Did Luther Want to Throw the Epistle of James in the Stove?

Did Martin Luther want to throw the Epistle of James in the stove? Roman Catholics use this comment to demonstrate Martin Luther's abandonment and utter disdain of the epistle of James. There are at least two sources I'm aware of in which Luther is said to have wanted to throw James, in some sense, into the fire. Let's take a closer look at each statement. 

The Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede (July 7,1542).
One example comes from a 1542 writing entitled, The Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede (July 7,1542). The text is in the form of disputation, set in the form of a scholarly dialog between the participants. The text reads: 

XIX. Against Thesis 21

James [2:22] says that Abraham was justified by works. Therefore, justification is not by faith.

Master Heinrich [Schmedenstede] responds: James is speaking of works as the effect of justification, not as the cause.

Dr. Martin Luther: That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did (LW 34:317). 

Original text: XIX. Contra 21.

Iacobus ait, Abraham ex factis iustificatum esse. Ergo non ex fide?

Magister Heinricus respondit: Iacobus loquitur de factis ut de effectu iustificationis, non ut de causa.

D. M. L. Illa epistola Iacobi nobis multum faceseit negotii. Eam enim solam amplectuntur reliquis omnibus omissis papistae. Ego hactenus solitus sum iam operare et interpretari secundum sententiam reliquae scripturae. Nam nihil ex ea contra manifestam scripturam sanctam statuendum esse iudicabitis. Si igitur non admittent meas interpretationes, tum faciam quoque ex ea vastationem. Ich wil schier den Jeckel in den offen werffen wie der pfaff vom Kalenberg (WA 39.2:199).

In this brief context, Luther says he has been interpreting the Epistle of James "according to the sense of the rest of the Scriptures." While he doesn't expound on what he meant, an obvious fact emerges, that Luther found a way to harmonize it with the rest of the Scriptures. Here we find that in practice, Luther admits to weighing it as Scripture. He then speaks of his papal detractors: "Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it." That is, Luther was prepared to reject the canonicity of the Epistle of James in disputes with Roman Catholic controversialists rather than present reasoning for interpreting it according to the sense of the rest of the Scriptures (as Heinrich Schmedenstede was doing in his response). 

Luther finishes his response with an anecdotal comment: "I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did." The editors of Luther’s Works explain, 

The preacher of Kalenberg, when visited by the duchess, heated the room with the wooden statues of the apostles. The statue of James was the last and as the preacher shoved it into the stove he exclaimed, “Now bend over, Jimmy, you must go into the stove; no matter if you were the pope or all the bishops, the room must become warm (LW 34:317).

An aspect of this explanation lost on modern readers is that Luther is not recounting an historical event (See for instance Roman Catholic apologist Trent Horn who misses this: "Luther was referring to an episode in the German village of Kalenberg, where a priest burned wooden statues of the apostles in order to provide warmth for a visiting duchess"). The priest in Kalenberg is a fictional Character: Der Pfaffe vom Kalenberg by Philipp Frankfurter (1473). A helpful overview of this work can be found here and here. In the farcical tale, the duchess visits Kalenberg and watches the sly priest burn statues of the apostles, commenting on them as they're put into the fire, James being the last. Is Luther saying here he hated the Epistle of James so much that he wanted to burn it in the stove? No. Luther’s comment is an expression of frustration with Roman Catholic polemicists and his use of a fictional character augment this. 

Table Talk 5854
The second statement is a Table Talk comment "believed to have come from the pen of Jerome Besold" (LW 54:465). Besold recorded Luther's remarks in 1544, though LW includes a pinch of doubt that while the comments are said to have been recorded by Besold, "there is no compelling evidence that the particular pieces that follow originate with him" (LW 54:467). Utterance 5854 is not included in the English edition of Luther's Works. The comment can be found in WA Tr 5:382.

5854. (Luth.-Mel. 281) The Epistle of James. The Papists only accept James for the righteousness of works, which is an indication that he is not an apostle, especially since he calls faith a body, but bodies a soul, which is plainly absurd and contrary to Scripture. Ich werde ein mal mit dem Jeckel den offen hitzen (Some day I will use James to fire my stove). We can flatter and excuse him, but it is certainly more difficult.

Original text: 5854. (Luth.-Mel. 281) Iacobi epistola. Papistae tantum accipiunt Iacobum pro iustitia operum, quod indicio est non esse apostoli scriptum, praesertim cum appellet fidem corpus, corpora vero animam³, quod plane est absurdum et contra scripturam. Ich werde ein mal mit dem Jeckel den offen hitzen.⁴ Possumus eum ornare et excusare, sed profecto difficulter. Ich werde ein mal mit dem Jeckel den offen hitzen. Possumus eum ornare et excusare, sed profecto difficulter. Possumus eum ornare et excusare, sed profecto difficulter (WA Tr 5:382).

The Latin text records Luther's disagreement with his Roman Catholic critics over the Epistle of James. It begins by saying Roman Catholics accept the epistle because it teaches righteousness by works, and because of this, Luther is recorded as saying it therefore cannot be the writing of an apostle ("Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that it is not the writings of an apostle"*). He then comments on James 2:26 as being absurd and contrary to Scripture ("For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also"), though no explanation is provided. Then the utterance states in German, "Ich werde einmal mit dem Jekel den offen hitzen" ("Some day I will use James to fire my stove"*). Finally, the text states in Latin "Possumus eum ornare et excusare, sed profecto difficulter" that reconciling the Epistle of James with Scripture is difficult.

*English translation from this source. 

Conclusion
Did Luther want to throw the Epistle of James in the stove? I can see how Rome's defenders take this sparse evidence and say yes. They will though have a poor basis of proof if they rely only on the first quote from The Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede. In context, that quote shows Luther viewed the Epistle of James "according to the sense of the rest of the Scriptures," and then made a sarcastic comment with Luther's papal opponents in mind. While the second comment is more direct, it's not something Luther wrote, but is purported to have said. Roman Catholics have a history of gravitating to the Table Talk, so this second-hand context-less comment may be their best proof that Luther wanted to burn the Epistle of James in the stove. 

Certainly, both comments demonstrate Luther held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James. One thing that I've noticed over the years though is those doubts are almost always against the backdrop of his Roman Catholic critics, otherwise, he doesn't raise any fuss over James. He positively quoted from it and occasionally preached from the book. There are even instances in which he accepts the typical Protestant harmonizing solution of James and Paul (see my entry here). The point: Roman Catholics can explain or at least excessively highlight Luther's negative comments about the Epistle of James, because he certainly made multiple comments, and he certainly had "papists" in mind. They are correct in noticing them because papalism spurned him on to make those comments! But what I challenge my Roman Catholic readers to grapple with is... why did Luther positively quote from the Epistle of James and occasionally preach from it? If he was such an enemy of James as noncanonical, why these positive instances throughout his career? The best explanations make sense of all the pertinent facts. I challenge Rome's apologists to explain Luther by evaluating all the evidence, not just picking and choosing what fits their narrative. 

Revised April 2026 

The Real Reason Why Martin Luther Rejected the Book of James?

Here's a statement evaluating Martin Luther's opinion of the Epistle of James.

Luther strongly repudiated the Epistle as "a letter of straw", and "unworthy of the apostolic Spirit", and this solely for dogmatic reasons, and owing to his preconceived notions, for the epistle refutes his heretical doctrine that Faith alone is necessary for salvation.

 Soley for dogmatic reasons? As I've looked at this over the years, it's more complicated than that. There's actually contradicting evidence on Luther's opinion of the Epistle of James and exactly what his rejection entirely entails. Let's take a look at these charges and see if the real reason (or reasons) Luther rejected James can be determined. 

Documentation
I came by the statement above on a website dedicated to early Christian writings. Searching for the author, the webpage cited: "Camerlynck, A. "Epistle of James." Early Christian Writings. 2023. 22 Jan. 2023."  Doing a search for "Camerlynck, A," I discovered this webpage was a complete cut-and paste from the old Catholic Encyclopedia.  Achilles Camerlynck was a well-educated Roman Catholic scholar from long ago. The old Catholic Encyclopedia is generally not favorable to Luther, so it makes sense that multiple shots are taken at Luther by Camerlynck.  

The early Christian Writings website appears to be selling CD-ROM's (remember those?) of the entire content of the website (I'm not sure what the legality of that is... selling someone else's work?). Back in 2015, the owner of the site gave a brief overview of who he was: a young man with Roman Catholic roots that's become some sort of agnostic (as of 2015). Where he is now on his spiritual journey, I didn't spend time to discover. His blog entries stop December 2015. From a cursory search, he appears to have fallen off the cyber-radar in 2015. 

Letter of Straw? Epistle of Straw?
Luther's famous statement is "Saint James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw" compared to John's gospel and epistles, Paul's epistles, and 1 Peter, and, further, that James "has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (LW 35:362). The  "epistle of straw" line comes from Luther's Preface to the New Testament, originally penned in 1522.  These are negative comments. 

Back in 2004, I addressed the "epistle of straw" comment in Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture (on the now defunct NTRmin.org website). In 2007, I put up a short article on aomin.org: Six Points On Luther's Epistle of Straw. Now years later, there's nothing significant to add beyond repeating this pertinent fact:  The "epistle of straw" comment was deleted by Luther himself. He eventually dropped this comment along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books (see LW 35:361-362, particularly the footnotes, and also fn. 5 on p. 358).  The editors of Luther's Works include all the deleted text, using brackets [ ] to delineate what was dropped from the final text. The older Philadelphia edition does the same thing. I suspect they simply intended to be transparent and scholarly (presenting a type of critical text). What the final product though practically does is insert back into the text what Luther wanted edited out!  

Why did Luther delete his text? The editors of LW offer this reason: they suggest Luther's early biblical prefaces had a polemic bent directed toward his opponents: 

Divergences from the original 1522 text were due primarily to Luther’s desire to accommodate the text of the New Testament prefaces to that of the Old Testament prefaces with which they were—in the 1534 complete Bible—to appear for the first time, rather than to criticism on the part of Emser or other opponents (LW 35:357, fn 5).

It would be interesting to see which of Luther's contemporary opponents criticized Luther's view of James, especially those early on in the 1520's. In 1530, the Roman Catholic respected theologian Johann Eck included it against Luther:

106 Many, with much probability, have asserted that this epistle was not written by the apostle James, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit (Luther).

 After Luther's death, his archrival Cochlaeus wrote,

For Luther seemed to the best people to have proceeded too maliciously against the Sacred Scripture of the New Testament; since he had, with an audacious censorship, rejected the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James, the Letter of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John from the canon of the New Testament. He defamed these books openly, with savage falsehoods, in his prefaces.

Luther saw fit to delete the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should at least mention his deletion. The "epistle of straw" comment is cited by those favorable and unfavorable to Luther. I suspect many of those not hostile to him citing it often don't know about the deletion and that Luther did not intend the statement to be part of his enduring legacy. For those who cite it against him, the deletion probably doesn't matter anyway. They will find a way to spin the comment to use against him. 

Unworthy of the Apostolic Spirit?

The basic thrust of "unworthy of the apostolic spirit" is that Luther did not believe the Epistle of James was written by an apostle or eyewitness of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. He argued at times that James was a second-generation Christian. Camerlynck probably took the phrase he used from Luther's 1520 treatise, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In commenting on the Roman Catholic sacrament of extreme unction, Luther writes: 

But I say: If ever folly has been uttered, it has been uttered especially on this subject: I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative. But even if the apostle James did write it, I still would say, that no apostle has the right on his own authority to institute a sacrament, that is, to give a divine promise with a sign attached. For this belongs to Christ alone (LW 36:118).

Original text: Ego autem dico: si uspiam delyratum est, hoc loco praecipue delyratum est. Omitto enim, quod hanc Epistolam non esse Apostoli Iacobi nec apostolico spiritu dignam multi valde probabiliter asserant, licet consuetudine autoritatem, cuiuscunque sit, obtinuerit. Tamen si etiam esset Apostoli Iacobi, dicerem, non licere Apostolum sua autoritate sacramentum instituere, id est, divinam promissionem cum adiuncto signo dare. Hoc enim ad Christum solum pertinebat (WA 6:568). 

A blatant thing to note here is that there's nothing in the context about faith alone. Luther is expressing doubts about the authorship of James in regard to extreme unction.  Here Luther presents two options but appears to favor the Epistle of James as not apostolic... though grants the possibility of it being apostolic. For Luther, the epistle of James may have been written by a later Christian, therefore not an apostle or eyewitness of the risen Christ, therefore not canonical. 

Just a year earlier (1519), Luther wrote the following, (and this may be his earliest criticism of James):

For although it is argued from the epistle of the Apostle James that ‘faith without works is dead,’ the style of that epistle is far inferior to the Apostolic majesty of St. Paul, and should in no way be compared with him. Paul speaks of living faith, for a faith that is dead is not faith but opinion. Yet you see theologians who hold on to this one authority and care nothing at all that the rest of Scripture teaches faith without works. That’s how these fellows do it. They rip out one little phrase from a text and set it up against all of Scripture (Resolutiones Lutherianae super propositionibus suis Lipsiae disputatis, English translation by Jason D. Lane).

Original text: Quod autem Iacobi Apostoli epistola inducitur ‘Fides sine operibus mortua est’, primum stilus epistolae illius longe est infra Apostolicam maiestatem nec cum Paulino ullo modo comparandus, deinde de fide viva loquitur Paulus. Nam fides mortua non est fides, sed opinio. At vide theologos, hanc unam autoritatem mordicus tenent, nihil prorsus curantes, quod tota alia scriptura fidem sine operibus commendet: hic enim mos eorum est, una abrepta oratiuncula textus contra totam scripturam cornua erigere] (WA 2:425).

Here, faith alone is in view. Luther appears to accept James as an authority, but of lesser authority than Paul. Luther says James lacks "Apostolic majesty," which echos "apostolic spirit," therefore questioning apostolic pedigree (and therefore, canonicity). Luther's emphasis is on those who use James as a prooftext to refute "the rest of scripture." Luther accuses his detractors of misusing James: "They rip out one little phrase from a text and set it up against all of Scripture." Luther explains what Paul means but does not overtly explain what James meant.

    

Then in his 1522 Preface to James, Luther reiterates that James was written by a second-generation Christian, 

...[H]e throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me 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. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching [LW 35: 396-397].

Original text: Aber diser Jacobus thutt nicht mehr, denn treybt zu dem gesetz vnd seynen wercken, vnd wirfft so unordig eyns vns ander, das mich dunckt, es sey irgent eyn gut frum man gewesen, der ettlich spruch von der Aposteln Jungern gefasset, vund also auffs papyr geworffen hat, oder ist villeicht aus seyner predigt von eynem andern beschriebon (WA Db 7:386). 

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]: “Love covers a multitude of sins” [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” [1 Pet. 5:6]; also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul (LW 35:397).

Original text: Uber das, furet er die spruch Sanct Petri. Die liebe bedeckt der sund menge, Jtem demutiget euch vnter die hand Gottis, Jtem Sanct Paulus spruch Gal. 5. den Geyst gelust wider den hass. So doch Sanct Jacobus zeytlich von Herodes zu Jerusalem, fur S. Peter todtet war, das woll scheynet, wie er lengst noch S. Peter vnd Paul gewesen sey (WA Db 7:386). 

When challenged that the Epistle of James stood against justification by faith alone, in 1543 Luther stated:

The authority of this [James] is not so great that (it detracts from the divine promise [or that] on its account one should abandon the doctrine of faith and depart from the authority of the rest of the apostles and all of Scripture (LW 73:349-350). 

Original text: Non est tanta eius autoritas, ut propterea doctrina fidei relinquatur et discedatur ab autoritate reliquorum apostolorum et totius scripturae (WA 39.2: 219).

Luther is recorded in a 1542 Table Talk utterance saying,

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 [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. 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. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles.” (LW 54:424).

Original text:  Epistolam Iacobi eiciemus ex hac schola, denn sie soll nichts. Nullam syllabam habet de Christo. Er nennet auch Christum nicht eins nisi in principio. Ich halt, das sie irgents ein Jude gemacht hatt, welcher wol hat horen von den christen leuten, abr nit gar zusam schlagen; vnd dieweil er hat gehört, das die christen also sehr auff den glauben in Christum dringen, hat er gedacht: Halt, du wilt in begegnen vnd schlecht die opera treiben! Wie er den thut. De passione et resurrectione Christi sagt er nicht ein wort, das doch allr apostell predigt ist gewest. Dazu ist da kein ordo noch methodus. Jzt sagt er von kleidern, bald von zorn, fellet imer von einem auff das ander. Er gibet ein gleichnus: Sicut corpus non vivit sine anima, ita fides nihil est sine operibus. Ei Marge, Gotts mutter! Wie ein arme similitudo ist das! Confert fidem corpori, cum potius fides animae fuisset comparanda! Das haben auch die alten gesehen¹⁴, darumb haben sie die epistolam nicht pro catholica epistola gehalten (WA Tr 5:157). 

I say "recorded in the Table Talk" because Luther didn't write these words, someone else transcribed them, context unknown. The comments though match up to the sentiment found in Luther's earlier statements.

  

Did Luther simply arrive at this authorship conclusion without precedent? No. He maintained a position that echoed other voices from church history. Eusebius and Jerome both recorded doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James. The great Roman Catholic humanist Scholar Erasmus likewise questioned the authenticity of James, as did Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading 16th Century Roman Catholic scholars. Some think the early influence of Erasmus impacted Luther view. consider the speculation from Lutheran scholar J.M Reu:

It is possible that the position of Erasmus had influenced Luther in some particulars. Luther had first expressed his critical attitude towards the Epistle of St. James in his Resolutiones of 1519; afterwards more energetically in De Captivitate Babylonica. Under such conditions we have no reason to be surprised that Luther entered into the question in his New Testament of 1522, especially as the fundamental understanding of Scripture that had come to him compelled him to take a stand, at least concerning James, and furthermore, he did not think that these matters were to be kept hidden from the congregations but even discussed them in his sermons [M. Reu, Luther’s German Bible: An Historical Presentation Together with a collection of Sources (Ohio: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1934), 176].

Reu points out that Erasmus "had assumed a critical attitude towards [James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation] in the Annotationes of 1516" (Reu, 175). Reu then later speculates, that Luther publicly altered his criticisms of James "to keep his personal opinions in the background, especially as the German Bible was intended for the whole congregation" [Reu, 226]. Reu documents the changes from Luther's September-Testament to the softening revision in the 1530's (p.226-227):

In fine, he wanted to guard against those who tried to rely on faith without works but he was too weak in spirit, understanding and words, and so he rends Scripture and opposes Paul and all Scripture, trying to accomplish by the occasion of the Law what the other apostles effect by incentives to love. Therefore I will not have him reckoned in my Bible in the number of the real chief books, but will not prevent anyone from esteeming him as he pleases, for otherwise it contains many good sayings. One man is reckoned, as no man in worldly affairs. How then should this one alone count against Paul and all the rest of Scripture ?

Then, this statement was modified in the 1530's:

In fine, he wanted to guard against those who tried to rely on faith without works but was too weak for the undertaking, trying to accomplish by the coercion of the Law what the other apostles effect by incentives to love. Therefore I will not have him reckoned in my Bible in the number of the real chief books, but will not prevent anyone from esteeming him as he pleases. For it contains many good sayings.

Did Luther Want to Throw the Epistle of James in the Stove?

Was Luther’s hatred for the Epistle of James was so severe, he wanted to burn the book in a stove? Most often, this charge comes from a comment found in The Licentiate Examination Of Heinrich Schmedenstede, July 7 1542. At one point, James chapter 2 is raised as a potential counter argument against justification by faith alone: “James says that Abraham was justified by works. Therefore, justification is not by faith.” Protestant Heinrich Schmedenstede countered this by saying, “James is speaking of works as the effect of justification, not as the cause.” Luther then gave his opinion:

That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did (LW 34:318).

Original text:  Illa epistola Iacobi nobis multum facesseit negotii. Eam enim solam amplectuntur reliquis omnibus omissis papistae. Ego hactenus solitus sum iam operare et interpretari secundum sententiam reliquae scripturae. Nam nihil ex ea contra manifestam scripturam sanctam statuendum esse iudicabitis. Si igitur non admittent meas interpretationes, tum faciam quoque ex ea vastationem. Ich wil schier den Zedel in den offen werffen wie der pfaff vom Kalenberg (WA 39.2:199).

Luther does not deny the answer put forth by Schmedenstede. What Luther does point out is heavy Roman Catholic reliance on James 2. It troubled him that this passage weighed so strongly in Roman Catholic arguments against justification by faith alone. Interestingly, he also says that he has previously interpreted it “according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures” (which will be shown below) But what of the comment “I feel like throwing Jimmy in the stove”? What is not explicit in the context above is the historical background of Luther’s comment. The editors of Luther’s Works explain,

The preacher of Kalenberg, when visited by the duchess, heated the room with the wooden statues of the apostles. The statue of James was the last and as the preacher shoved it into the stove he exclaimed, “Now bend over, Jimmy, you must go into the stove; no matter if you were the pope or all the bishops, the room must become warm" (LW 34:318, cf. WA 39.2:199, n.2).

 Even though Luther isn't saying to throw the actual Epistle of James into the stove, it's obvious there's a sarcastic intent to his comment and frustration being expressed. For a full treatment of this quote, see this entry.   

Luther Did Not Reject James Because of "Faith Alone"?

There is also evidence from Luther that complicates the information above. For instance, even while criticizing James, he positively quoted it throughout his career. He also occasionally preached from the book: in 1536 Luther preached on James 1:16-21, Sermon for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, "Two things there are which part men from the Gospel: one is angry impatience, and the other evil lust. Of these James speaks in this epistle." But more surprisingly, there are also statements in which Luther harmonized James and Paul on the relationship of faith and works!

In his early lectures on Romans, Luther provides a harmonious explanation of James on faith and works (LW 25:234-235), "Therefore justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works" [LW 25:235]:

Therefore, when St. James and the apostle say that a man is justified by works, they are contending against the erroneous notion of those who thought that faith suffices without works, although the apostle does not say that faith justifies without its own works (because then there would be no faith, since, according to the philosophers, “action is the evidence that form exists”), but that it justifies without the works of the Law. Therefore justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works (LW 25:235).

Original text: Igitur quando b. Iacobus et Apostolus dicunt ex operibus hominem Iustificari, contra falsam intelligentiam disputant eorum, qui fidem sine operibus suis sufficere putabant, Cum Apostolus Non dicat, quod fides sine suis propriis operibus (quia tunc nec fides esset, cum 'operatio arguat formam adesse' secundum philosophos), Sed sine operibus legis Iustificat. Igitur Iustificatio requirit non opera legis, Sed viuam fidem, quę sua operetur opera. (WA 56:249). 

In 1530, Luther answered the question, "Why does James [2:26] say, 'Faith apart from works is dead'?" Luther answered:

James is dealing with a moral point, not theological, just as he is almost entirely about morality. Morally speaking, it is true that faith without works is dead- that is, if faith does not do works or if outward works do not follow faith. In this way then, faith cannot exist apart from works; that is, it cannot fail to do works, else there is no faith alone.

We, however, are dealing with a theological point here since we are discussing justification before God. Here we assert that faith alone is counted as righteousness before God, apart from works and merits." (LW 61:183-184).

Original text:  Iacobus versatur in loco Morali, non in Theologico, sicut fere totus est moralis. Moraliter loquendo verum est fidem sine operibus esse mortuam i. e. si non operetur fides, aut si fidem non sequantur opera foris. Hoc enim modo fides non potest esse sine operibus, i. e. non potest non operari, aut nulla est fides ibi.

Sed nos hic in loco Theologico sumus, ubi de iustificatione coram Deo loquimur. Hic dicimus fidem solam pro iusticia reputari coram Deo, sine operibus et meritis, Quia Deus merita nostra non curat, sed fidei donat per promissiones suas (WA 30.2:664).

In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:17, 26). Therefore, dead faith justifies. Luther responded:

The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, ‘faith’ ought to be placed with the word ‘justifies’ and the portion of the sentence ‘without works justifies’ is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word ‘justifies,’ not to ‘faith.’ In the minor premise, ‘without works’ is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. ‘Without works’ is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. [LW 34: 175-176].

Original text: Argumentum est sophisticum et ἔλεγχος per grammaticam solvitur. In maiore fides debet constitui cum verbo iustificat, et particula sine operibus iustificat ponitur in periphrasi praedicati et est referenda ad verbum iustificat, non ad fidem. In minore vero sine operibus est in periphrasi subiecti, et ad fidem refertur. Nos loquimur, quod iustificatio fiat sine operibus, non quod fides sit sine operibus. Nam illa, quae caret fructu, non est efficax, sed ficta fides. Est igitur aequivocatio: sine operibus. Ideoque nihil concludit hoc argumentum. Aliud est fidem iustificare sine operibus, aliud est esse fidem sine operibus (WA 39.1:106).

In a 1521 sermon Luther is recorded as saying,

This is what James means when he says: 2, 26: “Faith which does not work is dead. Just as the body without the soul is dead, so faith without works is also dead” (James 2[:17,26]).  This does not mean that faith is in a person and does not work, which is impossible, for faith is a living, restless thing. Rather, this means that people should not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have none of it; rather, they should look at their works, that is, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign they have true faith. However, if they do not do this, then they only have the sound of faith. What happens to them is like the person who examines himself in the mirror. When he goes away, he no longer sees himself. Through looking at other things, he forgets the face he saw in the mirror, as also St. James says (James 1 [:23-24] (LW 79:75-76). 

Original text: Sihe, das meynet S. Jacob. Jaco. ij. "Der glawbe, so er nit wirckt, ist er todt. Und wie der leyb on seel todt ist, so ist auch der glaub on werck todt". Nit das der glaube ym menschen sey und nit wircke, wilchs nitt muglich ist, denn der glawb ist ein lebendig unrugig ding, sondern das sich die menschen nitt selb betriegen und meynen, sie haben den glawbenn, so sie doch nichts davon haben, sondern sollen ansehen yhr werck, ob sie auch yhrn nehisten lieben und yhm woll thun. Thun sie das, so ists ein zeychen, das sie dissen rechten glauben haben. Thun sie aber nit, so haben sie nur das gehore vom glawben. Und geschicht yhn, wie dem, der sich ym spiegel besihet: wenn er davon geht, szo sihet er sich nymmer, und durch ansehen anderer ding vorgisset er des spiegels gesicht, alsz auch Jaco. i. geschrieben stet (WA 8:361-362).

The deceivers and blind masters have stretched this passage of James so far that they have destroyed faith and set up only works, as if righteousness and salvation consist not of faith but of works. To this great darkness they have added an even greater darkness and have taught only good works which are of no benefit to your neighbor, such as fasting; saying many prayers; observing festival days; not eating meat, butter, eggs, and milk; building churches, cloisters, chapels, and altars; instituting Masses, vigils, hours; wearing gray, white, or black clothes; becoming clergy; and innumerable similar things from which no one has any benefit or enjoyment, and all of which God condemns, and justly. St. James, however, says this intentionally, since a Christian life is nothing except faith and love. Love means nothing else than doing good and being useful to all people, enemies and friends. Where faith is correct, it certainly loves and acts toward others in love, just as Christ has acted in his faith. Thus each one should be on his guard so that he does not have a dream and fiction in his heart instead of faith, and thus deceive himself. He can recognize this in nothing better than in works of love. Christ Himself gives the sign of this when He says, ‘By this everyone can know that you are My disciples, if you love one another’ (John 13:35). Therefore, St. James means to say, ‘Be on your guard, lest your life not serve others, you live for yourself, and you take no interest in your neighbor, for then your faith is certainly nothing, since it does not do what Christ has done for it.’ Yes, he does not believe that Christ has done good for him; otherwise he would not omit also doing good for his neighbor (LW 79:76).

Original text: Dissen spruch Jacobi haben die vorkurer und blinden meyster szo weyt gezogen, bysz das sie den glawben vortilget unnd nur die werck auff gericht haben, alsz stehe die gerechtickeyt und selickeyt nit ym glawben, szondern yn den wercken. Zu der grossen finsternisz haben sie darnach noch eyn gröszere thunn unnd nur die gutte werck geleret, die dem nehisten feyn nütz sind, alsz fasten, viel gepet sprechen, feyren, nit fleysch, putter, eyer, milch essen, kirchen, kloster, capeln, altar bawen, mesz, vigilien, horas stifften, graw, weisz, schwartz kleider tragen, geistlich werden, und der unzehlich gleichen, davon doch keyn mensch nütz noch geniesz hatt, wilch auch got alle vordampt, und billich. Aber S. Jacobus will das, sintemal eyn Christlich leben ist nichts denn glawbe unnd liebe. Liebe ist nichts denn eyttel woll thun und nuy seyn allen menschen, feynden und freunden. Unnd wo der glawb recht ist, szo liebt er auch gewiszlich und thut den andern ynn der liebe, wie yhm Christus than hatt ynn seynem glawben. Szo soll nu eyn iglicher sich fursehen, das er nit eynen trawm und geticht an stat des glaubens ym hertzen habe und sich selber betriege: das wirt er bey seynem ding alsz woll erkennen, alsz bey den wercken der liebe. Wie auch Christus dasselb zeychen gibt und spricht: "Da bey kan man wissen, das yhr meine iunger seyt, szo yhr euch untereinander liebt". Darumb will S. Jacob sagen: Sihe fur dich, steht dein leben nit also, das es andern diene, und du fur dich selbs lebist, nympst dich deynsz nehisten nit an, szo ist deyn glawbe gewiszlich nichts, denn er thut nit, wie yhm Christus than hatt.  Ja er glowbt nit, das yhm Christus woll than hat, sonst liesz er nitt, er thet seynem nehisten auch wol (WA 8:362). 

Similarly, In a 1522 sermon Luther states:

This is what St. James means in his Epistle when he writes: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2[:26]). That is, when works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there, but a dead thought and dream, which they falsely call “faith.” This is how we understand these words of Christ: “Make friends for yourselves with the unrighteous mammon” [Luke 16:9]; that is, plainly demonstrate your faith with external giving, by which you gain friends, so that from your obvious works the poor can be witnesses that you have genuine faith. External giving of itself can never make friends, unless it happens from faith. Christ rejects the Pharisees’ alms (Matthew 6[:1–4]); they made no friends with their alms, because their hearts were false. Now no heart ever becomes right without faith, so that even nature is forced to confess that no works make anyone righteous, but the heart must first be righteous and good (1522 published sermon, LW 78:324).

Original text: Das meynet S. Jacobus yn seyner Epistel, da er spricht "Der glawb on werck ist todt". Das ist, weyll die werck nicht folgen, ists eyn gewiß heychen, das keyn glaub da sey, sondern eyn todter gedancke und trawm, den sie falschlich glawben nennen. Also verstehen wyr nu diß wortt Christi "Machet euch freundt von dem unrechten Mammon", das ist: beweyset offenbar mit eußerlichem geben ewren glawben, damit yhr freundt ubirkomet, das die armen ewrs offinbarn wercks zeugen seyn kunden, das yhr rechtschaffen glauben habt, denn das eußerlich geben von yhm selber mochte nymmer mehr freundt machen, wo es nicht auß dem glawben geschech. Sintemal Christus Matt. 6. Der Phariseer almoßen verwirfft, das sie keyn freundt damit machten, weyll das herz falsch war. Nu wirt yhe keyn herz recht on den glawben, das also auch die natur zwingt zu bekennen, das keyn werck frum macht, sondern das herz zuvor frum und gutt seyn muß (WA 10.3:288). 

Conclusion

The extant evidence of Luther's view is therefore conflicting. On the one hand, Luther overtly doubted the apostolic pedigree of the Epistle of James and saw that it conflicted with Paul. On the other hand, Luther approvingly cited James, preached from it, embraced a harmonious way of understanding James and Paul, and softened his earlier criticisms. This contradictory evidence appears to run parallel throughout his life. It could very well be that definitive answer on Luther's view of James... is that there is not a definitive answer! It seems to me that in light of Rome's defenders generally, Luther argued James was not canonical, particularly if pressed by Rome's advocates that James refuted justification by faith alone. In other contexts generally, Luther treated James as harmonious with the rest of Scripture. As I've read Luther over the years, the balance of these positions seems to lean more towards the former evidence that James was not an apostolic witness. This could simply be the result of the continual polemical conflicts Luther found himself in. 

Perhaps Reu's speculation that Erasmus influenced Luther on authorship and LW's conclusion that his papal opponents were citing James against him may be the pertinent factors that explain the confusion as to Luther's view. For both of these speculations, I would need to see evidence. For the former, I have never seen a statement from Luther demonstrating he was following Erasmus on James. For the later, I searched through my collection of early polemical writers against Luther and did not come across meaningful early uses of James being cited against Luther... though I suspect it certainly was! It seems to be assumed as a papal criticism in the many disputations Luther took part in throughout his life. 

Addendum #1: Interacting With Rome's Defenders on Luther's View of James

If you're dealing with Luther's detractors, most often Rome's defenders... keep in mind that one of the main reasons they're bringing up Luther's view of James is that the intention is to put forth the infallible authority of Rome in determining the canon of the Bible. Simply in response: it does not follow that unless Rome infallibly determines the canon of the Bible, everyone will pick and choose their own Biblical canon. Despite Luther's view of James, this has practically not happened. To my knowledge, there was not any significant following of Luther on his view of James, nor has Protestantism created 30,000 canons to match the alleged 30,000 denominations Rome's defenders continually squawk about. I would exhort the reader to realize that the choice between the infallible authority of Rome and total anarchy is a false dilemma. 

If you're engaging Rome's defenders on the canon and Luther's view of the canon comes up, a counter question that they should be forced to consider is answering.... why has the canon of the Bible remained very consistent despite Luther's views? Is Rome responsible for this? Is so, how? If Luther's view amounts to a subjective personal canon, why is it that the canon has been so stable since the publication of Luther's opinions found in his translation of the Bible?

I've argued elsewhere that Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had a right within the Roman Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the canon previous to the dogmatic declarations of the Council of Trent. All expressed some doubt. Theirs was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. The editors of Luther’s Works note that both Eusebius and Jerome raised or confirmed similar doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James:

In the earliest general history of the church, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (II, xxiii, 25), the author… writes, “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic. It is to be observed that its authenticity is denied, since few of the ancients quote it, as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s.”… Eusebius also includes both epistles in his list of “Disputed Books” (History, III, xxiv, 3)…Cf. the statement by Jerome (d. 420) in his Liber de Viris Illustribus (II) concerning the pseudonymity ascribed to the epistle of James and its rather gradual attainment of authoritative status [LW 35:396].

Follow this up the following from The New Catholic Encyclopedia: 

According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III Can to Col (New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1967), p. 29.

Nihil Obstat: John P. Whalen, M.A., S.T.D. Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: Patrick O'Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington, August 5, 1966

Rome's defender Robert Sungenis admitted the validity of my argument in regard to Trent and the canon. 

Addendum #2: John Warwick Montgomery
Here's nitpicking myself: Back in 2004, I addressed the "epistle of straw" comment in Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture. I cited John Warwick Montgomery writing, 

Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.

In my old paper I summarized Montgomery saying, "An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface to the New Testament." LW 35:358, fn. 5 though states: "The portions here set in brackets did not appear in any editions of the complete Bible, nor in editions of the New Testament after 1537." It appears to me that editions of Luther's New Testament previous to 1537 and incomplete editions of the Bible previous to 1534 probably did include the "epistle of straw" comment.

Revised April 2026

Six Points On Luther’s “Epistle of Straw” Comment

Originally posted April 3, 2007 at aomin.org

Almost five hundred years after the fact, Roman Catholics still scrutinize Martin Luther. One the most popular quotations from Luther is the infamous "epistle of straw" remark, directed at the canonicity of the book of James. It really is amazing how frequently this citation appears. It is usually brought forth as proof one must believe an infallible church authored an infallible list of infallible books. Without this, one subjectively decides which books are canonical, like Martin Luther supposedly did in the sixteenth century. If you find yourself in dialog facing this quote, there are a few facts and arguments you should know.

   First, this quote only appears in Luther's original 1522 Preface to the New Testament. After 1522, all the editions of Luther's Bible dropped the "epistle of straw" comment, along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books. It was Luther himself who edited these comments out. For anyone to continue to cite Luther's "epistle of straw" comment against him is to do him an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.

   Second, detractors are keen on selectively quoting Luther's preface to James. Most often cited are only those comments that express negativity. If one takes the times to actually read Luther's comments about James, he praises it and considers it a "good book" "because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God." Rarely have I seen Luther detractors inform a reader Luther praises James, or respects God's law. On the other hand, I have seen many Catholics insist Luther was either morally corrupt or an antinomian. Luther though insists James is worthy of praise because it puts forth Gods law.

   Third, Luther does appear to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James, but it wasn't because he was purely subjective as Roman Catholics claim. He did not whimsically dismiss Biblical books simply because he did not like their content. Luther was aware of the disputed authenticity of the book. Eusebius and Jerome both recorded doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James. Luther did not consider James to be James the Apostle. He wasn't alone in this. The great humanist Scholar Erasmus likewise questioned the authenticity of James, as did Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading 16th Century Roman Catholic scholars.

   Fourth, it is true Luther had a contextual problem with the content on James. He saw a contradiction between Paul and James on faith and works. Some conclude Luther missed the harmonization between these two Biblical writers, but this isn't true either. Luther's great biographer Roland Bainton pointed out, "Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting reconciliation. 'Faith,' he wrote, 'is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith' " [Here I Stand, 259]. In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies. Luther responded:

   "The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, 'faith' ought to be placed with the word 'justifies' and the portion of the sentence 'without works justifies' is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word 'justifies,' not to 'faith.' In the minor premise, 'without works' is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. 'Without works' is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. [LW 34: 175-176].

   Even though Luther arrived at the harmonizing solution, it is probably the case that the question of James' apostleship out-weighed it. One cannot argue Luther was never presented with a harmonization between Paul and James. He seems to have granted the validity of it, yet still questioned the canonicity of the book.

   Fifth, its important to point out the double standard at play when Catholics bring up Luther's opinion on James. If it comes up, hypothetically grant the validity of the Roman Catholic Church declaring the contents of the canon. Then point out Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan formed their opinions and debated these issues previous to the Council of Trent's declaration. The New Catholic Encyclopedia points out,

   "According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon."

   Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. All expressed some doubt. Their's was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible and published it.

   Finally, Luther says he cannot include James among his 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." These are hardly the words of one claiming to be an infallible authority or a "super-pope" (as one Catholic apologist used to claim). This points out an important flaw in Catholic argumentation. Some actually argue as if we think Luther was an infallible authority. Luther didn't think he was, and I've yet to meet a Protestant who considers him anything more than a sinner saved by grace, imperfect, yet used by God during a crucial period in history.

"Faith," wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith."

I get various questions throughout the week:

Hi James, Do you know where Luther said, "if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith"? It's quoted in Bainton's Here I Stand, but in the references section it just says, "VIII, 361." Do you have any idea what that refers to?

I also came across this same Luther / Bainton snippet here:

According to Roland Bainton's biography of Luther, Here I Stand, Luther wrote at one time: Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith. Bainton's citation for this purported Luther quote is simply VIII, 361. I do not know what this refers to, so if anyone could comment below and let me know where it comes from, it would be much appreciated.

I went through Roland Bainton's use of Luther before: Did Luther Believe in Saving Faith? I also originally cited the quote from Roland Bainton many years ago in my review of Luther's famous "sin boldly" statement. I recall correctly, only one defender of Rome has ever challenged me for not quoting Luther directly (kudos to him for catching this!).

Roland Bainton cited WA 8:361. The equivalent English is LW 79:75-76. The quote is from  a 1521 sermon on Luke 17:11-19. In that context, Luther states the following:

This is what James means when he says: 2, 26: “Faith which does not work is dead. Just as the body without the soul is dead, so faith without works is also dead” (James 2[:17,26]).  This does not mean that faith is in a person and does not work, which is impossible, for faith is a living, restless thing. Rather, this means that people should not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have none of it; rather, they should look at their works, that is, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign they have true faith. However, if they do not do this, then they only have the sound of faith. What happens to them is like the person who examines himself in the mirror. When he goes away, he no longer sees himself. Through looking at other things, he forgets the face he saw in the mirror, as also St. James says (James 1 [:23-24] (LW 79:75-76). 

German text: Sihe, das meynet S. Jacob. Jaco. ij. "Der glawbe, so er nit wirckt, ist er todt. Und wie der leyb on seel todt ist, so ist auch der glaub on werck todt". Nit das der glaube ym menschen sey und nit wircke, wilchs nitt muglich ist, denn der glawb ist ein lebendig unrugig ding, sondern das sich die menschen nitt selb betriegen und meynen, sie haben den glawbenn, so sie doch nichts davon haben, sondern sollen ansehen yhr werck, ob sie auch yhrn nehisten lieben und yhm woll thun. Thun sie das, so ists ein zeychen, das sie dissen rechten glauben haben. Thun sie aber nit, so haben sie nur das gehore vom glawben. Und geschicht yhn, wie dem, der sich ym spiegel besihet: wenn er davon geht, szo sihet er sich nymmer, und durch ansehen anderer ding vorgisset er des spiegels gesicht, alsz auch Jaco. i. geschrieben stet (WA 8:361-362).

Alternate English text: See, this is what James means when he says, 2, 26: "Faith apart from works is dead." For as the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without works. Not that faith is in man and does not work, which is impossible. For faith is a living, active thing. But in order that men may not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have not, they are to examine their works, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign that they have the true faith. If they do not do this, they only have the sound of faith, and it is with them as the one who sees himself in the glass and when he leaves it and sees himself no more, but sees other things, forgets the face in the glass, as James says in his first chapter, verses 23-24.

The deceivers and blind masters have stretched this passage of James so far that they have destroyed faith and set up only works, as if righteousness and salvation consist not of faith but of works. To this great darkness they have added an even greater darkness and have taught only good works which are of no benefit to your neighbor, such as fasting; saying many prayers; observing festival days; not eating meat, butter, eggs, and milk; building churches, cloisters, chapels, and altars; instituting Masses, vigils, hours; wearing gray, white, or black clothes; becoming clergy; and innumerable similar things from which no one has any benefit or enjoyment, and all of which God condemns, and justly. St. James, however, says this intentionally, since a Christian life is nothing except faith and love. Love means nothing else than doing good and being useful to all people, enemies and friends. Where faith is correct, it certainly loves and acts toward others in love, just as Christ has acted in his faith. Thus each one should be on his guard so that he does not have a dream and fiction in his heart instead of faith, and thus deceive himself. He can recognize this in nothing better than in works of love. Christ Himself gives the sign of this when He says, ‘By this everyone can know that you are My disciples, if you love one another’ (John 13:35). Therefore, St. James means to say, ‘Be on your guard, lest your life not serve others, you live for yourself, and you take no interest in your neighbor, for then your faith is certainly nothing, since it does not do what Christ has done for it.’ Yes, he does not believe that Christ has done good for him; otherwise he would not omit also doing good for his neighbor (LW 79:76).

German text: Dissen spruch Jacobi haben die vorkurer und blinden meyster szo weyt gezogen, bysz das sie den glawben vortilget unnd nur die werck auff gericht haben, alsz stehe die gerechtickeyt und selickeyt nit ym glawben, szondern yn den wercken. Zu der grossen finsternisz haben sie darnach noch eyn gröszere thunn unnd nur die gutte werck geleret, die dem nehisten feyn nütz sind, alsz fasten, viel gepet sprechen, feyren, nit fleysch, putter, eyer, milch essen, kirchen, kloster, capeln, altar bawen, mesz, vigilien, horas stifften, graw, weisz, schwartz kleider tragen, geistlich werden, und der unzehlich gleichen, davon doch keyn mensch nütz noch geniesz hatt, wilch auch got alle vordampt, und billich. Aber S. Jacobus will das, sintemal eyn Christlich leben ist nichts denn glawbe unnd liebe. Liebe ist nichts denn eyttel woll thun und nuy seyn allen menschen, feynden und freunden. Unnd wo der glawb recht ist, szo liebt er auch gewiszlich und thut den andern ynn der liebe, wie yhm Christus than hatt ynn seynem glawben. Szo soll nu eyn iglicher sich fursehen, das er nit eynen trawm und geticht an stat des glaubens ym hertzen habe und sich selber betriege: das wirt er bey seynem ding alsz woll erkennen, alsz bey den wercken der liebe. Wie auch Christus dasselb zeychen gibt und spricht: "Da bey kan man wissen, das yhr meine iunger seyt, szo yhr euch untereinander liebt". Darumb will S. Jacob sagen: Sihe fur dich, steht dein leben nit also, das es andern diene, und du fur dich selbs lebist, nympst dich deynsz nehisten nit an, szo ist deyn glawbe gewiszlich nichts, denn er thut nit, wie yhm Christus than hatt.  Ja er glowbt nit, das yhm Christus woll than hat, sonst liesz er nitt, er thet seynem nehisten auch wol (WA 8:362).

Alternate English Text: This passage in James deceivers and blind masters have spun out so far, that they have demolished faith and established only works, as though righteousness and salvation did not rest on faith, but on our works. To this great darkness they afterwards added still more, and taught only good works which are no benefit to your neighbor, as fasting, repeating many prayers, observing festival days; not to eat meat, butter, eggs and milk; to build churches, cloisters, chapels, altars; to institute masses, vigils, hours; to wear gray, white and black clothes; to be spiritual; and innumerable things of the same kind, from which no man has any benefit or enjoyment; all which God condemns, and that justly. But St. James means that a Christian life is nothing but faith and love. Love is only being kind and useful to all men, to friends and enemies. And where faith is right, it also certainly loves, and does to another in love as Christ did to him in faith. Thus everyone should beware lest he has in his heart a dream and fancy instead of faith, and thus deceives himself. This he will not learn anywhere as well as in doing the works of love. As Christ also gives the same sign and says: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13, 35. Therefore St. James means to say: Beware, if your life is not in the service of others, and you live for yourself, and care nothing for your neighbor, then your faith is certainly nothing; for it does not do what Christ has done for him. Yea, he does not believe that Christ has done good to him, or he would not omit to do good to his neighbor. [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 3:1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 71-72].

Similarly, In a 1522 sermon Luther states:

This is what St. James means in his Epistle when he writes: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2[:26]). That is, when works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there, but a dead thought and dream, which they falsely call “faith.” This is how we understand these words of Christ: “Make friends for yourselves with the unrighteous mammon” [Luke 16:9]; that is, plainly demonstrate your faith with external giving, by which you gain friends, so that from your obvious works the poor can be witnesses that you have genuine faith. External giving of itself can never make friends, unless it happens from faith. Christ rejects the Pharisees’ alms (Matthew 6[:1–4]); they made no friends with their alms, because their hearts were false. Now no heart ever becomes right without faith, so that even nature is forced to confess that no works make anyone righteous, but the heart must first be righteous and good (1522 published sermon, LW 78:324).

German text: Das meynet S. Jacobus yn seyner Epistel, da er spricht "Der glawb on werck ist todt". Das ist, weyll die werck nicht folgen, ists eyn gewiß heychen, das keyn glaub da sey, sondern eyn todter gedancke und trawm, den sie falschlich glawben nennen. Also verstehen wyr nu diß wortt Christi "Machet euch freundt von dem unrechten Mammon", das ist: beweyset offenbar mit eußerlichem geben ewren glawben, damit yhr freundt ubirkomet, das die armen ewrs offinbarn wercks zeugen seyn kunden, das yhr rechtschaffen glauben habt, denn das eußerlich geben von yhm selber mochte nymmer mehr freundt machen, wo es nicht auß dem glawben geschech. Sintemal Christus Matt. 6. Der Phariseer almoßen verwirfft, das sie keyn freundt damit machten, weyll das herz falsch war. Nu wirt yhe keyn herz recht on den glawben, das also auch die natur zwingt zu bekennen, das keyn werck frum macht, sondern das herz zuvor frum und gutt seyn muß (WA 10.3:288).

Alternate English Text: This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘"Faith without works is dead." That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith. Now we understand the word of Christ: "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness." That is, prove your faith publically by your outward gifts, by which you win friends, that the poor may be witnesses of your public work, that your faith is genuine. For mere external giving in itself can never make friends, unless it proceed from faith, as Christ rejects the alms of the Pharisees in Mat. 6:2, that they thereby make no friends because their heart is false. Thus no heart can ever be right without faith, so that even nature forces the confession that no work makes one good, but that the heart must first be good and upright.  [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 2:2 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 308].

Revised March 2026 

Martin Luther's "Epistle of Straw" comment and Various Attacks According to the Twelve Tribes Website

I was sent a link to an exposition on Martin Luther's "epistle of straw" comment put together by a website entitled, The Twelve Tribes. The web site doesn't easily give up information as to who exactly they are. They appear to be some sort of quasi-Messianic Jewish group that practices flee the organized church. If Wiki is correct, they have a sordid past. A good example of the confusion of what this group believes can be found in this pdf they put together. The Luther-related link from Twelve Tribes is anti-Reformation propaganda and devoid of the Gospel. Here are a few thoughts on the errors presented in the web article:

1) "It is a well-documented fact that Martin Luther is quoted as having said that the book of the New Testament called James was an 'epistle of straw.'"

What they fail to point out is that the comment only appears in the original 1522 Preface to the New Testament. Luther later retracted the comment (along with some others) when he revised his Preface to the New Testament. For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do him an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind. For more information, see: Six Point's on Luther's Epistle of Straw.

2) "newfound doctrine" "According to his revelation" etc.

The author of this article is claiming that justification by faith alone was revealed by revelation to Luther, but in essence is also claiming that what was revealed to Luther was not correct. Luther is portrayed sort of like Joseph of Smith of Mormonism.  

3) "What bothered him so much about the words of James? He did not like what James said about faith and works. It did not go along with his newfound doctrine, 'saved by faith alone.'”

This is partly correct. Luther held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James. Even though Luther arrived at the harmonizing solution between James and Paul, it is probably the case that the question of James’ apostleship outweighed it. Luther's questioning of James included the book's status in Church history and its internal evidence as to its apostolicity. For Luther, James was the writing of a second century Christian, therefore not an apostle nor an eyewitness of the risen Christ. Did he simply arrive at this conclusion without a basis? No. Throughout his career, he maintained a position that echoed other voices from church history. This trumped any type of harmonization between Paul and James. For more information on this see: Luther and the Canon of Scripture and Six Point's on Luther's Epistle of Straw.

4) "Martin Luther taught that salvation is by faith alone, thus anything else that might be expected from a believer would be heresy, or works salvation. Yet, the book of James explains just the opposite concerning salvation. So, of course, rather than doubt the authenticity of his own personal revelation about faith, he doubted the Bible."

This is a caricature based on a false understanding of Luther, James, Paul, and the Gospel itself. Luther held that grace, faith, and the work of Christ are essential ingredients that justify, and that justification is a gift as well as the very faith involved. Christ’s perfect works are imputed to a sinner, and that sinner is seen as completely righteous. This does not though mean: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Salvation is unto good works. Good works are not unto eventual salvation. We are saved in order to perform good works, not by performing them. Luther held that faith is a living faith, and it shows its life by what it does. For Luther, we are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith. Luther defines good works as those “works that flow from faith and from the joy of heart that has come to us because we have forgiveness of sins through Christ” (What Luther Says 3:1499; LW 26:133; WA 40.1:234). Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. For more information on this see this link. This link provides many citations from Luther proving that he understood and explicitly taught the proper distinction between faith and works.

5) "Martin Luther was one who was famous for his “fiery invective” and coarse language. So, of course, he would not like that part in the Bible where it condemns men who, “With the tongue praise our Lord and Father, and with the same tongue curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness."

If one goes through the 100 or so volumes of Luther's writings, the amount of scatological language is slight in comparison to the whole. For a brief synopsis of this see this link: Martin Luther's Volatile Language.

6) "For I am unable to pray without the same time cursing."

For context of this Luther statement, see: Luther: I am unable to pray without at the same time cursing  The "cursing" was not curing God or using foul and inappropriate language. Rather, in context Luther says that the "cursing" is directed toward his papal enemies: 

For I cannot pray without thereby having to curse. If I say: "Holy be Thy name," I must in addition say: "Cursed, damned, and disgraced must be the papists' name and all who slander Thy name." If I say: "Thy kingdom come," then I have to add: "Cursed, damned, destroyed must be the papacy with all kingdoms on earth that are opposed to Thy kingdom" (English translation from Mark U. Edwards, Luther's Last Battles, pp. 50-51; WA 30.3:470).

German text:  Denn ich kan nicht beten, Ich mus da bey fluchen. Sol ich sagen: Geheiligt werde dein name, mus ich da bey sagen: Verflucht, verdampt, geschendet müsse werden der Papisten namen und aller, die deinen namen lestern. Sol ich sagen: Dein Reich kome, so mus ich da bey sagen: Verflucht, verdampt, verstöret müsse werden das Bapstum sampt allen Reichen auff erden, die deinem reich widder sind (WA 30.3:470).

7) "So, we see a religion full of gluttony, drunkenness, and even murder in the name of God, by people (including Martin Luther himself)"

Luther repeatedly wrote and preached against gluttony, drunkenness, and murder. There is no historical evidence that Luther was a glutton, drunkard or murderer. See: PBS Presents “Facts” That Luther Advocated Drunkenness and Promiscuity and Luther a Murderer?

Revised March 2026

The Reformers on the Book of James

I recently came across the pdf article, “A Right Strawy Epistle”: Reformation Perspectives on James" by Timothy George (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Fall 2000).  While I'm not a big fan of Dr. George, this is a good article to chew on the meat and spit out the bones (like spit out his seeming approval of the Anabaptist view that Luther practiced or taught "cheap grace"). The article is interesting because it compares and contrasts Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Anabaptists, and Roman Catholic views on the book of James. Much of the Luther information has similarities to my paper Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture. While I wouldn't agree with some of George's conclusions, the article shows that Martin Luther's view of James was not followed by either Zwingli or Calvin.

Revised April 2026

Luther on the Epistle of James...Revisited

I've written a lot on Luther's opinion on the Epistle of James and the canon . I've asserted that Luther appears to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James. This is something beyond dispute. I have found though that those who chastise Luther on his rejection of James tend to ignore the many statements in which he questions the book because of authorship. For Luther, the book was not written by an apostle, but rather by a later Christian. He repeats this often, and also notes others before him did as well.

Luther detractors tend to focus on his statements asserting a contradiction between James and Paul. The most popular passage comes from his preface to the book of James. Luther states: “In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]."

Protestants have had a cogent harmonizing solution between Paul and James for quite some time. The book of James describes a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17). James then describes a non-saving dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead... I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I! But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not. James describes a living and saving faith, as opposed to a dead faith.

Luther clearly taught the concept of living vs. dead faith throughout his writings. It may be surprising though to some that Luther was actually aware of a harmonization between James and Paul, and even at times uses it.

In Luther's Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies.” Luther responded:

The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.

In The Sermons of Martin Luther [2:2:308], Luther offers the harmonizing solution quite clearly:

This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘Faith without works is dead.’ That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith.

But here's the citation that provoked this blog entry. Recently I've been reading Luther's early Commentary on Romans. Here's a very interesting passage:

Here the question arises: How can a person be justified without the works of the Law, or how can it be that justification does not flow from our works? For St. James writes: 'We see how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (Jas. 2:24). So also St. Paul: "Faith . . . worketh by love" (Gal. 5:6); and: "The doers of the law shall be justified" (Rom. 2:13). To this we reply: As the Apostle distinguishes between the law and faith, the letter and grace, so also he distinguishes between the works resulting from these. He calls those deeds "works of the Law" that are done without faith and divine grace, merely because of the law, moved either by fear of punishment or the alluring hope of reward. But works of faith he calls those deeds which are done in the spirit of (Christian) liberty and flow from love to God. These can be done only by such as are justified by faith. Justification, however, is not in any way promoted by the works of the Law, but they rather hinder it, because they keep a person from regarding himself as unrighteous and so in need of justification. When James and Paul say that a man is justified by works, they argue against the false opinion of those who think that (for justification) a faith suffices that is without works. Paul does not say that true faith exists without its proper works, for without these there is no true faith. But what he says is that it is faith alone that justifies, regardless of works. Justification therefore does not presuppose the works of the Law, but rather a living faith, which performs its proper works, as we read in Galatians 5:6 [Commentary on Romans (Michigan: Kregel, 1976), 75].

In the Luther's Works version of his Commentary on Romans, Luther gives a rather lengthy and curious explanation of James, somewhat different than anything stated above:

The question is asked, “How can justification take place without the works of the Law, and how by the works of the Law can there be no justification, since James 2:26 clearly states: ‘Faith apart from works is dead’ and ‘a man is justified by works,’ using the example of Abraham and Rahab (James 2:23–25)?” And Paul himself in Gal. 5:6 speaks of “faith working through love,” and above in chapter 2:13 he says that “the doers of the Law will be justified before God.” The answer to this question is that the apostle is distinguishing between the Law and faith, or between the letter and grace, and thus also between their respective works. The works of the Law are those, he says, which take place outside of faith and grace and are done at the urging of the Law, which either forces obedience through fear or allures us through the promise of temporal blessings. But the works of faith, he says, are those which are done out of the spirit of liberty and solely for the love of God. And the latter cannot be accomplished except by those who have been justified by faith, to which justification the works of the Law add nothing, indeed, they strongly hinder it, since they do not permit a man to see himself as unrighteous and in need of justification.

Here is an example. If a layman should perform all the outward functions of a priest, celebrating Mass, confirming, absolving, administering the sacraments, dedicating altars, churches, vestments, vessels, etc., it is certain that these actions in all respects would be similar to those of a true priest, in fact, they might be performed more reverently and properly than the real ones. But because he has not been consecrated and ordained and sanctified, he performs nothing at all, but is only playing church and deceiving himself and his followers. It is the same way with the righteous, good, and holy works which are performed either without or before justification. For just as this layman does not become a priest by performing all these functions, although it can happen that he could be made a priest without doing them, namely, by ordination, so also the man who is righteous by the Law is actually not made righteous by the works of the Law at all, but without them, by something else, namely, through faith in Christ, by which he is justified and, as it were, ordained, so that he is made righteous for the performance of the works of righteousness, just as this layman is ordained a priest for the performance of the functions of a priest. And it can happen that the man who is righteous by the Law does works which are more according to the letter and more spectacular than the man who is righteous by grace. But yet he is not for this reason righteous but rather may actually be more impeded by these works from coming to righteousness and to the works of grace.

Another example. A monkey can imitate the actions of people, but he is not a man on that account. But if he should become a man, this doubtless would not take place by virtue of these actions, by which he has imitated a man, but by some other power, namely, God’s; but then having become a man, he would truly and rightly perform the actions of a man.

Therefore, when St. James and the apostle say that a man is justified by works, they are contending against the erroneous notion of those who thought that faith suffices without works, although the apostle does not say that faith justifies without its own works (because then there would be no faith, since, according to the philosophers, “action is the evidence that form exists”), but that it justifies without the works of the Law. Therefore justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works.

But if faith justifies with its own works, but without the works of the Law, then why are heretics regarded as beyond justification, since they also believe and from this same faith produce great and sometimes even greater works than the other believers? And all the people in the church who are spiritually proud, who have many and great works which also surely proceed from faith, are such people also unrighteous? Does something other than faith in Christ with its good works seem to be required for justification?

James answers the question briefly: “Whosoever … fails in one point has become guilty of all of it” (2:10). For faith is indivisible. Therefore it is either a whole faith and believes all that is to be believed, or it is no faith, if it does not believe one part. The Lord thus compares it to one pearl, to one grain of mustard, etc. Because “Christ is not divided” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:13), therefore He is either completely denied in one unit, or else He is completely affirmed. He cannot be at the same time denied in one word and confessed in another. But heretics are always picking out one thing or many from those which are to be believed, against which they set their minds in their arrogance, as if they were wiser than all the rest. And thus they believe nothing which is to be believed and perish without faith, without obedience toward God, while still in their great works, which are so similar to the real ones. They are not different from the Jews, who themselves believe many things which the church also truly believes. But one only does the thought of their own proud heart oppose, namely, Christ, and thus they perish in their unbelief. So also every proud man in his own mind always opposes either the precept or the counsel of him who is correctly guiding him to salvation. Since he does not believe this counsel, he likewise believes nothing, and his entire faith perishes because of the tenacity of one thought. We must always humbly, therefore, give way in our thinking, lest we stumble over this rock of offense,34 that is, the truth which in humility stands against us and opposes our own thinking. For since we are liars, the truth can never come to us except as an apparent adversary to what we are thinking, for we presume that we think the truth, and we wish to hear and see as truth only that which agrees with us and applauds us. But this cannot be.

The works of all of these men, therefore, are the works of the Law, not of faith or of grace, indeed they are opposed to and in conflict with faith. Thus justification not only can but must take place without them, and with the apostle must “be counted as refuse for the sake of Christ” (Phil. 3:8). [LW 25: 234-236]

Now of course, one must be very careful with Luther's early works, as the last passage from his work on Romans shows. Luther was not yet at his full understanding of justification that he became famous for. The early statements though are very intriguing.

Even though Luther knew how to harmonize James and Paul, it may be the case that the question of James’ apostleship out-weighed it. Further, I do recall reading of Luther's disdain for his Catholic opponents repeatedly quoting the book of James to him. This indeed provoked him, but I wonder why he didn't simply fight back with something similar to the above.