written, "In the day that thou eatest of this tree, thou shalt surely die," Gen. 2:17.

Wherefore, in the first place, to this tree of death there was attached spiritual death or the death of the soul; that is, disobedience. For after Adam and Eve had violated this commandment of God by sin, which commandment had continued effectual in them up to that time, they began to think thus, "Behold, God has forbidden us to eat of this tree; but what is that to us?" This contempt of the commandment was that poisoned hook, by which being firmly fixed in their throats Adam and Eve were utterly destroyed. For since the divine threatening was added to the commandment, therefore after eating it the fruit wrought in them death on account of their disobedience. The tree of death itself was not poisoned; but, as I have copiously explained before under the second chapter, it was the tree of divine worship, where man might testify, by his obedience in that worship, that he acknowledged, reverenced and feared his God. For God saw everything which he had made, and behold it was very good, Gen. 1:31. Wherefore, I have no doubt that this tree of life in the present passage derived its efficacy, as did the tree of death, from the Word. Therefore, since the Word rested in its power on that tree, if Adam had eaten of it, he would have been restored to the life which he possessed before his fall.

It was just thus also with the serpent, which Moses raised in the desert. It did not give or cause life by its own nature; for it was made of brass, as any other serpent might be made of the same metal to this day. But it was the Word, added to that serpent, which made it effectual to give life; because God commanded that serpent to be lifted up, and because he added this Word to it when lifted up, "Every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live," Num. 21:8. Now, if thou shouldst make a serpent of brass at his day, thou couldst not have this Word to add to it. Moreover, the cause of the healing did not lie in the act of the looking, but that cause was contained in the Word, by which God had commanded that those who were bitten should look to the serpent, to which commandment was also added the promise of healing to those who should look. But because the Rabbins understand not the nature of the Word, therefore they shamefully err and fail in their interpretation and declare the meaning to be, that the nature itself of these trees was death-giving or life-giving. For they understand not that all things therefore take place, because God by his Word either promises or threatens that they shall so take place.

Our sophistic human reasoners trifle in the same way, when they argue upon the manner in which baptism justifies. For Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura consider that there is a certain power of effecting justification infused by God into the water when the infant is baptized; so that the water of the baptism, by its own virtue thus communicated, creates justification. We, on the contrary, affirm that the water of baptism is water, nothing else or better than that water which the cow drinks. But we affirm, that to this water, natural and simple in itself, is added the Word, "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved," Mark 16:16. And again, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John 3:5. Now, if any one is inclined to call this Word, or this Promise, the power communicated to the water of baptism, I will not resist such a view of the sacred matter. But the mind of our sophists is quite different from this; for they will not assign this power to the Word; they argue concerning the element only; and they affirm that the water itself contains a peculiar power communicated to it of God. Scotus has expressed the matter more correctly in his definition of it, when he says that baptism is "a divine compact or covenant, resting on the element."

The Word therefore is in every case to be regarded and honored, that Word by which God holds and endues his creatures with efficacy; and a difference is ever to be made between the creature and the Word. In the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there are bread and wine; in baptism there is water. These are the mere creatures. But they are held in God's hand by the Word, and as long as the creature is thus apprehended by the Word, so long also doth it effect that which the Word promises.

And yet we would by no means be understood as favoring by these views the Sacramentarians, when we thus join together baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Baptism hath annexed to it the promise, that with the Holy Spirit it regenerates. In the Supper of the Lord, in addition to the promise of the remission of sins annexed to it, it has also this excellency: that with the bread and the wine there is also truly set forth the body and blood of Christ, as Christ himself says, "This is my body which is given for you;" and also, "This cup is the New Testament in my blood," Luke 22:19, 20. In the same manner it might also be said that the human nature itself in Christ does not redeem us. But because the human nature was corporally held fast by the divine nature, and Christ is both God and man in one person, therefore his redemption is all-availing; and therefore Christ is called the "Son of Man" and the Saviour.

The Pope has invented the "blessed water," "extreme unction" and numberless other like things, to which he has attributed the remission of sins. In all these cases ever think thus with thyself: Has God ever added to these things his Word of Command and his Word of Promise? And if the promise and the precept of God are not attached to them, immediately judge that they are idolatry and profaning of the name of God. But they will tell you that the prayers of the pious are added to them and that there exist holy examples, in imitation of which these things were constituted. But do thou regard neither the pious prayers, nor the holy examples, nor the intentions of those who invented or established these things. Look only at whether the precept and promise of God are attached to them; for the divine command and promise alone can endue creatures with a new power beyond that power which they of their own mere nature possess.

Thus "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was of its own nature good as a creature; but by means of the Word of God, added and attached to it, it became to man through his sin the poison not of his body only but of his soul. And in like manner, on the contrary, "the tree of life" had by means of the Word of God attached to it the power of preserving life, and it would have restored and preserved the life of Adam had God so permitted. But God being angry with Adam did not permit him to return to eat of that tree after his fall. And this repulsion from "the tree of life" and from paradise was not only intended to keep Adam under the continual memory of the sin which he had committed, but also because Adam had now a better promise given him, that the Seed of the woman should bruise the seed of the serpent; so that, although Adam was subjected to corporeal death, he yet retained the hope of an immortality through the Son of God. Just as an angry father, though he does not deprive his son of the right of his inheritance, yet chastises him and turns him out of doors.