Luther and the Jews

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pete Williamson

Pete Williamson

Puritan Board Freshman
It seems inevitable these days that any mention of Luther results in someone pointing out, "Yeah, but what about his anti-Semitism?" I've done some reading around - primarily on the internet - and I still can't shake the feeling that Luther's views aren't being fairly represented or understood; that we're reading Luther anachronistically rather than in the context of his own time (if that makes a difference). I'm fully willing to accept that Luther was not perfect and may have even been capable of the kinds of wickedness that he's accused of, but I'm not entirely convinced by what I've seen yet.

Two questions:
1. How do you view Luther's legacy, esp. in light of his writings against the Jews?
2. What resources (books, articles, audio) have you found to be helpful on this topic?
 
1. He had the same view of the Jews as everyone in church history up to that time had, except for Peter Abelard. That's not to excuse it, of course, but it always seems like he gets singled out.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
1. He had the same view of the Jews as everyone in church history up to that time had, except for Peter Abelard. That's not to excuse it, of course, but it always seems like he gets singled out.
Click to expand...
He was a man of his times, when hatred towards the Jews as being the killers of Christ was very common, but still held views that were sinful and contrary to the scriptures.
 
Today's stalwart Lutherans are free and vocal in their strong criticism of Luther regarding his vituperative turn against the Jews.

And it was a turn, because at first in his looming-apocalyptical interpretation of world history he believed the Reformation moment was the hour of mass Jewish conversion. His disappointed frustration fueled his rhetoric. And that rhetoric was used to appalling effect, most notably by the Nazis: folk who had nothing but contempt for the theology of Luther and his religious emphases, and who were not above manipulating the masses by provoking their self-righteous sensibilities.

What people often do in an attempt to blunt Luther's harshness, is point out that it was not "racial" or "ethnic" hatred that motivated his writing. Unfortunately, this only sounds reasonable to people with a religious awareness. Because, the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming victims of the religious crusade were in some way ethnically identified.

There were Christians of Jewish extraction, and this (sometimes exclusively public) reaffiliation usually served to insulate them from hostility. But, any Jews who lived in community with their co-religionists were convenient targets, as they maintained their separate identity, customs, and (some ways) language. It's really impossible to escape the focused ethnic character of the persecution.

And in the 20th century we saw raised (out of many through time) just one colossal cenotaph to the logic of despising some group marked out as "trouble-makers" by birth. Not even Christian-Jews were exculpated by the Nazis, who weren't interested in distinctions of the mind or of the soul. Being fine scientific moderns, they classified their enemies (officially) according to the most rigorous eugenic screening they could employ. It was all very evolutionary.

If someone is determined to condemn another: who presently "identifies" in some way with Luther via the Reformation regardless of what he repudiates about Luther at the same time; then the one condemning has just committed the very sin he claims to be revolted by. He ignores the distinctions those "genetically" tied to Luther wish to make about themselves, and makes that connection an avenue by which to indelibly "taint" them with the crimes of their father.

This is the very essence of racial, ethnic, or similar prejudice; it is the claim that some guilty verdict is intergenerational and ineradicable. No man, this view asserts, may become "new" and be adopted (or adopt) an alternate association by a new federal union. The vaunted human will is powerless to make any such change; historic and genetic determinism has fixed his course. So for instance, mark the recent SJW blamefest: "whiteness."

We may be coming into days, when Jeffersonian political ideals must (according to the PC-patrol) be rejected with the man and all his influences root-and-branch, because he was a slave-owner, and a hypocrite. "Tear down his D.C. monument!" scream the all-or-nothing purity police. The Robespierrean virtue constabulary will settle for nothing less.

If the above example proves that a man's better ideals can be favored by a later generation, which is free to criticize the man for his perceived faults--then Luther may also be honored for his excellences.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
Today's stalwart Lutherans are free and vocal in their strong criticism of Luther regarding his vituperative turn against the Jews.

And it was a turn, because at first in his looming-apocalyptical interpretation of world history he believed the Reformation moment was the hour of mass Jewish conversion. His disappointed frustration fueled his rhetoric. And that rhetoric was used to appalling effect, most notably by the Nazis: folk who had nothing but contempt for the theology of Luther and his religious emphases, and who were not above manipulating the masses by provoking their self-righteous sensibilities.

What people often do in an attempt to blunt Luther's harshness, is point out that it was not "racial" or "ethnic" hatred that motivated his writing. Unfortunately, this only sounds reasonable to people with a religious awareness. Because, the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming victims of the religious crusade were in some way ethnically identified.

There were Christians of Jewish extraction, and this (sometimes exclusively public) reaffiliation usually served to insulate them from hostility. But, any Jews who lived in community with their co-religionists were convenient targets, as they maintained their separate identity, customs, and (some ways) language. It's really impossible to escape the focused ethnic character of the persecution.

And in the 20th century we saw raised (out of many through time) just one colossal cenotaph to the logic of despising some group marked out as "trouble-makers" by birth. Not even Christian-Jews were exculpated by the Nazis, who weren't interested in distinctions of the mind or of the soul. Being fine scientific moderns, they classified their enemies (officially) according to the most rigorous eugenic screening they could employ. It was all very evolutionary.

If someone is determined to condemn another: who presently "identifies" in some way with Luther via the Reformation regardless of what he repudiates about Luther at the same time; then the one condemning has just committed the very sin he claims to be revolted by. He ignores the distinctions those "genetically" tied to Luther wish to make about themselves, and makes that connection an avenue by which to indelibly "taint" them with the crimes of their father.

This is the very essence of racial, ethnic, or similar prejudice; it is the claim that some guilty verdict is intergenerational and ineradicable. No man, this view asserts, may become "new" and be adopted (or adopt) an alternate association by a new federal union. The vaunted human will is powerless to make any such change; historic and genetic determinism has fixed his course. So for instance, mark the recent SJW blamefest: "whiteness."

We may be coming into days, when Jeffersonian political ideals must (according to the PC-patrol) be rejected with the man and all his influences root-and-branch, because he was a slave-owner, and a hypocrite. "Tear down his D.C. monument!" scream the all-or-nothing purity police. The Robespierrean virtue constabulary will settle for nothing less.

If the above example proves that a man's better ideals can be favored by a later generation, which is free to criticize the man for his perceived faults--then Luther may also be honored for his excellences.
Click to expand...
Luther is a perfect example that all save Jesus Himself were flawed and had areas where they fell far short of thinking and acting as God demanded from His own.
 
I could be mistaken, but I've heard references lately to Herr Luther having a shift in view about Jews: that his opposition arose in response to Christians trying to adopt OT ceremonial aspects of the law. In his enthusiastic manner, he over-corrected to include Jews as disrupters of the faith.

Sadly, the mainline US Lutherans are inviting priests into the pulpit and publicly repenting of the split with Rome :(
 
Martin Luther's views on Jews are made much of because perhaps no single person in history has left as large a body of written documentation as he. He's a colossus of a man on the world stage, so his views are an easy target.

However, what were exceptional were not his later "hateful" views, but rather his earlier more warm-hearted ones. Just about everyone in his day disliked Jews (in 1523 Luther accused the Catholics of treating the Jews unfairly, like dogs). Shortly after Luther's death, his friend and successor, Melanchthon, dialed back to Luther's earlier positions arguing for graciousness and charity to be shown to the Jews. His reward? John Eck, Luther's opponent from years before, castigated Melanchthon for being a "Jew lover."

Anyway, Luther's later comments - while shocking and reprehensible to our sensibilities - reflect the status quo of his day, and in the worldview of that time, persecuting those who deviated was what you did.
 
Ben, do you think that Luther hated the false religion of the synagogue of satan and the promotion of their false religion or was this just a unbiblical hatred of people that he was unwilling to share the gospel with?
 
BG said:
or was this just a unbiblical hatred of people that he was unwilling to share the gospel with?
Click to expand...

From my recollection, you have that backward. He hardened toward the Jews because they rejected his efforts and teachings when he reached out to them.
 
I thought that is was due to them continually rejecting Jesus as their awaited messiah, and so Luther became more and more moving towards them as being unrepentant "Christ killers?"
 
BG said:
Does anyone know how Luther treated Jews who converted to Christianity?

Just to be clear, what exactly is anti-Semitism,is it any disparaging remark about the Jewish people, is it viewing them the way God views them? I’m not exactly sure how to define it.
Click to expand...
It is when one see Jewish people as being less than fully human, as being inferior race. much the same way many here once viewed Black persons.
 
I don't know Luthers situation but, let's suppose he is talking about people who are the synagogue of Satan, is it wrong to hate these people? Is it wrong to hate the enemies of God?
 
Berean said:
You know us that well? Talk about a blanket indictment.
Click to expand...
I am so sorry about how was worded, as the part about how many here once viewed the jews and Blacks as being of an inferior race was referring to America say of the Civil War times, and NOT to ANY here on the puritan Board.
 
BG said:
I don't know Luthers situation but, let's suppose he is talking about people who are the synagogue of Satan, is it wrong to hate these people? Is it wrong to hate the enemies of God?
Click to expand...
the Synagogue of Satan was actually a Church described in revelation, so why would that be bringing into this the Jewish peoples? And the Jewish spiritual leadership was really the main opposition to the Lord Jesus, as essentially all of the saved members in the first local assemblies were pretty much all Jewish.
 
BG said:
All Jews who reject Christ are a synagogue of Satan
Click to expand...
"Synagogue of Satan" is a strong declaration, deliberately strong. Given the historical context of the creation of the designation, I'd argue that there are at least as many churches today that should wear the name "synagogue of Satan" as modern Jewish congregations.

Why do some Jews reject Christ, simply at a human level? Is it not partly on account of historic animosity between the Jewish party and the Christian? Partly due to past harshness from Christians? Is it not partly ignorance? It has been a long time, and I have to wonder whether Christians as a group, or Christian doctrine as Jewish heresy, often come up in their sermons; I suspect it is hardly common to have invective--like that of an Islamist tirade--on display.

When in Rev.2:9 & 3:9 the designation is given, it is to Christians who are suffering because of the persecuting hostility of particular Jews. It is less a doctrinal description as it is a behavioral. Yes, there is a link between beliefs, motives, and actions. But we should make a distinction between common levels of unbelief, and possession by evil spirits. Judas Iscariot was an unbeliever and apostate; but it is a strong declaration when Luke and John write that "Satan entered" him.

Jesus said that it was a special mark of hostility and resistance to the truth to declare that plain goodness was attributable to the work of demons. It takes a special kind of evil to devise murder against someone so evidently holy, so kind, so clear and truthful in speech.

So, it is inaccurate to simply declare all religious and observant Jews as those belonging to "synagogue of Satan." If it is one's habit to turn to hyperbole to describe ALL deviations in doctrine or religion as the work or agents of Satan, I think such language leaves little room for appropriate escalation of rhetoric when it is called for.

Put in context, we'd have to save this term for those who claim to follow the Torah zealously, and who exempt themselves from judgment for heinous acts of hostility and persecution that are contrary to the Law's expression; that is, we should have some evidence that certain people are under the strongest dominion or influence of Evil. Some so-called Christians might deserve such a name by extension or application.

But I suppose that run-of-the-mill legalists, cultural Jews, and any who reject Jesus as Messiah (whether poorly or accurately presented) for the many superficial reasons men in general do--even if they are Jews--do not deserve for reasons of simple identification to be classified as witting or unwitting Satanists. Let's save the term for any of and only those who precisely fit the bill.
:2cents:
 
I would agree with that, its just very unfortunate that the Nazi in Germany used some of His teaching regarding the Jews as a way to stir up hatred towards them before the Holocaust.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
"Synagogue of Satan" is a strong declaration, deliberately strong. Given the historical context of the creation of the designation, I'd argue that there are at least as many churches today that should wear the name "synagogue of Satan" as modern Jewish congregations.

Why do some Jews reject Christ, simply at a human level? Is it not partly on account of historic animosity between the Jewish party and the Christian? Partly due to past harshness from Christians? Is it not partly ignorance? It has been a long time, and I have to wonder whether Christians as a group, or Christian doctrine as Jewish heresy, often come up in their sermons; I suspect it is hardly common to have invective--like that of an Islamist tirade--on display.

When in Rev.2:9 & 3:9 the designation is given, it is to Christians who are suffering because of the persecuting hostility of particular Jews. It is less a doctrinal description as it is a behavioral. Yes, there is a link between beliefs, motives, and actions. But we should make a distinction between common levels of unbelief, and possession by evil spirits. Judas Iscariot was an unbeliever and apostate; but it is a strong declaration when Luke and John write that "Satan entered" him.

Jesus said that it was a special mark of hostility and resistance to the truth to declare that plain goodness was attributable to the work of demons. It takes a special kind of evil to devise murder against someone so evidently holy, so kind, so clear and truthful in speech.

So, it is inaccurate to simply declare all religious and observant Jews as those belonging to "synagogue of Satan." If it is one's habit to turn to hyperbole to describe ALL deviations in doctrine or religion as the work or agents of Satan, I think such language leaves little room for appropriate escalation of rhetoric when it is called for.

Put in context, we'd have to save this term for those who claim to follow the Torah zealously, and who exempt themselves from judgment for heinous acts of hostility and persecution that are contrary to the Law's expression; that is, we should have some evidence that certain people are under the strongest dominion or influence of Evil. Some so-called Christians might deserve such a name by extension or application.

But I suppose that run-of-the-mill legalists, cultural Jews, and any who reject Jesus as Messiah (whether poorly or accurately presented) for the many superficial reasons men in general do--even if they are Jews--do not deserve for reasons of simple identification to be classified as witting or unwitting Satanists. Let's save the term for any of and only those who precisely fit the bill.
:2cents:
Click to expand...
I think that the lord Himself described for us what God sees that group of people being, as any who were so spiritually blinded, that they would see killing of Jesus, or persecuting his church, as a good thing, all in "the name of God". God must also see as far worse than unbelieving jews those claiming the name of Christ, assembling together, and yet preaching/teaching a false Jesus and afalse Gospel.
 
Bruce, you are saying that all false religions are in fact satanic assemblies, right?
 
Bill,
If you believe that is the truest description of all false religion, then is that how you describe your witnessing targets when talking to them? "Hey, you know you're worshipping Satan, right?" I'm going to guess you don't. Safe bet.

OK, so this description we were given in Rev. 2&3: was that intended by the Holy Spirit to be the most essential and accurate description of every false religion? Of all Jewish synagogue worship? Or was it a particular epithet? I think so.

Is all false religion ultimately connected with the father of lies? I'll grant it. I think idolaters end up serving demons, even though they seldom aim at such service. But there is a great variety in the level of direct/indirect demonic influence.

I think it's hard to make a good case that some relatively meek or peacenik Jews, Torah observant and quite serious about trying to be personally holy and against sin as the Law defined it, who are not inclined to persecuting the church, are "satanic assemblies" by a biblical definition that all of us (in this discussion) can agree upon.

Our Confession speaks of some churches that have so degenerated the best description of them is: they've become "synagogues of Satan." That's a borrowing of the description from its original setting. It was particularly applicable to the irreformable, corrupt, and murderous (Jn.8:44; cf. 1Jn.3:12) Roman communion, which sought the literal destruction of gospel churches.

We should decide, with judicious care, which religious companies deserve such a name; and which are just wrong, which are (thankfully) not as bad as they could be, which are pathetic, and which are ridiculous. We should be glad Satan doesn't have the kind of limitless power that would let him free to make every false way an unholy temple, and every unbeliever a Gadarene demoniac.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Notthemama1984
  • Locked
Luther and the RCC
Replies
6
Views
2K
calgal
C
B
  • Locked
Luther And Calvin
Replies
16
Views
4K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
cupotea
  • Locked
Luther
Replies
6
Views
2K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
V
  • Locked
Luther and the Papal Bulls
Replies
8
Views
10K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
Scott
  • Locked
Luther the Mystic
Replies
0
Views
2K
Scott
Scott
Back
Top