A Letter to Martin Luther

Dear Martin,

It has come to my attention that you have been accused of not valuing the contents of the book of James and, more specifically, asserting that 2:14-26 is an especially loathsome pericope. In fact, some have accused you of suggesting that the book of James does not even belong in the New Testament canon. First of all, I want briefly to summarize your perspective to fairly identify and represent your position. Second, I want to acknowledge that the book of James does provide some significant exegetical challenges, especially in light of the Pauline theology that has been so formative to your spiritual growth. Finally, I would like to provide several perspectives that may allow you to completely embrace the book of James and its position within the New Testament canon.

Although you have always had a forthright and, some might say, endearingly bombastic way of putting things to make your point, I do not want to misrepresent your position. You state in your book, Word and Sacrament, that Paul and Peter provide all the content necessary for salvation, and, accordingly, the book of James “is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing in the nature of the gospel about it.”[1] I noticed that the straw language is in comparison to the other epistles and not a complete abrogation of the letter. You actually praise the book of James by stating that it is a “good book because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.”[2] Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that you retained the book of James in your German translation of the Bible (nice job on this translation by the way) even though you relegated it to the end of the list of the canonical books. The point is that you would likely not have included the book of James at all if you really thought it was not to be part of the New Testament canon. Finally, the most significant concern that I have is with a statement that you made after praising the book of James. You explained that you do not regard the book “as the writing of an apostle” because “it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24].”[3] I believe that once you appropriately consider the historical context and exegetical nuances of the words of Paul and James, and then reflect upon your own words, especially in your beautiful little manuscript The Freedom of a Christian, you will recognize that James is not flatly against Paul.

Before moving into a more detailed exegetical analysis, it is necessary to evaluate the kind of book that James wrote. Granted, it does appear to be a book similar to Paul’s letters; however, Kurt Richardson argues that, although the book has the form of a letter, the actual genre could be a diatribe or paraenesis.[4] The latter is especially attractive considering the book’s various aphorisms. As you know Martin, James had a special affinity for the Old Testament and his Jewish heritage. Accordingly, one must keep in mind that James may have been channeling the Old Testament prophets in passages like James 4:4 and wisdom literature, such as the book of Proverbs, in various places. For example, notice how James exhorts his readers to be slow to anger in James 1:19, which is similar to Proverbs 10:19, or how the tongue is compared to fire in James 3:6, which tracks with Proverbs 16:27. In other words, maybe James had a wholly different initiative than Paul. Certainly, Paul spent much time focusing on the themes of salvation and getting right with God. However, the Bible is also concerned with living life on earth, living skillfully, and living with character. Maybe James’s focus was on practical living for the common man like the books of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. If so, then one could hardly disagree with the exhortations provided by James. Martin, please keep this important idea in mind as you read through the exegetical analysis.

A brief exegetical analysis of James 2:14-26 will not only highlight the challenges of the passage, but also assist in reconciling the message of Paul with the message of James. First, the literary context of James 2:1-13, which continues into verses 14-17, points to the treatment of the poor and a warning against favoritism that highlights the necessity of Christian obedience. As Douglas Moo emphasizes, James provides an important corrective that “true religion begins with faith – but a faith that works.”[5] James begins the pericope by asking a short but poignant question in verse 14, “Can that faith save him?” The answer demands a strong “no.” The type of faith James is referring to is evidently problematic, for it has no power to save. At this point, Moo encourages the interpreter to stay away from two extremes, which is either that James denies that faith is salvific or that James is not referring to eschatological salvation.[6] Both extremes may explain the difference between Paul and James, but neither fit the context or nuance of the passage. Instead, James appears to be contrasting two types of faith, an illegitimate or counterfeit faith that produces no works and a genuine faith that produces good works.[7]

James develops his argument in verses 18-19 with one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament. The identification of the “someone” in verse 18 is quite challenging. Moo explains that James may be citing the opinion of an ally, an opponent, or two hypothetical interlocutors.[8] Regardless of whom James is referring to, the point appears to be that faith and works are inseparable; the two cannot be bifurcated. James furthers his argument by suggesting that even the demons believe. The demons have a type of faith, but the type of faith or belief that nefarious demons possess is not salvific.

In verses 20-23, James shifts into an argument utilizing the Old Testament patriarch, Abraham, which shines a spotlight on the concept that the faith James refers to is a faith that works. However, it is difficult to ignore the possibility that in verse 21, according to James, Abraham’s deeds were somehow instrumental in the patriarch’s justification when the apostle states, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works” (James 2:21, English Standard Version). The tension points to the ultimate crux interpretum that climaxes in verse 24. It is possible that in verse 21 James utilizes the term justify (δικαιόω) differently than Paul. On the one hand, the term could mean to vindicate or render a favorable verdict of justification to those who did right, but, on the other hand, the term could mean to demonstrate or prove to be right.[9] If the interpreter adopts the latter meaning, then harmony with Paul is clear. However, Moo observes that the demonstration or proof of rightness is a fairly rare use of the verb.[10] Accordingly, the resolution is not confirmed.

At this point, the interpreter finally comes face to face with the crisis of interpretation, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Ralph Martin provides four common proposals for reconciling verse 24 with Pauline soteriology and, in particular, verses such as Galatians 2:16, which states that “we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.” The interpreter could view James and Paul as irreconcilable or, alternatively, completely reconcilable by assuming that Paul and James are addressing different foes.[11] Martin, it appears that you have opted for the former option in Word and Sacrament; however, other options exist. It is possible that James and Paul agree but start from different positions. Specifically, Paul begins his theological discourse at the commencement of the believer’s conversion, while James’s discussion commences later in the ordo salutis.[12] Although the resolution seems reasonable, the interpretive tension continues as the emphasis of faith remains quite distinct between James and Paul. Another option is that Paul and James were facing two different historical contexts. In other words, Paul faced a Gentile audience that needed an emphasis upon faith within the context of Judaism, while James faced a Jewish audience, and his “advocacy of works is directed against a misuse of Paul’s teaching” where Paul’s theology is turned into a formula that “leads to ethical indifference.”[13]

The term “fulfilled” (πληρόω) in verse 23, which can mean “to bring to completion,” may provide support for two different historical contexts.[14] Moo contends that what James is suggesting is that both Abraham’s faith as well as Rahab’s faith in verse 25 “found its ultimate significance and meaning in … a life of obedience.”[15] In sum, Paul’s focus was on the initial justification of a believer to a Gentile audience.

The Freedom of a Christian_ Luther Study Edition

James’s focus was on the ultimate verdict of a Christian where faith found its significance in the works of a believer, which he addressed to an audience that may have attempted to distort a Pauline-like perspective.[16] Furthermore, the type of faith that, according to James, does not justify is not a genuine faith, but the type of belief that demons exhibit where good works are absent. Martin, the type of faith that James is referring to is the type of faith that you reference in your book, The Freedom of a Christian, when you state that “the Christian who is consecrated by faith does good works.”[17] You eloquently explain the meaning of Matthew 7:18 where good fruit necessarily comes from good roots, and you appropriately use the analogy of a well-built house where a good worker necessarily builds a good house. Although Paul may emphasize the chronology of salvation in a way that James does not address, it is difficult to see how a proper understanding of James differs significantly from Paul’s soteriology or some of your most famous works especially in light of James’ ultimate intent, which was to provide practical, everyday-living advice to his readers. Thus, I believe that it is proper to completely embrace the book of James and also acknowledge its rightful position within the New Testament canon.

Sincerely, your friend Derek.

_____________________________________________

[1] Martin Luther, Word and Sacrament I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35, Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1999), 362, italics mine.

[2] Ibid., 35:396.

[3] Luther, Word and Sacrament I, 35:395–96.

[4] Kurt Richardson, James: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, New American Commentary (Nashville: Holman Reference, 1997), 28.

[5] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 120.

[6] Ibid., 123.

[7] See Brandon D. Crowe, The Message of the General Epistles in the History of Redemption: Wisdom from James, Peter, John, and Jude (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2015), 170–71.

[8] Moo, The Letter of James, 126–30.

[9] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), 249.

[10] Moo, The Letter of James, 135.

[11] Ralph P. Martin, James, ed. David Allen Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 48, Word Biblical Commentary (Zondervan Academic, 2015), 82.

[12] Ibid. See also William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter, 2nd ed., The Daily Study Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 72–74.

[13] Martin, James, 48:83.

[14] Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, 828.

[15] Moo, The Letter of James, 138.

[16] Moo, The Letter of James, 141.

[17] Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian, ed. Mark D. Tranvik (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 74.

Bibliography

• Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000.
• Barclay, William. The Letters of James and Peter. 2nd ed. The Daily Study Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.
• Crowe, Brandon D. The Message of the General Epistles in the History of Redemption: Wisdom from James, Peter, John, and Jude. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2015.
• Luther, Martin. The Freedom of a Christian. Edited by Mark D. Tranvik. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.
• ________. Word and Sacrament I. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann. Vol. 35. Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1999.
• Martin, Ralph P. James. Edited by David Allen Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Vol. 48. Word Biblical Commentary. Zondervan Academic, 2015.
• Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
• Richardson, Kurt. James: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. New American Commentary. Nashville: Holman Reference, 1997.