Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  Vs. 13-14. And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dried. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dry.

  29. Here we see that Noah was in the ark an entire year and ten days; for he entered the ark on the seventeenth day of the second month, and came out again, after a year had passed, in the same month, but on the twenty-seventh day. Poor Noah, with his sons and the women, lived in the ark more than half a year in sore grief, without a sign of being remembered by God. Afterward God gave him gradual proof, through various signs, that he had not forgotten him, until at last, after the lapse of a year and ten days, he was again given dominion over the earth and sea. On this day of the second month, the flood had not only disappeared, but the earth was dry. This is the story of the flood and its abatement. After this fearful wrath, there ensues an immeasurable light of grace, as is shown in the following sermon addressed to Noah by God himself.

  II.

  NOAH COMMANDED TO LEAVE THE ARK; HIS OFFERING TO GOD; GOD’S RESOLVE NOT TO CURSE THE EARTH AGAIN.

  A.

  NOAH COMMANDED TO LEAVE THE ARK, AND HE OBEYED 30-32.

  *

  Man should do nothing but what God commands 30-32.

  *

  Is it right to start a new worship without God’s command to do so 33-34.

  *

  The examples of saints and special works.

  1.

  Should we imitate the works of the holy patriarchs 34-35.

  2.

  The result among the Jews of a reckless imitation of the saints 36.

  3.

  Should have regard here, not to works but to faith 37-38.

  II. NOAH LEAVES ARK, HIS SACRIFICE AND GOD’S PROMISE.

  A. NOAH OBEYS Command to Leave the Ark.

  Vs. 15-17. And God spake unto Noah, saying, Go forth from the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives with thee. Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee of all flesh, both birds, and cattle, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth.

  30. Up to this point the narrative is only a record of facts, or the description of a divine work. Though the works of God are not mute but eloquent witnesses, and present to our vision the will of God, a still greater comfort is vouchsafed when God links to the works the Word, which is not manifest to the eye but perceptible to the ear and intelligible to the heart through the promptings of the Holy Spirit. So far God had given proof by his work that he was appeased, that the God of wrath had turned into a God of mercy, who turns back the waters and dries up the earth. Such comfort he now amplifies by his Word in that he lovingly accosts and enjoins him to leave the ark with the other creatures, both men and animals.

  31. In the light of this passage the frequent and emphatic application of the principle is justified that we should neither design nor do anything, especially in respect to God’s service and worship, without the initiative and command of the Word. As above narrated, Noah enters the ark upon God’s command; and he leaves the ark upon God’s command to leave it. He does not follow superstitious notions, as we see the Jews do, who, when they establish anything temporary by command, endeavor to retain it forever, as if it were essential to salvation.

  32. Noah might have argued thus: Behold, I built the ark by the command of God; I was saved in it while all other men perished: therefore I will remain in it, or keep it for a place of divine worship, since it has been sanctified by the Word of God and the presence of the saints, the Church. But the godly man did nothing of the kind. The Word had commanded him to go forth, therefore he obeyed. The ark had done its service during the flood and he left it, assured that he and his children were to live on the earth. So must we undertake nothing without the Word of God. In a holy calling, which has the Word and command of God, let us walk! For whosoever attempts anything without the command of God, will labor in vain.

  33. To deny this, some one might cite as example the act of Noah, described below, when he built an altar without God’s command, and offered a burnt-offering thereon to God from the clean animals. If this was permitted to Noah, why should we not be permitted to choose certain forms of worship? And, in truth, the Papacy has heaped up works and forms of worship in the Church without measure, just as it pleased. But we must hold fast to the principle, which is a theorem of general application, that whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, (Rom 14, 23). But faith cannot be separated from the Word; hence, whatsoever is done without the Word, is sin.

  34. Furthermore, it is plainly dangerous to take the acts of the fathers as models. As individuals differ, so also do their duties differ, and God requires diverse works according to the diversity of our calling. Accordingly the epistle to the Hebrews fitly refers the various acts of the fathers to the one faith, in order to show that each of us must imitate, in his calling, not the works, but the faith of the fathers. Heb 11.

  35. Hence works peculiar to the holy fathers must by no means be considered as models for us each to imitate as the monks imitate the fasting of Benedict, the gown of Francis, the shoes of Dominic and the like. Men become apes who imitate without judgment. The monks try to ape the works, but know nothing of the faith of the fathers.

  36. Abraham was commanded to slay his son. Afterward his descendants most wickedly believed they should follow his example, and they filled the earth with innocent blood. In a similar manner the people worshiped the brazen serpent and offered sacrifices before it. In both instances the people wanted to justify themselves by the example of their forefathers; but since they established these forms of worship without the Word, they were righteously condemned.

  37. Let us, therefore, remember not to establish anything without the Word of God. Duties differ, and so must the works of individuals. How foolish it would be for me to proclaim that I must follow Caesar’s example, and that others must obey my laws! How wicked it would be for me to assert that I must follow the example of a judge, condemning some to the cross, others to the sword! Then, we must look, not upon the works, but upon the faith of individuals; for the faith of all saints is one, though their works are most diverse.

  38. Think not that because Noah built an altar, you may do likewise; but follow the faith of Noah, who thought it right to show his merciful Savior that he understood his beneficent gifts, and was grateful for them. Follow Abraham, not in slaying your son, but in believing the promises of God, and in obeying his commandments. The epistle to the Hebrews fitly refers the deeds and acts of the fathers to their faith, setting forth that we should follow their faith.

  B.

  NOAH’S SACRIFICE.

  1.

  Whether Noah was commanded to offer a sacrifice and in what way sacrificing is justified 39-41.

  *

  Have monks divine command to support their order 40.

  *

  Shall we find fault with the works of saints, for which they apparently had no command 41.

  *

  How in all works we should have respect for God’s command 42.

  *

  Lyra’s unfounded thoughts on the words, “Be fruitful” etc. 43.

  *

  Why Moses said so much about their leaving the ark 44.

  2.

  Noah’s sacrifice proves Moses did not originate the idea of sacrifice 45-46.

  3.

  Why Noah’s sacrifice was pleasing to God 47-48.

  *

  The meaning of “sweet savor” 47-48.

  4.

  How it can be said God “smelled the sweet savor”, and why this form of speech used 49-50.

  B. NOAH’S SACRIFICE.

  39. THE OBJECTION under consideration can be invalidated by the rejoinder that Noah did have a command to erect an altar and offer sacrifices. God approved the rite of s
acrifice by ordering that more of the clean animals — suitable for sacrifice — should be taken into the ark. Nor was Noah permitted to cast aside the office of the priesthood, which had been established by the Word before the flood and had come down to him by the right of primogeniture. Adam, Seth, Enoch and others had been priests. From them Noah possessed the office of the priesthood as an inheritance.

  40. Therefore Noah, as priest and prophet, was not only at liberty to offer sacrifice, but he was under obligation to do so by virtue of his calling. Since his calling was founded on God’s Word, in harmony with that Word and by God’s command he built an altar and offered sacrifices. Therefore let a monk prove it is his office and calling to wear a cowl, to worship the blessed Virgin, to pray the rosary and do like things, and we will commend his life. But since the call is lacking, the Word is not the authority and the office does not exist, the life and works of the monks in their entirety stand justly condemned.

  41. Finally, even if all other arguments should fail, this argument, according to which man judges the cause by the effect, remains; namely, that God expresses approval of Noah’s deed. Although such reasoning from effect to cause may not be unassailable, it yet is not without value in respect to such heroic and uncommon men, who meet not with rejection but approval on the part of God, although they appear to do what they have not been expressly commanded. They possess the inward conviction that they are guilty of no transgression, though the disclosure of this fact is delayed until later God expresses his approval. Such examples are numerous and it is noteworthy that God has expressed approval even of the acts of some heathen.

  42. Let this maxim, then, stand, that everything must be done by the command of God in order to obtain the assurance of conscience that we have acted in obedience to God. Hence they who abide in their divinely assigned calling, will not run uncertainly nor will they beat the air as those who have no course in which they have been commanded to run, and in consequence may not look forward to a prize. 1 Cor 9, 24.

  But I return to the text. Noah, with his sons and the women, is commanded to leave the ark, and to lead forth upon the earth every species of animals, that all his works may be sanctified and found in keeping with the Word. Concerning the animals Moses now expressly states:

  Vs. 17-19. Be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth. And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him: every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, whatsoever moveth upon the earth, after their families, went forth out of the ark.

  43. The Lord speaks of the propagation of Noah and his sons in the ninth chapter and that, I believe, is the reason why he speaks here only of the propagation of the animals. From the expression here used, Lyra foolishly concludes that cohabitation had been forbidden during the flood and was now again permitted after the departure from the ark, since God says, “Go forth, ... thou and thy wife.” Such thoughts belong to monks not to God, who plans not sinful lust, but propagation; the latter is God’s ordination, but lust is Satan’s poison infused into nature through sin.

  44. Moses here uses many words to illustrate the overflowing joy of the captives’ souls, when they were commanded to leave their prison, the ark, and to return upon the earth now everywhere open before them. In recounting the kinds of animals, however, he arranges them in a different order, distinguishing them by families, as it were, to let us see that only propagation was God’s aim. It must have been a glad sight when each one of the many beasts, after leaving the ark, found its own mate, and then sought its accustomed haunt: the wolves, the bears, the lions, returning to the woods and groves; the sheep, the goats, the swine, to the fields; the dogs, the chickens, the cats, to man.

  V. 20. And Noah builded an altar unto Jehovah, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar.

  45. This text shows conclusively that Moses was not the first person to introduce sacrifices but that, like a bard who gathers chants, he arranged and classified them as they had been in vogue among the fathers and transmitted from the one to the other. Thus also the law of circumcision was not first written by Moses but received from the fathers.

  46. Above (ch 4, 4-5), where Moses mentioned the sacrifice of Abel and Cain, he called it minchah, an offering; here, however, we find the first record of a burnt-offering, one entirely consumed by fire. This, I say, is a clear proof that the law of sacrifices had been established before the time of Moses. His work, then, consisted in arranging the rites of the forefathers in definite order.

  V. 21. And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor.

  47. It is set forth here that Jehovah approved Noah’s sacrifice which he offered by virtue of his office as a priest, according to the example of the fathers. However, the differences of phraseology is to receive due attention. Of the former sacrifice he said that Jehovah “had respect” to it; here he says that “Jehovah smelled the sweet savor.” Moses subsequently makes frequent use of this expression. The heathen also adopted it; Lucian, for example, makes fun of Jove who was conciliated by the odor of meats.

  48. The word in the original, however, does not properly signify the “savor of sweetness,” but “the savor of rest”, for nichoach meaning “rest”, is derived from the verb nuach, which Moses used before, when he said that the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. Therefore it is the “savor of rest,” because God then rested from his wrath, dismissing his wrath, becoming appeased, and, as we commonly say, well content.

  49. Here the question might be raised why does he not say, Jehovah had respect to Noah and his burnt offering, rather than, Jehovah smelled the savor of rest, which latter certainly sounds shocking, as though he were not commending the man for his faith, but merely for his work. This objection is usually answered by saying that the Scriptures speak of God in human fashion. Men are pleased by a sweet savor. But it seems to me there is still another reason for this expression, namely, that God was so close at hand that he noticed the savor; for Moses desires to show that this holy rite was well-pleasing to God: Solomon says (Prov 27, 9) that perfume rejoiceth the heart. Physicians sometimes restore consciousness by sweet odors. On the other hand, a violent stench is extremely offensive to our nature, and often overpowers it.

  50. In this sense, one may say that God, having been annoyed by the stench of wickedness, was now refreshed, so to speak, when he saw this one priest girded himself to perform holy rites in order to give proof of his gratitude, and to manifest by some public act he did not belong to the ungodly, but that he had a God whom he feared. This is the real meaning of a sacrifice. As it had pleased God to destroy mankind, he is now delighted to increase it. Moses uses this expression for our sake, that we, through the experience of God’s grace, may learn that God delights to do us good.

  C.

  GOD’S RESOLVE NOT TO CURSE THE EARTH AGAIN.

  1.

  God solemnly and earnestly means it 51.

  *

  How understood “it repented God that he had made man” 52-54.

  *

  Experiences in spiritual temptations and how God helps us to bear them 54.

  2.

  The meaning of “God will not again smite the earth” 55.

  C. GOD’S RESOLVE NOT TO CURSE THE EARTH AGAIN.

  V. 21B. AND Jehovah said in his heart.

  51. Moses points out that these words were not spoken by God without heart and feeling, but from his very vitals. This is the meaning of the Hebrew text which has it that God spoke to his own heart.

  V. 21c. I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.

  52. God speaks as if he were sorry for the punishment inflicted upon the earth on account of man, just as formerly he expressed regret for his creation, reproving himself, as it were, for his fury against man. This must not, of course, be understood as implying that God could possibly change his mind; it is written only for our consolation. He accuses and blames himself in order to rouse the little flock to the certain faith that God w
ill be merciful hereafter.

  53. And their souls stood in real need of such consolation. They had been terrified as they witnessed God’s raging wrath, and their faith could not but be shaken. So now God is impelled to so order his acts and words that these people might expect only grace and mercy. Accordingly he now speaks with them, is present at their sacrifice, shows that he is pleased with them, blames his own counsel, and promises that he will never do anything like it in the future. In brief, he is a different God from what he had been before. While God, indeed, does not change, he wants to change men, who have become altogether habituated to thoughts of wrath.