Before Adam’s fall it was not necessary for him to have Christ, because he was righteous and without sin, just as the angels have no need of Christ. If Adam had not fallen, it would not have been necessary for Christ to become our Redeemer. …The argument is true that eternal life is in the given to him who keeps the law without Christ, because whoever keeps the law is righteous. Adam would have entered into the kingdom of heaven without Christ, if he had not fallen. …The conclusion is that Adam alone kept the commandments of God before the Fall, but after the Fall and no one has truly been found who has fulfilled the law.
—Martin Luther, Disputatio de iustificatione (1536) Luther’s Works, 26.185, 187)
Two significant questions/comments I have about this quote of Luther:
(1) It says “Before Adam’s fall…he was righteous and without sin” and yet it goes onto say “eternal life is in the given to him who keeps the law…whoever keeps the law is righteous”.
Well, how could Adam start off as “righteous and without sin” and yet you can only be counted righteous if you have already kept the law? Seems backwards.
(2) At then end, Luther concludes by saying “after the Fall and no one has truly been found who has fulfilled the law”
But in Romans 13:8-10 and Galatians 5:14, Paul says all Christians are called to “fulfill the law”. This is likely a terminology issue, but still, the statement isn’t precise enough given these Scriptural texts.
I’ll bite. I don’t know if this is appropriate or correct but I am trying to be so here feel free to correct me.
“Before Adam’s fall it was not necessary for him to have Christ, because he was righteous and without sin, just as the angels have no need of Christ.”
Observations:
1.There was no appropriation of the angelic nature by the Son of God which would change the definition of Christ.
2. I think there would be a distinction between angels and men on account of federal headship. My inclination concerning angels is that they do not operate within a federal representative structure/ covenant on account that they don’t all fall together. Some fell, others did not.
3. The need for Christ was on grounds of righteousness being from God addressing humanity. Thus it would be a negation for angels because of the simple fact that they aren’t human.
4. Angels were created upright and that which is upright does not need to be restored (I agree with Luther but inject the above qualifications).
5. My concerns lay in an improper comparison rather than an objection to what is asserted about man’s lack of need prior to the fall.
6. I don’t care to delve into hypothetical things concerning salvation regarding other creatures beyond what God has revealed in His Word.
7. Let the critiques fly.
OT, but, I remember as a kid my Dad every so often singing, “Wer liebst nicht Wein, Weib, und Geesang; Er bleibt ein Narr sein Leben lang! Was Martin Luther spricht; und narren sind wir nicht!” (He who loves not wine, woman, and song, remains a fool his whole life long; so said Martin Luther, and we are not fools!”). I think he got it from his father, who was briefly a university student before immigrating to the USA in the late 1800’s. Using Luther’s name in this mock-serious manner, as in an old student song, just goes to show how large Luther’s influence was on German-speaking Europe, even among non-Protestants (the German-speaking side of my family was Jewish).
But, on a more serious note, Dr. Clark, do you have any further discussion on how or how not the Lutheran Law-Gospel scheme meshes with the Reformed Covenantal scheme?
Peter,
1. See Caspar Olevian And the Substance of the Covenant where I show the connection.
2. There’s an article and a lecture (along with other resources) on this very topic. Links here. The lecture is free.