To view in English, please scroll down to the bottom.
中古時期的歐洲信徒經常徘徊在恐懼與盼望之間～懼怕地獄之火，盼望天堂之榮光。當時他們認為唯一的解脫之道就是向教會購買贖罪券，希望能藉此獲取恩澤，累積功德，彌補自己的過犯，得以與上帝和好，豁免地獄之苦。
馬丁路德對當時教會這種做法極不以為然，因此於公元1517年，在德國威丁堡大教堂門上貼了95條有關羅馬天主教會出售贖罪券教義的錯誤教導。他指出，信心是啟動稱義和成聖的鑰匙～得救不在乎行為，而是透過信心得以成就的。神會因為基督的緣故，視我們的不義為完全的義，視我們的罪為無罪。馬丁路德這項舉動，使他成為最有名的宗教改革先鋒。他從此將羅馬天主教分裂出來形成新教，並成為路德會（或作信義會）教派的創始人。
雖然這位偉大的改革家積極提倡信徒們回歸聖經的教導，但令人吃驚的是他的理論似乎跟聖經裡的雅各書有直接的衝突。雅各書二章26很清楚的說：「沒有行為的信心是死的」，這與馬丁路德「因信稱義」之講法是明顯的對立。
基督教界傳統上大致都認為雅各是耶穌同母異父的兄弟（見馬太福音13:55；馬可福音6:3），他可算是一扇窺探早期基督教形式的窗口。當年基督教與猶太教和諧相處，並未像後來那樣清晰地被區分開來。也因為這樣，雅各書的教導經常被認為太 “猶太化了”。他之著重“舊”約的教義與遵守誡命，不僅呼應了猶太人的信仰，而且進一步博得了他們的尊重。因此，雅各書信內容引起了一些教會教義的爭議是可想而知。有些人，包括馬丁路德在內，甚至認為雅各書的教導不同等於聖經其他的書信。馬丁路德雖沒有聲明雅各書必須從聖經裡刪除，但他認為這本書不宜過於強調與教導。他說：「我們應該把雅各書從學校中刪除，因為這封書信幾乎沒有實質內容。除了開頭部分，它幾乎不提“基督”這個詞。我懷疑這本書的作者可能只不過是一位略有耳聞基督教的猶太人，但對之並未有深入之了解。他可能因為察覺到基督徒對信心的重視，就特意在書信中強調個人行為與工作的重要性，以此來對抗基督教的教義。看起來這是他寫作的動機。」(摘自英譯：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. 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.)
馬丁路德晚年對猶太人的仇視是眾所皆知的。他在1543年出版了《 論猶太人和他們的謊言 》（On the Jews and Their Lies）。這本小冊子的內容所主張的反猶太主義經常被歷史學家喻用，拿來與希特勒所持的信念相媲（請參部落格：馬丁路德）。他除了反猶太人之外，他還說：「我不會把它（指雅各書）放在我的聖經裡…..雅各損毀了聖經，因此它與保羅和整本聖經相矛盾」(英譯：I will not have it (referring to book of James) in my Bible… James mangles the scriptures, and thus contradicts Paul and all of the Scriptures)；他又說：「雅各的書信可説是一封“稻草的書信”……因為它不帶有福音的特質。」(英譯： St. James’ epistle is a real epistle of straw… for it has no evangelical way about it.)
馬丁路德將雅各比喻為稻草，可能是引用哥林多前書3:10-15。 在此，保羅對哥林多教會說：「我照神所給我的恩，好像一個聰明的工頭立好了根基，有別人在上面建造，只是各人要謹慎怎樣在上面建造。因為那已經立好的根基就是耶穌基督，此外沒有人能立別的根基。 若有人用金、銀、寶石、草、木、禾秸在這根基上建造，各人的工程必然顯露；因為那日子要將它表明出來，有火發現，這火要試驗各人的工程怎樣。人在那根基上所建造的工程若存得住，他就要得賞賜；人的工程若被燒了，他就要受虧損，自己卻要得救，雖然得救，乃像從火裡經過的一樣。」保羅在這段經節裏教導哥林多教會應該如何在基督的根基上建造工程，可能馬丁路德暗示，雅各書就像在這根基上用草、木、禾稭等，如稻草般不牢固的材料來建造一樣，無法承受火的考驗。
這麼偉大的宗教改革家，居然公開表達他對雅各書的不滿。這就提出了一個問題：是保羅反對雅各， 是反之亦然，還是馬丁路德在跟雅各唱反調？為了這個議題，學者們紛紛出面為馬丁路德“解危”。他們說，馬丁路德並不是真的把雅各書的教導當作稻草。雖然路德確實公開聲明希伯來書、雅各書、猶大書和啟示錄都屬於“具爭議性的書”，但他畢竟還是將這些書納入自己的翻譯的聖經裡，只是在他1522 年出版的「新約聖經」中，把這些書分開單獨放在整本聖經的末尾。如果他真的不願信徒們研讀雅各書，他就不可能把這本書信包括在他創立的信義會裡。學者們認為他的稻草比方只是一個寓意。雅各書是針對猶太人寫的，而保羅的書信是寫給外邦人的。他們的對象及重點都大不相同：雅各書作者鼓勵猶太人不要學外邦人忘了根，放縱自己，不遵守律法；保羅則鼓勵外邦人不要死守律法，因為律法不可能讓人得救。因此這兩者並不是衝突問題，而是平衡問題～他們教導我們應該如何在行為與信心上取得一個平衡點。換句話說，保羅書信是基督教的教義；雅各書則是基督徒生活行為的指南，他們之間的關係是互補的。用行為建立的不如信心建立的穩固，相仿，只用信心建立而導致不自制，也不會是好工程。
也有人說馬丁路德從未否定雅各書在教會中的地位。他並不是不尊重雅各書的權威，他只是把保羅的權威“排名”擺在雅各之上而已。原因如下：第一，雅各的份量不如其他的新約書作者重，更不用說跟使徒保羅相媲。第二，馬丁路德對聖經的詮釋出發點是傳福音。保羅的書信的重點都是與得救息息相關，雅各的書信內容則完全不重視人之得救與否，因此我們評論馬丁路德對雅各的排斥是不公平的。
另有人分析，馬丁路德之所以會如此做是因為他受到時代的要求與限制。為了要改革宗教，為了要推翻當時天主教買贖罪卷的黑暗行為，他必須高舉保羅的「因信稱義」，同時刻意壓制雅各書的信息。也就是說，為了強調恩典，他不可能將行為和信心的福音相提並論，他只能提倡信心的主旨，而把非主旨～「行為」擺在次位。還有，馬丁路德的目標是抗衡天主教的腐敗，如果這些人連最基本的「因信稱義」福音都不理解了， 何苦要花更多精力去介紹雅各書這本更進一層階級的書信呢？因此是在挫折之餘他才用如此語氣評論雅各書的。
最常見的講法是： 無論我們想吸取什麼知識或訊息都不應該斷章取義。不管是要了解保羅或是要評論雅各，一定要搭配整本聖經來看才會客觀。死守律法或只靠信心都是極端，綜合兩者才能在基督裡得到真自由，換句話說，靠信心得救後，自然會行善，因為真正的信心是有行動力的，連保羅都說「神為我們預備善事」（以弗所書2:8-9）
看來，為要保全馬丁路德聲譽的人可真不少。當我們尊崇一個人時，我們自然會用較正面的敘述方式來描繪他，在宗教界更是如此。其實基督教最中心的教導是不妥協的，他們最強調的就是真理～唯獨「信」耶穌才能得救。當一個宗教領袖不只推翻了錯誤腐敗的教導，還進一步將真理的釐清、陳述得一清二楚。在這種情況下，雖然他不是聖人，但他的權威和形象之高是可想而知。而讓人無法置信的是這麼德高望眾的聖經權威竟然反猶太人之外還對雅各書有意見。在這種情況下，跟隨他的基督徒有一些選擇：1.睜一隻眼閉一隻眼，選擇性的挑馬丁路德的教導。2. 幫馬丁路德辯解，找出路。3. 不信有這麼一回事。4. 接受基督教的偉人也有他缺失的事實。
所以到底有幫馬丁路德“解危”的必要嗎？
其實馬丁路德跟世上所有的人都一樣有權利去選擇自己的好惡；而跟隨他的人也同樣有權利去相信馬丁路德的選擇。但個人選擇什麼並不重要，重要的是選擇後的後果對社會、對世界、對他人的影響。若馬丁路德選擇反猶太人，這個意識間接影響到猶太人的屠殺惡行，基督徒就不該保持緘默；若馬丁路德重信心不重行為的不平衡教導，形成基督徒論斷人、自我為義的習性不健康心態：如評論行善事的佛教徒或貶低虔誠守神律法的猶太人。
我們畢竟不是馬丁路德，我們無法知道他的內心世界。不管他是什麼主張，我相信學習不要盲目崇拜宗教領袖是每個人需要學習的一大功課。上帝賜給我們每個人智慧與判斷力，希望我們用愛心去選擇那美善的事。
During the Middle Ages in Europe, believers often struggled between fear and hope—fearing the fires of hell and hoping for the glory of heaven. They believed that the only way to salvation was through purchasing indulgences from the Church. By doing so, they were hoping to receive grace, accumulate merits, atone for their sins, reconcile with God, and avoid the torments of hell.
Martin Luther vehemently opposed this practice. In 1517, he famously nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church, criticizing the Roman Catholic Church's practice on indulgences. He argued that salvation is through faith alone, not deeds, and that God, for Christ's sake, considers us righteousness.
Luther's actions made him a prominent figure in the Reformation. He broke away from the Roman Catholic Church to form Protestantism and became the founder of the Lutheran Church.
Surprisingly, as prominent as he was, Luther's views seemed to directly conflict with the book of James in the New Testament, particularly James 2:26, which states, "faith without works is dead." This was in stark contrast to Luther's doctrine of "justification by faith alone."
Christians traditionally consider James to be Jesus's half-brother, sharing the same mother (Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3). James provides a window into the early forms of Christianity. At that time, Christianity and Judaism coexisted harmoniously and were not as distinctly separated as they would become later. Consequently, James's teachings are often seen as too "Jewish" because of its emphasis on teachings of the "Old" Testament and adhering to God's commandments. His teaching resonates with Jewish faith, therefore this book earns much respect from the Jewish community. This is why the book of James often sparked controversy within church doctrine. Some people, including Martin Luther, even considered James's teachings to be of a different caliber compared to other biblical writings. While Luther did not demand the removal of James from the Bible, he suggested that it should not be overly emphasized or taught. He argued, "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. 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."
Martin Luther's later years were marked by his hostility towards Jews. In 1543, he published "On the Jews and Their Lies," a book advocating anti-Jewish ideology, often compared by historians to the beliefs held by Hitler. In addition to his anti-Jewish stance, Luther criticized the Epistle of James as damaging to the Bible, contradicting Paul and the entire scriptures. He said, "I will not have it in my Bible… James mangles the scriptures, and thus contradicts Paul and all of the Scriptures." He also referred to James as an "epistle of straw," implying it lacked the evangelical character of other New Testament writings.
Luther's analogy of straw might derive from 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, where Paul speaks about building upon the foundation of Jesus Christ using various materials, including gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw. Each person's work will be revealed and tested by fire, and only that which is enduring will be rewarded. Luther implied that James's teachings, like straw, were not solid enough to withstand such a test and therefore lacked the enduring quality of more substantial, faith-centered teachings found in other parts of the New Testament.
It's intriguing that a renowned religious figure like Luther would openly criticize the Book of James. This raises the question: is it Paul who contradicts James, James contradicts Paul, or is it actually Martin Luther who actually opposed James? To address this issue, scholars have come forward to defend Martin Luther.
Many biblical scholars say that Martin Luther did not truly regard the teachings of James as worthless straw. Although Luther considered Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation "controversial books," he still included them in his translation in his 1522 publication of the New Testament, except that these books are placed separately at the end of this Bible. If he really did not want believers to read James, he would not have included it in the canon of the Lutheran Church he established. These scholars believe Luther’s reference to straw was metaphorical. The Book of James was written for Jews, while Paul's epistles were aimed at Gentiles. Their targets and emphases were quite different: James encouraged Jews not to forget their roots and become lawless like Gentiles, while Paul urged Gentiles not to adhere rigidly to the law since salvation is not through the law. Thus, the issue is not one of conflict but of balance—teaching us how to find equilibrium between deeds and faith. In other words, while Paul's letters are doctrinal to Christianity, the Book of James serves as a guide to Christian living. Their relationship is complementary. A faith built solely on deeds is not as sturdy, and similarly, faith without self-control is not beneficial either.
Some say that Martin Luther never denied the status of the Book of James in the church. He did not disrespect the authority of James; he simply “prioritized” the authority of Paul over James. The reasons are as follows: First, the significance of James is not as profound as that of other New Testament authors, especially when compared to Apostle Paul. Second, Martin Luther's interpretation of the Bible was primarily based on evangelism. The focus of Paul's epistles is closely related to salvation, while the content of James's epistles does not emphasize the salvation of individuals. Therefore, it is unfair to criticize Luther's apparent dismissal of James.
Some argue that Martin Luther's actions were influenced by the demands and constraints of his time. To reform religion and overthrow the Catholic Church's corrupt practice of selling indulgences, he had to elevate Paul's doctrine of “justification by faith” while deliberately downplaying the message of James. In other words, to emphasize grace, he couldn't equate the gospel of faith with works; he could only prioritize faith and place “works” in a secondary position. Moreover, Luther's goal was to counter the corruption of the Catholic Church. If people couldn't grasp the basic teaching of “justification by faith,” why spend more energy introducing the more advanced teachings of James? Therefore, out of frustration, Luther commented on the Book of James in such a manner.
The most common viewpoint is that we should not take things out of context. Whether trying to understand Paul or evaluate James, it is essential to consider the entire Bible to be objective. Rigidly adhering to the law or relying solely on faith are both extremes; true freedom in Christ comes from balancing both. In other words, after being saved by faith, one will naturally do good works because genuine faith is active. Even Paul said, "God has prepared good works for us" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
It seems there are quite a few people dedicated to preserving Martin Luther's reputation. When we admire someone, we naturally put them in a more positive light, and this is especially true in the religious community. The core teaching of Christianity is uncompromising, emphasizing that salvation comes solely through faith in Jesus. A religious leader who not only overturns corrupt teachings but also clarifies and articulates the truth with great precision is bound to have a high degree of authority and respect. Although he is not perfect, his authority and reputation are remarkably high. It is surprising, however, that such a highly respected biblical authority was not only anti-Semitic but also had reservations about the Epistle of James.
In such a context, Christians who follow him have several options:
1. Turn a blind eye and selectively accept Martin Luther's teachings.
2. Defend Martin Luther and find justifications.
3. Disbelieve that such issues existed.
4. Accept that even great Christian leaders have their flaws.
Is it really necessary to "defend" Martin Luther's reputation?
Martin Luther, like everyone else, had the right to his own preferences; likewise, his followers have the right to believe in his choices. However, personal choices are less important than the consequences those choices have on society, the world, and others. If Martin Luther's anti-Semitism indirectly contributed to atrocities against Jews, Christians should not remain silent. If his unbalanced emphasis on faith over works led to judgmental and self-righteous attitudes among Christians, such as criticizing Buddhist practitioners of good deeds or belittling devout Jews who follow God's laws, then this too needs addressing.
We are not Martin Luther and cannot know his inner world. Regardless of his views, I believe it is crucial for everyone to learn not to blindly worship religious leaders. God has given each of us wisdom and discernment, hoping that we use love to choose what is good and righteous.
Comments