Luther: Christ was "born of a woman without sin"

Here's another odd piece to the Luther's Mariology puzzle. The title of this current blog post is purposefully deceptive: "Luther: Christ was "born of a woman without sin." Ask yourself, who is being described as "without sin" according to this sentence, Mary, or Jesus?

To answer this question, let's put the sentence back in context. The following excerpt comes from The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) p. 312-313. It's from a New Year's Day sermon on Luke 2:21, "The Circumcision and Naming of Jesus" [found in WA 10 (1) 509-510, also in LW 52:152].

In explaining the spiritual reason for circumcision, Luther first explains why circumcision was chosen, rather than a hand being cut off or an eye plucked out. If the later were used, the false impression would be given that God was merely displeased with the works carried out by these body parts. Circumcision though demonstrates God is displeased with the very sinful nature inherent in man (that is passed on with each new birth). He then makes the following comment, explaining why only males are required to be circumcised:

[W]hy does he command to circumcise males only, when nature and birth involve the woman also? The prophet also complains more of the mother than of the father, when he says, Psalm 51:5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” It was surely done on account of Christ and his mother, because he was to come, and because it was possible that a natural man and person could be born of a woman without sin and natural intercourse. But in all conception from a man, the man sins as well as the woman, and sin on either side cannot be avoided. Therefore Christ willed not to be conceived of a man, in order that his mother also might not be under the necessity of sinning and of conceiving him in sin. Therefore he made use of her womanly flesh and body for natural birth, but not for natural conception, and was conceived and born a true man without sin. Since, therefore, it is possible that a pure, innocent birth, nature, and person may be derived from a woman; but from a man only a sinful birth, nature, and person; therefore circumcision was imposed upon males only, in order to signify that all birth from man is sinful and condemned, requiring circumcision and change: but that a birth derived only from a woman without a man, is innocent and uncondemned, requiring no circumcision or change. And here one may apply what John writes, in John 1:12-18: “To them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”—with the understanding that “the will of man” refers to birth from man. If it were possible now that more women could bear without men, these births would be altogether pure and holy; but this has been reserved for this one mother alone.

Who is "Without Sin"?
In context, that being referred to as "without sin" is Jesus: "It was surely done on account of Christ and his mother, because he was to come, and because it was possible that a natural man and person could be born of a woman without sin and natural intercourse." That is, the natural man (Jesus) is born without sin and natural intercourse. This sentiment is harmonious with Luther's later view of Mary.


Any Woman could Have a Sinless Child?
There's more than the subject of "who is without sin" according to this context that interests me. Luther's last comment, "If it were possible now that more women could bear without men, these births would be altogether pure and holy; but this has been reserved for this one mother alone" is an interesting statement.

Luther says first that in a typical human birth, "the man sins as well as the woman, and sin on either side cannot be avoided." According to Luther, procreation is no longer a pure act because it has lost its primeval purity through lustful desire (See Paul Althaus, The Theology of Luther, p. 160). In explaining Psalm 51:5, Luther says elsewhere, "Marriage is something good and permitted, instituted by God. This is not to deny that father and mother have corrupt flesh and that the seed itself is full not only of evil lust, but of hate against God; nor is it to deny the sin there is in procreation. For in this respect how is our nature better than that of the beasts? In this action there is no knowledge of God and no faith, but we proceed in procreation on the basis of reason, which tells us that this is our wife, and on the basis of lust. God puts up with this sinful begetting for the sake of His creation" [LW 12:348].

In Luther's sermon Am tage der Empfengknus Marie der mutter Gottes (1527), he states:

And this is the reason for this whole tragedy: the flesh of human beings in this life can never become completely pure, so that it is without lust and sinful desire; that is why the parents cannot conceive and bear children without this lust and this desire. Therefor David in the 51. Psalm (vers 7) says: 'Lo, I am created in adultery and my mother has conceived me in sin'. And this is, what Augustin says: 'It is not because of descent or birth, but because of the lust, that hereditary sin is created'. As if he would say: If the parents could conceive and bear without lust and desire, no child would be born with hereditary sin. But the Lord God tolerates such a lust and such a desire in the parents, because of the marriage of mankind and especially because of baptism and the Christian faith. For in this life such a lust cannot be completely destroyed; and mankind must be bred and must be multiplied in this way. [source]

In the sermon in question, Luther says, "Therefore Christ willed not to be conceived of a man, in order that his mother also might not be under the necessity of sinning and of conceiving him in sin." This entire section could be read in two ways: first, assuming Mary is sinless, and second- she isn't. The text doesn't say either way.

Assume Luther wasn't considering a sinless Mary, but was speaking of women in general. The argument appears to be: man causes woman to sin in conception by necessity, but if conception occurs without a man, the woman is not caused to sin. From there it follows that "all birth from man is sinful and condemned... a birth derived only from a woman without a man, is innocent and uncondemned." Therefore, a pure and innocent birth could come from a woman. Luther ends by applying this generally across the board to all woman: "If it were possible now that more women could bear without men, these births would be altogether pure and holy; but this has been reserved for this one mother alone." That is, only Mary was chosen to conceive by Holy Spirit, but if the Holy Spirit chose to, more women could conceive holy and sinless children.

The Date of this Sermon?
Had this comment from Luther been from one of his later sermons, I would have no hesitation is saying he doesn't have any notion of Mary's being sinless from birth in mind. The sermon though appears to be from 1522. I say this statement appears to come from 1522. During this early period, Luther wrote out sermons and delivered them to the printer (they were written out by Luther during this period for others to preach). As the years went by, the sermons were edited or revised, even during Luther's life, and often under his supervision. From the WA text and LW editor's comments, I can't tell for sure if this sermon went through revisions, or if the text reflects exactly what was written in 1522.

Conclusion
There's nothing in this text in question that would directly contradict Luther believing Mary was sinless, nor is there anything that would contradict Mary not being sinless. What I find curious though is Luther's absence of any clear indication of Mary's sinlessness in this context, as well as the curious nature of the text. This is just one more piece of the puzzle to Luther's Mariology.