I Wrote a Letter to Martin Luther (Faith Without Works is Dead?)

Did Martin Luther believe that we should trash the book of James?

Kind of.

That's why I wrote a letter to him to clear up and understand this idea that faith without works is dead.

Here it is!

Dear Mr. Luther,

I understand that you do not regard the content of the book of James as valuable. You stated that you do not consider it as a work of an apostle [1], and that James “wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but he was unequal to the task.” [2] Upon reading some of your comments about the book of James, I also understand that you would not forbid anyone from including and studying James, as you admit that there are some good sayings in him. [3] However, your views on James 2:14-26, in my opinion, require slight adjustments, and I would like to offer my thoughts on this passage to provide a compelling exposition and an accurate interpretation that aligns with the rest of the New Testament. 

Exposition of James 2:14-26 - Faith Without Works is Dead

Verse 14 begins by stating that there is no good in saying one has faith without works, then poses a hypothetical question: “Can faith save him?”

This is accompanied by the following three verses (verses 15-17), which explain the reasoning of this initial statement with an if-then clause.

It is initially crucial to understand that the word “works” (ἔργον) here should be viewed in a certain light, or else the entire meaning could be misconstrued.

There is often a tendency to automatically define the term “works” as those of the “works of the law” (erga nomou), as in Romans 3:20, in which Paul states that these would justify no human being.

Paul is, of course, referring to the commandments of the Mosaic Law.

Mr. Luther, you seem to believe that the “works” of James 2:14 and throughout the pericope are referring to these same works of the Mosaic Law when you state that James is flatly against Paul and the rest of Scripture, since he seems to be ascribing justification to works. [4]

If this is how we take the meaning of works, then it would indeed appear that there is a contradiction between Paul and James.

However, there is an alternative way to understand James 2:14-26 that might shed light on its meaning. As we can see, the “works” are being contrasted with “faith” (πίστις), and this is where the dilemma lies.

One way to understand the works of James 2:14 is that they are practical pieces of evidence of the πίστις, [5] and we should not automatically view them as the actual works of the law which were performed to maintain righteousness.

In other words, “works” are not always the “works of the law,” but can be the more general works that flow from a faith-filled heart.

This is explicit in verses 15 and 16, which show that the works are more practical and general, such as clothing or feeding a person who needs them. But this can also be seen in the context of the whole chapter, in which James speaks of showing no partiality and the “law of liberty.” (Jas. 2:12)

The flow simply seems to be more about natural, practical, general works that stem from faith, and not on the idea that the works of the law need to be performed alongside faith to be saved.

When James asks, “Can faith save him?”, he is speaking of an impotent kind of faith, which has no works, cannot save, and is worthless. [6] These “works” are better described as the “works of love,” likened to rabbinic gemiluth ḥasadim, [7] but different from what this author would call the works of the law.

Therefore, James is not saying that we are saved by faith and the works of the law, but that these general works that come from a transformed heart will be proof of our faith, which is the only element that saves.

In summary of these findings, we can say that Paul speaks of the works of the Mosaic Law and human works done for salvation, while James speaks highly of the works of obedience that effortlessly flow from a heart rooted in true faith. [8] In that sense, and only in that sense, faith and works save us, if I am correctly understanding James’ logic here. 

Is This Consistent With What is Found Elsewhere in the New Testament?

Mr. Luther, in many ways, the above exposition is consistent with what we find in the New Testament.

There are many scriptures that I can produce, but only a few will suffice in this section of my letter.

For example, let us begin with our Lord and savior Jesus, and his words in Matthew 7:24-27. We see that James speaks to the significance of doing the word, not merely hearing it, and this sums up the kind of faith he describes almost perfectly.

Jesus describes a house built on sand—when the storm comes, it will fall because of its unreliable foundation. However, he goes on to say that the house that falls is the one that hears his words and does not put them into practice. [9] In a sense, Jesus is the origin of James’ view of faith, as he states that real, saving faith will lead a person to practice it through works of obedience.

Let us also consider James’s mention of a “law of liberty,” which we can define as believers effortlessly abiding by the works of obedience as they yield to Christ and true faith.

Again, this law of liberty is different from the nature of the Mosaic Law, which was strict obedience that had become a means of earning favor with God.

Paul apparently mentions this same law in Romans, yet gives it different names. Romans 3:27 contrasts the “law of works” and the “law of faith,” in which the latter is righteousness through faith in Christ; by keeping it, we uphold the law by this faith (verse 31).

He later adheres to what we could call the “law of love” in Romans 13:8-10, which is simply defined as “doing” no wrong to your neighbor. Thus, it implies works, but not necessarily the Mosaic works.

Last, Paul refers to this same “law” as the “law of Christ” in Galatians 6:2. Referring to this system as a “law” (whether it be the law of Christ, the law of love, the law of faith, or the law of liberty) implies that James and Paul are using this language to refer to some type of works, as they and their audience would have understood it to be, or an allusion to the Mosaic Law in order to draw a sharp distinction. It is what Paul defines as “faith working through love” in Galatians 5:6. 

Conclusion

Thank you for your time, for listening, and for carefully considering my exposition of James 2. Mr. Luther, I believe that if we go back to the drawing board and interpret James properly, we will see that it does not work against the Bible, but works with its message. Faith will produce works, and these works will generally testify to that true, saving faith inside of a believer. This fact is well established in the rest of the New Testament by both Jesus and Paul. Please humbly reconsider excluding the book of James from the canon.

Thank you,

James (not the James from the epistle)

Sources

[1] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament I, ed. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 396.

[2] Ibid., 397.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 396.

[5] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 390.

[6] James B. Adamson, “The Epistle of James” in The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 121–122.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Brandon D. Crowe, The Message of the General Epistles in the History of Redemption: Wisdom from James, Peter, John, and Jude, 1st ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2015), 174.

[9] Ibid., 167.