Learn More: Luther and an "Epistle of Straw"

1

The Letters of James and Peter | Learn More

Luther and an “Epistle of Straw” Martin Luther’s words denigrating James’ epistle are well-known. Here are three quotes from current modern resources highlighting Luther’s beliefs about the Letter from James.

“Did Martin Luther Really Want James Taken Out of the Bible?” ZA Blog, Zondervan Academic Martin Luther, the celebrated catalyst of the Protestant Reformation, famously took issue with the book of James. He didn’t think it expressed the “nature of the Gospel,” it appeared to contradict Paul’s statements about justification by faith, and it didn’t directly mention Christ.

“Therefore St James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.” —Martin Luther It’s often said that Luther was so opposed to the Book of James that he suggested it didn’t belong in the biblical canon. But while Protestant churches embraced many of Luther’s ideas and teachings, our Bibles clearly still include James today. So is it true? Did the great reformer really believe this important book didn’t belong in the Bible?

Martin Luther was openly critical of James, and he wondered whether the epistle belonged in our Bibles, but he never formally proposed it should be removed. He did, however, suggest it be thrown out of schools: “We should throw the epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did.”

Source “Did Martin Luther Really Want James Taken Out of the Bible?” ZA Blog, ZondervanAcademic.com, March 6, 2019

2

The Letters of James and Peter | Learn More

Mark Woods “Should James Be in the Bible? Martin Luther didn’t think so.” Christian Today The biblical Book of James is full of wisdom and is regularly quoted by ministers preaching against gossip – the section on 'taming the tongue' in chapter three is powerful stuff.

But many people know Martin Luther's opinion of the book, or think they do, and wonder whether James is really to be placed on the same level as the Gospels or Paul's letters.

He famously described James as "an epistle of straw", because it talked about law and good deeds rather than faith, the keystone of Luther's theology: "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).

Luther wrote that John's Gospel and his first letter, Paul's letters and Peter's first letter "are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine".

James, however, he thinks "is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it".

But does that mean he didn't think it was any good? No: in his preface to the book, he says: "I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God." On the other hand, Luther doesn't think the author was an apostle. Instead he "must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper". The author, he believes, "wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task". Luther says he "cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him".

It's been suggested that Luther wasn't arguing that James shouldn't be in the Bible, just that it wasn't as useful as other books. It's generally accepted, though, that he wanted to exclude Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He thought they weren't accepted universally by the early Church and they didn't stress the need for faith enough.

View Full Source https://www.christiantoday.com/article/should-james-be-in-the-bible-martin-luther-didnt-think-so/83458.htm

Kathy Schiffer “Martin Luther’s Problem With the ‘Epistle of Straw’.” National Catholic Register Luther removed seven entire books from the Old Testament, and fought to strip away sections of the New Testament as well What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you

3

The Letters of James and Peter | Learn More

says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Indeed someone might say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. (James 2:14-18) This scripture must have posed quite a problem for Martin Luther!

In fact, Luther referred to the Book of James as an “epistle of straw” and sought unsuccessfully to have the entire book removed from sacred Scripture. Why? Because it didn’t agree with his newly-reasoned idea of “faith without works.”

“I think highly of the epistle of James,” Luther said, “and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God’s law. … I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship.”

After his break from the Catholic Faith, Martin Luther taught that the only way to respond to God’s plan of salvation for all mankind is to simply trust in his perfect love. Under that theology, doing “good works” or obedience to God was not necessary for salvation. From Luther’s reliance on “faith alone” as the sole foundation of the believer came the oft-quoted “sinner’s prayer.”

Luther removed seven books from the canon of Scripture: Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch, as well as sections from the books of Esther and Daniel. He tried unsuccessfully to also remove James and Revelation, both of which included certain texts which disproved his theology.

But the version of the Old Testament which was used at the time of Christ — and which Jesus himself would have used in the Synagogue — was the Septuagint. This version of the Bible included the seven books which Luther removed, called the Deuterocanonical books. It was the version of the Old Testament which was used by the New Testament authors and by all Christians during the first century A.D. Why would Luther have taken it upon himself to “correct” all those Christians and even Christ himself?

Many theologians believe that Luther felt guilt for his own sins, and changing to a “faith alone” theology allowed him to absolve himself of responsibility for his sins.

Still today, as a result of Luther’s biblical meddling, Protestant theology differs from what had been consistently taught from the time of Christ through the Reformation. For example, in removing the books of Maccabees, Luther eliminated from Scripture the evidence in support of praying for the dead, and hence, for Purgatory.

Was Luther right that only faith in God was needed for salvation? Well, how does that idea match up against the words of Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:17-19, where he said: If you would enter life, keep the commandments... You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

View Full Source http://www.ncregister.com/blog/kschiffer/martin-luthers-problem-with-the-epistle-of-straw