Luther's Epistle of Straw

The Voice of St. James in Reformation Preaching

Jason D. Lane

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9783110535020
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: German Literary Criticism

This work challenges the common consensus that Luther, with his commitment to St. Paul's articulation of justification by faith, leaves no room for the Letter of St. James. Against this one-sided reading of Luther, focused only his criticism of the letter, this book argues that Luther had fruitful interpretations of the epistle that shaped the subsequent exegetical tradition. Scholarship's singular concentration on Luther's criticism of James as "an epistle of straw" has caused many to overlook Luther's sermons on James, the many places where James comes to full expression in Luther's writings, and the influence that Luther's biblical interpretation had on later interpretations of James. Based primarily on neglected Lutheran sermons in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this work examines the pastoral hermeneutic of Luther and his theological heirs as they heard the voice of James and communicated that voice to and for the sake of the church. Scholars, pastors, and educated laity alike are invited to discover how Luther's theology was shaped by the Epistle of James and how Luther's students and theological heirs aimed to preach this disputed letter fruitfully to their hearers.

1The Pastoral Beginnings of James in the Lutheran Church

In this chapter, I investigate Andreas Althamer’s curious change of heart concerning the Epistle of James some time between 1527 and 1533. On the basis of his two commentaries and the historical circumstances that surrounded them, I argue that preaching and the experience of pastoral care in the congregational setting transformed Althamer’s view of James. I also make a case for the influence of Luther’s exegesis on Althamer and, likewise, the influence that Althamer’s 1533 commentary had on Luther’s later reading of James. The 1530s mark a period of change for Luther and his students, as the pressing pastoral concerns urge them to apply the message of James to the congregational setting.

Althamer’s 1527 Annotations: “The best we could do with the Epistle of James.”

Andreas Althamer’s Annotationes in 1527 is the first Lutheran commentary on James. Although Erasmus had expressed doubts about the letter’s authorship and authenticity in his annotations to James, and although Luther had determined that James was not apostolic, Althamer’s Annotationes are in a class of their own. He is the first orthodox theologian in the church’s history to try to prove verse for verse that James completely contradicts the Christian faith. Althamer’s 1527 commentary is therefore a hyper-critical representative of Luther, who not only agreed with Luther’s criticism but who was also willing to put those arguments to work exegetically. Althamer presupposes the validity of Luther’s criticism at almost every important juncture of the text. It is therefore no wonder that Gustav Kawerau describes this work as an expression of “blinded dogmatism.”92

The commentary as a whole plays an important part in the interpretive history of the epistle in that Althamer did not regard his annotations as a private matter. He claims in his epilogue that his exposition was not just his but the Lutheran exposition, and the very best Lutherans could do with James: “Haec sunt optime lector, quae in I A C O B I epistolam obiter annotavimus.”93 The obvious inclusion of Luther’s opinions throughout the commentary give the impression that it was a communal effort and, if so, a communal sin.

A few examples from his annotations give one a sense of his methods. For instance at 1:13, “God tempts no one,” Althamer writes that James contradicts the Scriptures. “We are not able to defend James with the Scriptures here,” because Genesis 22 and Exodus 16 are “contra Iacobam.”94 He continues his annotations under the provocative title, “Deus est tentator,”95 and adds that James has no regard for the sixth petition of the Lord’s Prayer. Althamer’s highest praise of James comes at 1:17, which he calls “the best passage in the letter”96 for its description of the Father as the source of all good things, temporal and eternal. However, even here, he suspects that James did not come up with it himself. Concerning “the Father of lights” in the same passage, Althamer appears disappointed that James does not mean Christ, as St. John does. “He is not talking about Christ Jesus as does that other apostle who rested on the Lord’s chest at table.”97 Althamer interprets “the word of truth” (1:18) and “the implanted word” (1:21) as gospel and dedicates several pages to the power of the gospel to regenerate and all the reasons why salvation cannot be attained by works. He even reads 1:21 about the implanted word as a reference to the parable of the sower and the seed and the reception of the gospel, but he doubts that this is James’ intention: “Nos de sermone euangelij interpretamur, & non de legis verbo, de quo ipse forsan intellexit.”98 James, he suspects, meant the law. Althamer continues through this section to teach the gospel, its power, and the sad reality that people seldom become genuine doers of the word.99 But again, since Althamer believes that James mistakenly addresses Jewish Christians who reject the law and not Jewish Christians who reject the power of the gospel, he is forced to comment against the intention of the text.

It strikes me as surprising, however, that Althamer can be so full of conviction about the biblical doctrine against Rome and still so unwilling to make assertions from the text. He hedges with uncertainty at every turn. For example, Althamer understands the mirror in verse 23 as the mirror of the law to show sin and not to sanctify. “Nam lex paedagogus, & neminem sanctificat.”100 Only Christ sanctifies (1 Cor. 1:31), he argues, and “if James attributes [salvation and sanctification] to the law, then he contradicts Scripture.”101 According to Althamer, James does exactly that. Althamer then comments assertively that the law of liberty is gospel: “Euangelion est lex libertatis.”102 However, he follows his assertion again with exegetical uncertainty (forsan): “Sed Iacobus forsan Mosaica lege intellexit.”103

In sum, Althamer’s first attempt at James is clearly a misstep. It is far too polemical to be edifying and far too sweeping to be insightful.104 It is a rhetorical work with a great deal of hesitancy and indecision concerning the exegetical matters of the text. Althamer in no way stands under the text or lets James speak. He had a different goal in mind, which clearly had very little to do with the epistle’s message. Althamer was motivated to correct false interpretations of James. Unfortunately, his own exegesis undermined his original intent. His own flippancy with the text was a regrettable response to Rome, even if his original complaint was justified.

In spite of Althamer’s failed attempt, it is important to consider the commentary’s place historically and take seriously Althamer’s concerns with Rome’s exegesis. Althamer set out to prove beyond any question that the Catholics had no biblical support for their doctrine of justification by works. Luther and Melanchthon and many others were doing this very thing in their own publications. Therefore, Althamer was only one of many reformers to challenge Rome’s biblical exegesis. He was, however, the first to challenge Rome’s exegesis of James head on. As becomes apparent throughout the commentary, his general rhetorical strategy is, like Luther’s, to eliminate the authority of James in order to win the argument. He makes a faint effort to place James within the broader context of Scripture. But when this becomes too cumbersome for him, which appears to happen all too often, he blames James for a lack of clarity or apostolic authority.105

Strangely, there seems to have been little to no reaction to Althamer’s work in Wittenberg. Perhaps its publication in Strassburg limited its readership among the Wittenberg circles. Whatever the case, it did not leave a lasting impression on later Lutheran interpreters, perhaps due to its spiteful tone. The commentary appears later to have caused only one stir—and that in the seventeenth century and outside of Lutheranism—in a lengthy Arminian/Calvinist exchange between Hugo Grotius and Andre Rivet.106

As mentioned in the introduction, however, Althamer must have had a change of heart concerning James some time between 1527 and 1533, because in 1533, when he released a completely new commentary in German, it had a far more edifying tone and nobler purpose. He writes,

I’m publishing this epistle again, new, in German, and with a German interpretation. It’s better this time, since I stood watch and listened, I armed and prepared myself as I preached these sermons in Ansbach not only against the Papists, but much more against the false Christians, who boast about the gospel and faith, and nevertheless refuse to live according to the standard of the gospel, that is, they do not bring forth good fruit from the tree as they should.107

Here Althamer sets out to apply the message of James to the lives of his hearers. His commentary is less polemical and more pastoral.

In his preface to this second commentary, Althamer grants that he spoke with harsh words in his first, but he claims to have done so only out of zeal for the gospel.108 He further claims that James was not the problem per se, but that he was compelled to write the first commentary “because the quarrelsome sophists, scholars, and papists only read this one book and leave the rest of Scripture on the shelf.”109 In other words, he wrote so harshly, as Luther had in his preface, only to combat the misuse of the epistle by those who thought that “they had drawn the right sword against our holy and impenetrable doctrine concerning the justification by faith, etc.”110 Even looking back on his outlandish criticisms, Althamer says that his Annotationes were successful insofar as they demonstrated the errors of the papists, who had swung at the Lutherans with James and missed. He writes:

I showed them that this epistle gave them no ground or foundation to stand on, and that it does not support or defend their unfounded doctrine. They have gone the way of Goliath and Saul, and have been pierced and conquered by their own sword, for Saint James does not write against the righteousness of faith. He does not teach how one becomes godly and righteous, but rather how one acts once one is godly and righteous, how after one is righteous a person should demonstrate it [beweisen].111

Notably, Althamer claims to have won the battle against the papists on exegetical grounds. He asserts that James does not teach justification by works and that his exegesis six years earlier was still sounder than that of the Roman Catholics who mistakenly placed those passages urging good works in the article of justification. It is debatable whether Althamer’s first commentary succeeded in this, but his comments certainly indicate a renewed interest in the exegesis of the letter. As we shall see, Althamer’s purposes in this second commentary are pastoral and he demonstrates that he is willing to let the text speak for itself.

Kolde and Kawerau have suggested that Althamer’s first commentary gravitates toward Luther, while the second is a product of Melanchthon’s influence.112 Kawerau follows Kolde’s analysis and credits Melanchthon with assisting Althamer to rethink his position on James. That may partly be the case. Yet there are other factors that could have contributed to Althamer’s new-found appreciation for James. The state of the church in newly forming Lutheran territories showed glaring signs of spiritual neglect. The Saxon Visitations in 1528 revealed to both Luther and Melanchthon the pressing need to catechize preachers and laity. The state of disrepair prompted both Melanchthon, who penned the Instructions for Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony, and Luther, who gave his approval to them by writing the preface, to suggest that James should be part of the daily reading in the church along with other New Testament books.113 They recognized the value of the epistle’s message for the Christian life. Just as Elector John the Steadfast (1463–1532) had done with the help of Luther, Melanchthon and other theologians in Saxony, Georg III, the pious prince of Anhalt-Dessau, wanted to arrange for church visitation in his territory.114 On 18 May 1528, he commissioned Althamer, Johann Rürer (1480 –1542), along with several others, including Andreas Osiander (1498–1552) and Lazarus Spengler (1479–1534), to prepare visitation articles and a catechism.115 In conjunction with the visitation, the prince also included Althamer among those who would prepare the church order for Anhalt-Brandenburg (1528/1533).116 Thus, in the years following his first commentary, Althamer concentrated with other reformers on ways to teach and refine the catechization of the faith in a congregational setting.

His active participation in church visitations and his experience teaching the whole catechism in the midst of the congregation—and not only defending the Second Article of the Creed—seemed to be the greatest motivation for Althamer to turn once again to James. It becomes apparent that not only Melanchthon’s fair tr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1 The Pastoral Beginnings of James in the Lutheran Church
• 2 Luther’s Pastoral Exegesis of James
• 3 James 1:16–27 in the Lutheran Postil Tradition from Anton Corvin to Simon Pauli
• 4 James 1:16–27 from Simon Musaeus to Lutheran Orthodox Preaching
• Summary Theses
• Appendix: Annotated English Translations of Luther’s Five Sermons on James (1535–1539)
• Bibliography
• Index of Persons
• Index of Subjects
• Biblical Citations