Reformed Dogmatika Classics | Martin Luther
Preface to James and Jude
A candid primary source, read under the church’s confession of the complete New Testament canon
Luther’s preface to James and Jude is historically significant precisely where it’s theologically unreliable. He praises both books in qualified terms, but he judges their apostolic standing by his own reading of their relation to Paul. We can hear the historical witness without surrendering the church’s confession of Scripture.
Historical Background
In his German New Testament, Luther set James and Jude near the end, in a group he declined to number among what he called the chief books. Philip Schaff states the reason plainly:
He disliked, most of all, the Epistle of James because he could not harmonize it with Paul’s teaching on justification by faith without works, and he called it an epistle of straw as compared with the genuine apostolic writings.
Philip SchaffHistory of the Christian Church, volume 7, §9
Confessional Orientation
The Belgic Confession (Article 4) expressly names the Epistle of James and the Epistle of Jude among the canonical books. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1.2) does the same. On justification, James 2 addresses a claimed faith that produces no works, while Romans 3 and 4 exclude works as the ground or instrument of justification. The confessional distinction between justification and sanctification lets both apostles speak with full authority.
Signature passages, the lines readers know this work by, are set in a pale wash.
Luther’s Preface to James and Jude
Though this Epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God’s law. But to state my own opinion about it, though without injury to anyone, I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle.
My reasons are as follows.
First: Flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it ascribes righteousness to works, and says that Abraham was justified by his works, in that he offered his son Isaac, though St. Paul, on the contrary, teaches, in Romans 4:2, that Abraham was justified without works, by faith alone, before he offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Now although this Epistle might be helped and a gloss be found for this work-righteousness, it cannot be defended against applying to works the saying of Moses in Genesis 15:6, which speaks only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul shows in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, leads to the conclusion that it is not the work of any apostle.
Second: Its purpose is to teach Christians, and in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the Resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times, but he teaches nothing about Him, and only speaks of common faith in God. For it is the duty of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and Resurrection and work of Christ, and thus lay the foundation of faith, as He Himself says, in John 15:27, “Ye shall bear witness of me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach Christ and deal with Him. That is the true test, by which to judge all books, when we see whether they deal with Christ or not, since all the Scriptures show us Christ (Romans 3:21), and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (1 Corinthians 15:2). What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or Paul taught it; again, what preaches Christ would be apostolic, even though Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod did it.
But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works; and he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took some sayings of the apostles’ disciples and threw them thus on paper; or perhaps they were written down by someone else from his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty,” though St. Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death and of sin (Galatians 3:23; Romans 7:11).
Moreover, in James 5:20, he quotes the sayings of St. Peter, “Love covereth the multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8) and “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” (1 Peter 5:6), and of St. Paul (Galatians 5:17), “The Spirit lusteth against hatred”; and yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod, in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that he came long after Sts. Peter and Paul.
In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task [in spirit, thought, and words, and rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture], and would accomplish by insisting on the Law what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love. Therefore, I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him.
Concerning the Epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy from St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles as a disciple coming long after them, and quotes sayings and stories that are found nowhere in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient Fathers to throw this Epistle out of the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover, Jude, the Apostle, did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I praise the book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books, which are to lay the foundation of faith.
Text and Editorial Note
Martin Luther, “Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude,” translated by Charles M. Jacobs in Works of Martin Luther, with Introductions and Notes, volume 6 (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company and the Castle Press, 1932). The volume’s 1932 copyright was not renewed, and the translation is in the public domain in the United States. Jacobs prints the preface as it stood in the 1545 German Bible.
Luther’s words are reproduced as a historical primary source and have been verified against page scans of the 1932 printing. Reformed Dogmatika’s introductions, headings, confessional orientation, and design are editorial additions. The phrase printed in square brackets appears only in the 1522 edition, following Jacobs’s own markings. In the 1932 printing Luther’s Scripture references stand in the text as Roman numeral chapter references, with precise chapter and verse references in the page margins; this edition prints those references inline in Arabic numerals with the marginal precision. Nothing else has been modernized. The historical assessments quoted from Philip Schaff are verbatim from his History of the Christian Church, volume 7 (1888), which is in the public domain.
Continue Reading
- Martin Luther: A Reformed Reader’s GuideThe complete RD guide to Luther’s life, writings, and legacy.
- The Heidelberg DisputationLuther’s 1518 case for the theology of the cross.
- The Ninety-Five ThesesThe 1517 theses that set the Reformation in motion.
