Martin Luther and the Canon of Scripture

Introduction

Many evangelical Protestants enjoy engaging Roman Catholics in theological debates. Most of these evangelicals, unfortunately, lose credibility with Catholics as soon as the discussion turns to Martin Luther. This is simply because many Protestants are ignorant of Martin Luther's erroneous opinion of the cannon of Scripture. Protestants should educate themselves about Luther and losen their extremely esteemed view of him before entering a discussion about theology with Catholics. This is especially true when the subject pertains to the relationship between faith and works.
Admittedly, Luther did indeed expose many dangerously false teachings that were being propagated by the Church of his day, and he did open the door for Medieval Germans to read the Bible for themselves. For these accomplishments he should be commended for being a useful tool in the Hand of God. Protestants must not, however, attempt to trivialize his excessive judgment upon James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. We should instead endeavor to learn the reasons why Luther judged these books so harshly, and we should familiarize ourselves with arguments that defend their rightful place in the canon.
In fairness to Luther, it should be mentioned from the outset that he did hold a high view of Books of the Bible that he believed were inspired. In order to hold a balanced view of him, one must not interpret his rejection of these four books from the canon as unbelief in the doctrine of inerrancy. As N.B. Stonehouse notes,

[Luther’s] rejection of James and the others accordingly is in complete harmony with his declarations that Scripture cannot err; indeed his rejection of them, rather than attesting a rejection of infallibility, is intelligible only on the background of a firm maintenance of the doctrine. If Luther had had as low a view of inspiration as modern writers often
ascribe to him, his sharply distinctive treatment of the four would not have been necessary. [1]

His error was not that he held a liberal view of Scriptural inerrancy. “. . .Luther’s attitude towards James proves the exact opposite of what the liberal Bible scholar wants to prove. The primary question for Luther was not ‘Is this part of the inspired Bible false?’ but, ‘Is this a part of the inspired Bible?’" [2]

While venerating Luther to the point of believing that he could do no wrong damages the credibility of Protestants, it is equally ignorant and unhistorical to view him as holding a low view of Scripture. This foundation having just been laid, the focus will now turn to a defense of the books in question against Luther’s inappropriate judgement of them.

A Defense of Jude Against Luther

Of the Book of Jude, Luther wrote:

. . .[N]o one can deny that it is an exact copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures
[Jude 9, 14]. . .Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith. [3]

How can Jude be defended against Luther’s criticism? To begin with, the scholarly consensus is that 2 Peter uses Jude, and not the other way around. Therefore Jude is probably not “an exact copy of St. Peter's second epistle” as Luther purported. The only verbatim verses shared between the two books is 2 Peter 2:17 (“These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved.”) and Jude 13 (“These are. . .wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever”). Besides this, the two books are related in that they share similar ideas, words, Old Testament illustrations, and text order (1 Peter 2:1-18 and Jude 4-16). [4] What about Luther’s objection that Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, and that he did not write in Greek? The answer to this is that there is no indication in the letter of its place of writing or its destination. Nobody can say they know that Jude meant for this epistle to be read in Persia and not in a Greek speaking land, as Luther suggests.

What about Luther’s mentioning that Jude cites sayings that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures (Jude 9, 14)?

Allusion to or citation of extrabiblical materials is rare in the New Testament. But given the currency of apocryphal religious works during the period, and the desire of the New Testament writers to communicate the gospel in terms familiar to their readers, it is not surprising to find some occasional use. Examples include 2 Tim. 3:8, which uses Jewish traditions about Ex. 7:11; and the quotation of pagan poets in Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; and Titus 1:12. The inclusion of such quotations in the inspired canon, for illustrative purposes or as an appeal to conventional wisdom, does not imply that the apocryphal and nonbiblical documents were themselves inspired, nor that everything in them is being endorsed by the Bible. It is the use of the particular reference that is inspired, not the source of that reference. [5]

A Defense of Hebrews Against Luther

Of Hebrews Luther wrote:

. . .[T]he fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle, is proved by what it says in chapter 2...Again, there is a hard knot in the fact that in chapters 6 [:4-6] and 10 [:26-27] it flatly denies and forbids to sinners any repentance after baptism. . . . This [is] contrary to all the gospels and to St. Paul's epistles. . .[6]

Luther should not have had any problem with the author of Hebrews not being an apostle. He accepted Mark, Luke and Acts knowing that these books were not written by apostles. His rejection of Hebrews 6:4-6 (because of his misconception that it contradicted the Gospels and Paul) was also unreasonable. The passage reads: For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt (ESV). Although there are many explanations of this passage, what should primarily be pointed out here is that it is not in contradiction “to all the gospels and to St. Paul’s epistles” as Luther claimed.
As Philip Edgcumbe Hughs points out, the sin shown in Hebrews 6 is a sinful disposition. . .

[a] sin against the light. It is sin committed, not in ignorance, but in the face of knowledge and even experience of truth - not the sin of those who are “ignorant and wayward” (Heb. 5:2) but of those who “sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth” (Heb. 10:26)
. . .To enter into the light and then to reject that light in favor of the darkness of unbelief incurs the judgment of being broken off from the tree of life (cf. Rom. 11:17ff.). Within this perspective we can understand Paul’s. . .statement in 1 Tim. 1:13 that, though he had blasphemed and persecuted and insulted Christ, yet he received mercy because he acted “ignorantly in unbelief”: In other words, his unbelief was capable of receiving God’s pardon
. . . because his opposition had been exercised in the darkness of ignorance, whereas the man who rebels as an apostate after professing faith in Christ and entering into the sphere of evangelical blessing is not acting “ignorantly in unbelief”, but by a deliberate and calculated renunciation of the good he has known he places himself beyond forgiveness and renewal. [7]

This points out that the Hebrews passage does not contradict Paul; it can even be argued that Hebrews 6 offers useful insight into a statement of Paul.
The quote that follows will point out unity between Hebrews 6 and the Gospels.

A clue to what is intended is available, however, in the warning of Christ against the “eternal sin” (Mk. 3:29). . .By closing their [the scribe’s] eyes to the plain evidence that the kingdom of God had com upon them and wickedly describing as satanic the signs that the Holy Spirit was powerfully and beneficially acting in and through Jesus, these professors of godliness betrayed an attitude of hardened hostility to the truth. They showed themselves to be hard-hearted enemies of the light that had come into the world (Jn. 1:19-21). Such blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is sin for which there is no forgiveness (Mk. 3:29). “The apostle is not talking here about theft or perjury or murder or drunkenness or adultery,” comments Calvin. “He is referring to a complete falling away from the gospel, in which the sinner has offended God not in some one respect only but has utterly renounced his grace.” [8]

A Defense of Revelation Against Luther

Of Revelation he wrote:

. . .I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and His deeds, without images and visions . . . I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . [9]

Luther’s rejection of revelation has even less of a foundation than his rejection of the other books. His only hangup was his belief that God would never inspire one of His apostles to use symbolic language when writing about Christ. This is very subjective of Luther; why didn’t he object to the “images and visions” included in Daniel 7-12, Isaiah 24-27, Ezekiel 37-41, or Zechariah 9-12? He seems to have singled out only Revelation for comments such as “I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it”. Luther apparently did not take into consideration the reason for symbolism within books of apocalyptic literature. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary maintains the following about Revelation’s use of symbolic language:

One reason is that these books were written in dangerous times when it was safer to hide one’s message in images than to speak plainly. . .Revelation was written originally for first century Christians who faced severe trials under a totalitarian political system. Its imagery reflects the historical realities of that time. This is not to say, however, that it is not also addressing succeeding generations, including our own. As is true of all Biblical prophecy, God’s Word comes to a particular situation; but it yields a harvest to later generations as they receive it. Thus, Revelation assures us that God is present, purposeful, and powerful today, no matter what forms the beast may take. [10]

A Defense of James Against Luther

Luther criticized James with more intensity than he did with any other book of Scripture. This is because he perceived it as being a threat to Paul's teaching of salvation by grace alone. Many evangelicals are aware of his famous “epistle of straw” remark, but his criticism of James went far further than this. For example:

We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. . . 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 presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.’ 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! [11]
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. Some day I will use James to fire my stove. [12]

Luther claimed that he would give his doctor’s beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. [13] His difficulty was with a comparison of James 2:24 with verses such as Romans 3:28. These verses are compared below with some context.


Romans 3:28, 30 and 4:1-3

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.". . . He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

James 2:21-25

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"- and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works. . .?



After seeing these two passages side by side, it is natural to wonder how (if possible) can they be reconciled. The first step to understanding the unity between James and Paul is to realize that the two authors are in writing under very different circumstances and are addressing themselves to opposite problems.

[A]gainst the reliance of Jews and Judaisers on obedience to the law (performance of ‘works of the law’ [RSV]) as the way of acceptance with God, Paul insists that justification is by grace through faith alone; against the ‘lazy faith-quietism’ of ‘solifidians’ James insists that ‘faith’ without works is dead and that a living faith will manifest itself in works. Thus, ‘they are not antagonists facing each other with drawn swords; they stand back to back, confronting different foes of the Gospel’. [14]

These different settings and audiences that James and Paul were faced with caused them to use the words “faith”, “justification”, and “works” differently. Understanding the way they used these words is the second step to understanding the unity between James and Paul.

“Justification”

Paul is concerned with justification in the typical Biblical sense when he uses the word. For him it is a pronouncement by God that one is made justified from his sins. James, however, is speaking of the results of justification when he uses it. James is writing not about a pronouncement that one is just, but about the evidence that justification has taken place. [15]Paul writes about one’s justification before God, and James writes about one’s final vindication before men.

“Faith”

When Paul uses the word “faith” he refers to an act of self-committal to Christ. [16] James, on the other hand, uses the word to mean mere intellectual assent which has no bearing on a person’s conduct.

“[I]n 2:14-26, James has in view two kinds of faith, the genuine (18b,e, 22a,b; cf. 23b) and the spurious (14, 17, 18d, 20, 24, 26; cf. 19), and it is the latter only which he depreciates as dead and useless. His point seems to be that ‘a faith that is alive give evidence of being alive’. To the same effect Paul says that what matters is not circumcision or the want of it, but ‘faith expressing itself through love (Gal. 5:6). [17]

“Works”

Ronald Fung quotes P.H. Davids to explain how James and Paul use the word “works”. Davids maintains that “Paul’s ‘works of the law’ are never moral prescriptions, but rather ceremonial rites added to the work of Christ. In James, erga [never erga nomou] are always moral deeds, especially acts of charity” [18]. Fung also quotes D.J. Moo: “Both Paul and James are operating with an understanding of ‘works’ that is basically similar: anything done that is in obedience to God and in the service of God.” [19] Their difference is that Paul denies efficacy of “pre-conversion” works for justification, and James affirms the necessity of post-conversion works as evidence of faith that justifies. [20]
James S. Gidley has something else to point out of interest -- that James is purposely using gripping language to get the attention of his readers.

James assumes that his readers are quite familiar with Paul’s formulation of the doctrine. But some of James’s hearers were using the doctrine of justification by faith alone as a pretext for being complacent about ungodly living. What better way is there to awaken them than by using words that at first glance seem to be a shocking departure from what they have been taught? James 2 is a bombshell that explodes carnal confidence at its foundation. The complacent can scarcely be moved by anything less. [21]

James Gidley points out that James is wisdom literature. [22] He reminds us that one common feature in Biblical wisdom literature is paradox, and that one of the clearest examples of this is Proverbs 26:4-5: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (ESV).

Conclusion

After carefully looking at the arguments in favor of the canonicity of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, it should be plain that Martin Luther was out of bounds when he criticized these books. Many Catholics observe multitudes of Protestants blindly lauding and venerating a man who refused to take a more humble approach to the canon of Scripture. Although Luther should indeed be acknowledged for the ways in which he advanced the Kingdom of God, Protestants should be more discriminating in what exactly it is that we are celebrating him for (i.e., translating the Bible into German and fighting against the teaching of salvation by works, but certainly not for his desire to throw large portions of the Bible into his stove). Those Protestants who have a desire to encourage Catholics to look into the doctrine of justification by faith alone would be able to gain at least a modicum of credibility with Catholics if they would be willing to disassociate with Luther to some degree. The distance we put between ourselves and Luther can become an ideal opportunity to explain to Catholics why we believe so strongly in salvation by faith apart from works. How refreshing it would be if a few Protestants learned to say to a few Catholics “No, I’m not Catholic, but I wholeheartedly condemn Martin Luther’s unreasonably crude treatment of James. Let me show you why Luther was wrong, and how James and Paul use the words faith, works, and justification differently. Who knows; maybe you will see why I believe that a man is justified by faith alone”.


ENDNOTES:

[1] N.B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus.(Grand Rapids, 1957) pp.195-196

[2] Mark F. Bartling, Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?
(Essay presented to the Pastor-Teacher Conference, Western Wisconsin District,
LaCrosse, WI, on April 12, 1983)

[3] Luther’s Works, Vol 35 (Philadelphia, 1960) pp. 397-398

[4] For a popular and easy-to-access source, take a look at R.C. Sproul's Reformation Study Bible (Thomas Nelson, 1995) page 1,979

[5] Ibid, 2,000

[6] Luther’s Works, Vol 35 (Philadelphia, 1960), 394

[7] Philip Edgcumbe Hughs, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids,
1977) 216

[8] Philip Edgcumbe Hughs, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, 1977) 215-216

[9] Luther’s Works, Vol 35 (Philadelphia, 1960), 398

[10] For a popular and easy-to-access source, take a look at Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, 1995) pages 1,084 and 1,087

[11] Luther’s Works, Vol 35, Tabletalk (Philadelphia, 1960) 424-425

[12] Mark F. Bartling, Luther and James: Did Luther Use the Historical-Critical Method?
(Essay presented to the Pastor-Teacher Conference, Western Wisconsin District,
LaCrosse, WI, on April 12, 1983) Quoting from Weimar, “Tischreden” (5) p. 5854

[13] Ronald H. Bainton, Here I Stand (New York, date unlisted) 331

[14] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161 [Quoted from Ross 53; cf. Beasley-Murray and H. Kung, ‘Justification. The Doctrine of Carl Barth and a Catholic Response]

[15] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161

[16] Ibid

[17] Ibid; Ronald Fung quotes from Travis, ‘James and Paul’, 61

[18] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161

[19] D.A. Carson, ed., with Ronald Fung, Right With God (UK, 1992), 161

[20] Ibid

[21] James S. Gidley, “James and Justification by Faith”, New Horizons, Feb. 2005, 4

[22] Ibid