Luther and The Protestant's Dilemma

[Eruvande]

Interesting questions. You almost persuade me.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Eru,

Thanks for your response.

Interesting questions. You almost persuade me.

Could you be more specific? Persuade you of what exactly?

God Bless You Eru, Topper

 

[Eruvande]

Well, I was coming from a position of not really paying much attention to Luther’s bad character points, but when you said…
.
’ it would seem that Luther’s teachings about and against the Jews are a good example of the “quality” of his ability to discern Christian teachings in Scripture’

It really made sense to me, and more or less persuaded me that there is a case to be made about Luther’s less than stellar attitudes and teachings. Hope that explains it

 

[Topper17]

Hi Eru,

Thanks for your response.

Well, I was coming from a position of not really paying much attention to Luther’s bad character points, but when you said…
.
’ it would seem that Luther’s teachings about and against the Jews are a good example of the “quality” of his ability to discern Christian teachings in Scripture’

It really made sense to me, and more or less persuaded me that there is a case to be made about Luther’s less than stellar attitudes and teachings. Hope that explains it

Let me see if I can flesh this out a little bit further. Protestantism in large part depends on Luther being ‘right’ to rebel against the teachings of the Catholic Church of his day. Of course he fought against the abuses that were taking place, and he was right to do so, but those abuses didn’t necessarily mean that the actual Teachings of the Church were incorrect, only that those teachings were being incorrectly practiced.

In fact, the validity of Protestantism in large part depends on whether Luther was right or wrong to deny/reject/condemn the teachings of the Church. After all, if he was actually wrong, then all of those who followed in his footsteps, are also wrong, including those who have denied/rejected/condemned HIS teachings also in setting up their own denominations.

Protestantism begins with the presumption that Luther was right to do what he did. Yet so many people never even begin to question whether Luther was right or wrong.

We have been discussing Luther’s writings and actions against the Jews and I don’ think anyone could reasonably suggest that what he recommended was “Scriptural” or in keeping with the basic tenants of Christianity. I have been told in the past that his ‘attitude’ towards the Jews was simply an aberration, an anomaly in a career in which he almost always ‘rightly interpreted’ Scripture as he corrected the errors of the Catholic Church. But as it turns out, there are quite a few issues on which we would see him as being more than a little in error and very obviously so.

Another example of these errors in interpretation or an example of a failure to understand the essence of Christianity has to do with marriage. Luther made a lot of very strange pronouncements about marriage and sexuality, but one of the oddest is the following:

“Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7:4–5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death.” Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 45, pg. 34, “The Estate of Marriage”, (1522)

Here we see in Luther’s own words that if a wife refuses her husband physical intimacy, ultimately “the civil government must compel her, or put her to death.” Honestly I cannot understand how the people could possibly have taken Luther’s teaching on marriage seriously after 1522.

Does anyone believe that Luther’s interpretation of Scripture was correct here? Has ANY Christian Theologian in history (other than Luther of course) EVER taught such a ridiculous thing? Is this the kind of person who should be trusted to correct 1500 years worth of Christian teaching, and based on nothing more substantial than his own personal interpretation of Scripture?

Luther had a lot of other really crazy things to say about marriage that have not received wide publicity, (details available upon request of course). And it isn’t exactly like the Jews and marriage were the only issues on which Luther taught some rather outrageous things.

Why is it presumed by so many that Luther was right to deny/refute/condemn so many established Christian doctrines? Why should we be asked to believe that Luther’s radical doctrines of Salvation by Faith Alone and Sola Scriptura were actually Scripturally based? If we can’t trust Luther to correctly understand Scripture about the Jews, wives, peasants, the Pope as the Antichrist, etc, etc., then why should we be asked to presume that he was right on SBFA and SS? After all, on those other ‘underreported’ teachings of Luther, didn’t he really prove that he was not a very good Scriptural Exegete?

In the case of Salvation By Faith Alone, Luther was absolutely convinced that it was to be found in Scripture, in fact ALL OVER Scripture, and yet, nobody had ever ‘noticed’ it there before. Of course, it is possible that Luther found SBFA all throughout Scripture because he really, really ‘needed’ it to be there.

Anyway Eru, the reason that each of these issues, Jews, marriage, etc, (and there are many more) are important is that each and every one of them PROVE that Luther did not correctly understand Christian Scripture. Each of them on their own could be ‘explained away’ (but only with great difficulty). But when viewed as a whole, the pattern emerges and it is not a pattern which speaks well for Luther’s ability to correctly understand Holy Scripture.

I hope that this is helpful in revealing the pattern associated with these lesser known teachings of Martin Luther.

God Bless You Eru, Topper

 

[TertiumQuid]

It really made sense to me, and more or less persuaded me that there is a case to be made about Luther’s less than stellar attitudes and teachings. Hope that explains it

Eruvande, I think your OP made a thoughtful insight when you stated, “The bible is full of men who committed gross sins, but God still used them.” I wouldn’t give that cogent point away for the following reasons:

1. Those who argue that Luther’s work is somehow nullified because of his anti-Jewish writings are putting forth an impossible standard- it is to say that one must live a life of perfection in order for their work to have validity. Many examples can be drawn from the Scriptures to prove that God uses sinful people to proclaim his truth. I would have never imagined that Peter, who walked daily with the Lord Jesus Christ, would muddle the Gospel and face correction by Paul (Galatians 2:11-21), (and also he denied Christ before the crucifixion). Solomon “offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places” (1 Kings 3:3) to appease the multiple “foreign women” he married (1 Kings 11). The most striking example is King David, whose legacy includes adultery and conspiracy to murder. Yet God used these men despite heinous sin. We could go through a number of people in the Old Testament as well. As I would stand against Peter’s denial, Solomon’s idolatry, David’s adultery and conspiracy to murder, so I would stand against Luther’s anti-Jewish writings. That a holy God chooses to use sinful men to accomplish his will is an example of his mysterious divine providence: all things work together for His glory.
2. Certainly Luther’s comments about the Jews were terrible, but they are not the deciding factor in his theology. Good Catholic scholarship typically interacts with Luther’s theology rather than attacking Luther the person, because the story of Luther’s negativity towards the Jews is really to tell the story of medieval Christianity and medieval society’s negativity towards the Jews.

Previous to Luther there were atrocities like The Strasbourg massacre (1349). Those Jews agreeing to be baptized were spared being burned alive. Even after Luther, Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) was involved in some fairly serious Jewish persecution:

“In 1553 all copies of the Talmud found in Rome were burned in public. Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) ordered measures to be taken against the Jews, and twenty-four men and one woman were burned at the stake. On July 12, 1555, he issued a bull that renewed all the oppressive medieval legislation against the Jews, excluding them from professions, limiting their financial and commercial activities, forbidding them to own real estate, and humiliating them by obliging them to wear yellow hats" [Lewis W. Spitz, The Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1985), 357].

Owen Chadwick likewise documents this: “He forced every Jew to wear a yellow hat and live in a ghetto with only one exit… He caused to be published the first Index of prohibited books… Sixtus of Siena was sent to Cremona, where there was a great Hebrew school (for the destruction of the Talmud was ordered), and reported that he had burnt a store of 12,000 volumes…. Under an Inquisition with extended powers, and a pope ready to suspect everyone, there was almost a reign of terror in the city. ‘Even if my own father were a heretic,’ said the Pope, ‘I would gather the wood to burn him’” [Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (New York: Penguin Books, 1964), 271].

1. I have friends who argue against Catholicism because of the crusades, pedophilia, a nun hitting someone in grammar school, or any number of sins committed by people who adhere to Catholicism. In my thinking, this is one of the worst ways to argue. In the same way, those Catholics who argue against Protestantism attempting to vilify Luther have no way to consistently argue for their position positively. That is, if the hierarchy of the Catholic church has done something wrong or sinful at any point in her past, then by their standard applied to Luther, the Catholic church is invalid… It works both ways.

 

[Eruvande]

That too is true. Much food for thought.

 

[JonNC]

1. Certainly Luther’s comments about the Jews were terrible, but they are not the deciding factor in his theology. Good Catholic scholarship typically interacts with Luther’s theology rather than attacking Luther the person, because the story of Luther’s negativity towards the Jews is really to tell the story of medieval Christianity and medieval society’s negativity towards the Jews.

I think that the most disturbing part of Luther’s anti-Jewish writings was that he already knew better. He wrote in “That Jesus Was Born a Jew” in 1523,

They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them.

I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs. They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that we might convert some of them. For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived.

Previous to Luther there were atrocities like The Strasbourg massacre (1349). Those Jews agreeing to be baptized were spared being burned alive. Even after Luther, Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) was involved in some fairly serious Jewish persecution:

“In 1553 all copies of the Talmud found in Rome were burned in public. Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) ordered measures to be taken against the Jews, and twenty-four men and one woman were burned at the stake. On July 12, 1555, he issued a bull that renewed all the oppressive medieval legislation against the Jews, excluding them from professions, limiting their financial and commercial activities, forbidding them to own real estate, and humiliating them by obliging them to wear yellow hats" [Lewis W. Spitz, The Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1985), 357].

The sad fact of our common history.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Eru,

That too is true. Much food for thought.

I hope that you will not allow yourself be misled. Let’s face it, it is not at all difficult to dig up incidents from Christian history which paint the Church in a negative light in regards to the Jews. What is more difficult (obviously) is staying on the subject of Luther’s actions and writings against the Jews and defending them as being something written by a Christian Theologian.

It would seem that Luther’s actual recommendations in “On the Jews and Their Lies” about what should happen to the Jews need to be posted. First though if we are to appreciate this horrific treatise, it is necessary to understand it in its historical context.

As we dig into the details of Luther’s horrific book on the Jews, we need to remember that the key question before us is whether this kind of thing could have been written by someone who should be trusted to correctly interpret Holy Scripture and trusted to diverge from established Christian doctrine.

From the Editors of Luther’s Works:

“Luther’s intent to write something like the present treatise (OTJATL) had been intimated at the conclusion of his letter Against the Sabbatarians. Later he apparently had a change of heart and resolved “to write no more either about the Jews or against them.” However, when in May, 1542, he received from his Moravian friend Count Schlick a copy of a Jewish apologetic pamphlet together with a request that he refute it, Luther decided to break his silence; and once he put pen to paper, the full force of his accumulated wrath burst forth.” LW, Vol. 47, pg. 133

It is interesting to note that it was a secular authority who prompted the writing of this treatise, which noted biographer Richard Marius termed a “vicious book”, Marius, pg. 377.

University of Edinburgh Professor of Ecclesiastical History James Mackinnon notes: “As he proceeds from one theme to another the work grows into a perfect hurricane of invective, a blazing volcano of hatred and fury……”. Mackinnon, Luther and the Reformation, Vol. IV, pg. 199

Ever since the beginning of the of the Reformation, the political figures who protected Luther had a great deal of authority and influence over him. Unfortunately we do not have a copy of Count Schlick’s letter to Luther. However, no matter what it contained, “On the Jews and Their Lies”, was, like many other of Luther’s treatises, a complete overreaction.

Luther’s ‘feelings’ for the Jews took their ultimate form in 1543, three years before his death. In fact, he actually wrote three treatises against them in that one year, including the 60,000 word “On the Jews and Their Lies”, in which “he exhibited violent pathological hostility towards the Jews as a whole.” Herbert David Rix, “Martin Luther, The Man and the Image”, pg. 297, in a section titled “Drift into anti-Semitism”

The other two treatises were “On the Ineffable Name and on Christ’s Lineage”, and “On the Last Words of David”. “These three treatises are best understood as three parts of one major statement……the second treatise was announced in the first treatise, while the third was announced in the second.” Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 128

“’On the Jews and Their Lies” was meant to be an instruction to other Christians in four parts. (1) An exposition of the “crass follies of the Jews”,…. (2) An instruction on the correct interpretation of biblical texts, focusing on the Christ-centered exegesis of the Old Testament,…. (3) An uncritical account of some of the grossest slander against Jesus and Mary, combined with a summary of Jewish ‘lies’ and the worst medieval superstitions concerning the Jews. (4) Finally, Luther presented the now famous recommendations to secular and ecclesiastical authorities for the exclusion of the Jews from Christian civilization.” Lutheran Professor Eric Gritsch, pg. 79

With this as the necessary background I think we are ready to read the actual text of “On the Jews and Their Lies”. Again, the thing that we need to contemplate as we read Luther’s actual recommendations is whether there is any way we can conclude that Luther was correctly interpreting Scripture.

God Bless You Eru, Topper

 

[tdgesq]

With this as the necessary background I think we are ready to read the actual text of “On the Jews and Their Lies”. Again, the thing that we need to contemplate as we read Luther’s actual recommendations is whether there is any way we can conclude that Luther was correctly interpreting Scripture.

There are other ways to determine whether Luther was correctly interpreting Scripture. There are antisemitic decrees in the middle of a Catholic Ecumenical Council. Obviously we wouldn’t judge the CC’s ability to correctly interpret Scripture on that basis. What you are proposing is an apologetical deadend.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I think that the most disturbing part of Luther’s anti-Jewish writings was that he already knew better. He wrote in “That Jesus Was Born a Jew” in 1523,

I’ve done some reading into Luther’s change in attitude, often documented as slowly changing in 1536-1537. While there were reasons for his change in attitude, I don’t think they were good enough reasons for his change in attitude.

A cyber-acquaintance of mine stated something in passing on Luther’s attitude toward the Jews that I find meaningful, not only to the Luther & the Jews dispute, but to many aspects of church history:

“Let’s think about this: 500 years ago, someone demonstrates that his view of people different than himself sociologically or politically is pretty provincial and, if we can say it plainly, insulting. In every generation after him, because of his influence in general, every biographer of him points out the fault, decries it, and indicates we shouldn’t be like him. All the people who follow this guy theologically and denominationally all repudiate his faulty views, and they confessionally reject these views. His 500 years of influence are thereafter gleaned for the best of his ideas and the worst are literally called out and rejected, and reasonably-healthy churches are thereafter grown.”

Even though I’m not a Lutheran, I think this is the actual paradigm Lutheranism has followed. From my perspective, I use the same paradigm for church history, be it Chrysostom, Origen, Augustine, etc. I realize that the voices from the past often have sins and faults. The cliche is to chew the meat and spit out the bones. That’s what I do with Luther- that’s why I can read him, even while not being a Lutheran, and I can appreciate him. A good number of Catholic scholars do this as well: Lortz, Wicks, McSorley, Congar, Tavard, etc.

I use the same paradigm for those directly in my own tradition- Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, etc. I recently had a discussion with someone from my church about the dangers of Christians who have less-conservative views on creation- she was arguing they should be avoided completely- I pointed out that this would include one of the best Reformed theologians of all time- B.B. Warfield.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Eru,

As Promised - Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies”:

The first three sections of this treatise are important in that they set the tone for the last. In the buildup for his recommendations, Luther makes it very clear that he wishes people to believe the very worst of the medieval superstitions about the Jews: He “*recounted, without unequivocally accepting as true, some of the crudest charges traditionally lodged against the Jews and urged the rulers to deal exceedingly harshly with the Jews themselves and with their religion.” * Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards, “Luther’s Polemical Controversies”, pg. 203, in “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, Edited by Lutheran Dean and Professor Donald McKim

Clearly Luther wanted his readers to believe malicious rumors that even he didn’t believe, as proven by the text of OTJATL:

• “Therefore the history books often accuse them of contaminating wells, of kidnaping and piercing children, as for example at Trent, Weissensee, etc. They, of course, deny this. Whether it is true or not, I do know that they do not lack the complete, full, and ready will to do such things either secretly or openly where possible……. They do not work, and they do not earn anything from us, nor do we give or present it to them, and yet they are in possession of our money and goods and are our masters in our own country and in their exile. A thief is condemned to hang for the theft of ten florins, and if he robs anyone on the highway, he forfeits his head. But when a Jew steals and robs ten tons of gold through his usury, he is more highly esteemed than God himself.” *Luther’s Works, Vol. 47, pg. 217-8

Lutheran Professor Eric Gritsch agrees with Edwards:

“Luther repeated the worst medieval anti-Semitic lies….” Gritsch, Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism, Against His Better Judgment”, pg. 84

Even before he begins his infamous recommendations, Luther calls for Jews to be hung from the gallows.

“If they were not so stone-blind, their own vile external life would indeed convince them of the true nature of their penitence. For it abounds with witchcraft, conjuring signs, figures, and the tetragrammaton of the name, that is, with idolatry, envy, and conceit. Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security.* For a usurer is an arch-thief and a robber who should rightly be hanged on the gallows seven times higher than other thieves.”*** Luther’s Works, Vol. 47, pg. 242

** *“So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, *and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). **We are at fault in not slaying them.” ** ** Luther’s Works, Vol. 47, pg. 267

Again the questions that we need to keep in the back of our minds as we read Luther’s actual words is whether this particular man can or should be viewed as a ‘Reformer’ of the Christian Church.

It would seem that this is a good time to repost a Richard Marius comment:
**
“…….Luther’s expressions about the Jews varied over his lifetime, but it seems foolish and even immoral to seek to mitigate or explain away or cover over his prevailing hatred for the Jewish people.” **Marius, “Martin Luther, The Christian Between God and Death”, pg. 372

It would seem to be foolish to defend Luther on the Jews because the volume of evidence leaves no doubt as to Luther’s guilt. The ‘immorality’ comes in from the stain associated with attempting to defend the indefensible. This is not to say that there won’t be attempts. Lemmings to the sea and all that.

God Bless You Eru, Topper

 

[Eruvande]

Read in context, yes, it is quite, quite shocking, and scripture comes to mind about the bitter and the sweet not coming forth from the same spring.

To use my own analogy from earlier in the thread, David was not an unrepentant murderer, but Luther seems to be a convinced and determined anti-semite.

Much to think about.

 

[JonNC]

Read in context, yes, it is quite, quite shocking, and scripture comes to mind about the bitter and the sweet not coming forth from the same spring.

To use my own analogy from earlier in the thread, David was not an unrepentant murderer, but Luther seems to be a convinced and determined anti-semite.

Much to think about.

Indeed there is, and let me add a few things.

It still seems apparent that Luther was not anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is a racial bigotry. Luther’s rants against the Jews were against their faith, and more specifically, their unwillingness to convert.

Of importance also is how we understand and discuss the issue of anti-Jewish prejudice in this time frame in Europe. There seems to be, generally, at least three ways this is discussed.

1. There are anti-Catholic polemicists who are willing to blame the Catholic Church entirely, and give Luther a pass, but as his early writings show, he knew that the position of some Catholics was wrong, and he condemns it. This hypocrisy cannot be excluded. Luther may have *"repeated the worst medieval anti-Semitic lies….” *, and they may have had their source in other entities, but Luther had a choice to NOT repeat them.
2. There are anti-Luther polemicists who are intent on blaming only Luther, implying that he was worse than his Catholic contemporaries, and therefore deserves greater criticism, to the point of saying that because of this, his other teachings are to be rejected. The fact that Luther “repeated” them, means he heard them elsewhere, and sometimes that elsewhere was from members of the Catholic Church.
3. The best way to look at this (unless your goal is to score polemical points) is to recognize that this is a hideous blot on both traditions. We must learn from this, so that it is not repeated. The fact is that in many parts of the world anti-Judaism is rearing its ugly head again, and it seems a solid partnership for Lutheran and Catholics to fight against it.

I think it also unhelpful to jettison the good writings of men in those times in response to their horrible writings. Part of Lutheran teaching is that we are at once, saint and sinner. That saints (and Saints) also have writings worthy of condemnation should not be surprising. The writings worthy of condemnation should be condemned. The writings that reflect the Gospel ought to be celebrated.

Jon

 

[Eruvande]

I see what you’re saying. But for me, it was essentially about finding a discussion on Luther himself somewhat unnecessary for me - Luther himself was irrelevant to my initial Christian conversion (I had never heard of him!) and didn’t figure in my Christian walk, or my Christian convictions for many years until I discovered Reformed teachings.

The rest of the book was convincing enough without Luther, but I appreciate that for some, it’s not irrelevant at all, so, in essence, I stand corrected.

 

[TertiumQuid]

I see what you’re saying. But for me, it was essentially about finding a discussion on Luther himself somewhat unnecessary for me - Luther himself was irrelevant to my initial Christian conversion (I had never heard of him!) and didn’t figure in my Christian walk, or my Christian convictions for many years until I discovered Reformed teachings. The rest of the book was convincing enough without Luther, but I appreciate that for some, it’s not irrelevant at all, so, in essence, I stand corrected.

From my perspective as someone who is still a dedicated Protestant,* Luther himself* is still irrelevant to my initial and subsequent Christian conversion. Luther is just one other voice from church history. The paradigm that suggests that without Luther, there would be no* sola fide* or sola scriptura , or no… whatever… just doesn’t work. The Reformation happened for a number of reasons, some socio-political, some doctrinal.

Of interest to your questions is this post from another Catholic Answers member. I particularly find this part well stated:

I wonder at the idea that if they show that Martin Luther is so bad, they will then become Catholic. This is certainly a negative tactic that suggests that those pursuing this agenda really have no better arguments for Catholicism than that Luther was bad, so therefore Lutherans should become Catholic. I find this extremely unconvincing. Isn’t there anything good in Catholicism? Did these Luther-bashers really become Catholic because they took a dislike to Luther? That is like preferring God to Satan because you don’t like Satan - never mind what God is like. Faint praise, there.

 

[TertiumQuid]

1. There are anti-Catholic polemicists who are willing to blame the Catholic Church entirely, and give Luther a pass, but as his early writings show, he knew that the position of some Catholics was wrong, and he condemns it. This hypocrisy cannot be excluded. Luther may have *"repeated the worst medieval anti-Semitic lies….” *, and they may have had their source in other entities, but Luther had a choice to NOT repeat them.
2. There are anti-Luther polemicists who are intent on blaming only Luther, implying that he was worse than his Catholic contemporaries, and therefore deserves greater criticism, to the point of saying that because of this, his other teachings are to be rejected. The fact that Luther “repeated” them, means he heard them elsewhere, and sometimes that elsewhere was from members of the Catholic Church.
3. The best way to look at this (unless your goal is to score polemical points) is to recognize that this is a hideous blot on both traditions. We must learn from this, so that it is not repeated. The fact is that in many parts of the world anti-Judaism is rearing its ugly head again, and it seems a solid partnership for Lutheran and Catholics to fight against it.

Polemics is the right term. One of the weakest forms of argumentation is painting something from Protestant history in a grossly negative way while one’s own position has the same gross negativity. Anti-Judaism is blatant in church history, both Protestant and Catholic. The way of propaganda says, look at how bad that is! but uses smoke and mirrors to hide the same sort of bad attributes in one’s own position.

Fortunately, there appear to be Protestants and Catholics here not so easily deceived.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

It would be a fallacy to reject all of Protestantism because Martin Luther was an antisemite. But it is not as if he had no other flaws. In view of his writings as a whole, he comes across as a lunatic. And most Protestants (at least the ones that I know apparently) do not have a very nuanced view of him. He is the saintly monk who read the Bible for the first time in history, discovered sola fide, and freed the masses from having to buy their way out of hell from the wicked Tetzel. He is an abstract icon of anti-Catholicism, and not the actual man who lived and wrote.

On the other hand, I agree that Protestantism would exist without Luther. Wycliffe seems like he would have fit in pretty well with the Reformers. When you deny the authority of the Church and the efficacy of the sacraments, it is natural that you will fall back on Scripture alone (what’s left of the Scriptures anyway), which you can insist says whatever you want it to say, and your faith alone (or whatever you now say the faith is). St. Francis de Sales has a section in his book, The Catholic Controversy, in which he shows similarities in doctrine between the Reformers and ancient heretics.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Indeed there is, and let me add a few things.

It still seems apparent that Luther was not anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is a racial bigotry. Luther’s rants against the Jews were against their faith, and more specifically, their unwillingness to convert.

Of importance also is how we understand and discuss the issue of anti-Jewish prejudice in this time frame in Europe. There seems to be, generally, at least three ways this is discussed.

1. There are anti-Catholic polemicists who are willing to blame the Catholic Church entirely, and give Luther a pass, but as his early writings show, he knew that the position of some Catholics was wrong, and he condemns it. This hypocrisy cannot be excluded. Luther may have *"repeated the worst medieval anti-Semitic lies….” *, and they may have had their source in other entities, but Luther had a choice to NOT repeat them.
2. There are anti-Luther polemicists who are intent on blaming only Luther, implying that he was worse than his Catholic contemporaries, and therefore deserves greater criticism, to the point of saying that because of this, his other teachings are to be rejected. The fact that Luther “repeated” them, means he heard them elsewhere, and sometimes that elsewhere was from members of the Catholic Church.
3. The best way to look at this (unless your goal is to score polemical points) is to recognize that this is a hideous blot on both traditions. We must learn from this, so that it is not repeated. The fact is that in many parts of the world anti-Judaism is rearing its ugly head again, and it seems a solid partnership for Lutheran and Catholics to fight against it.

I think it also unhelpful to jettison the good writings of men in those times in response to their horrible writings. Part of Lutheran teaching is that we are at once, saint and sinner. That saints (and Saints) also have writings worthy of condemnation should not be surprising. The writings worthy of condemnation should be condemned. The writings that reflect the Gospel ought to be celebrated.

Anti-semitism is not merely racial bigotry. It is also ethnic. So even if Luther didn’t write against the Jews on account of the shape and size of their noses, he advocated genocide against them on account of their religion. I would say that advocating genocide against the Jewish people on account of the religion particular to the Jewish people is antisemitic by any commonly understood standard. That is in addition to things like the practice of usury and the charge that Jews were lazy and didn’t want to do any real work. And it is not clear from On the Jews and Their Lies that he advocates equal treatment for Jews and gentiles as long as the Jews convert to Christianity. It comes across from my reading as though they are still second-class citizens. At least they don’t have to live in a stable anymore.

I agree with your point that Luther’s antisemitism and all his other personal faults are beside the issue. His writings should be primarily rejected because of their errors and secondly because of his rhetorical excesses. His writings that reflect the Gospel ought to be ignored in favor of better authors who don’t have so much baggage.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Eru,

Thanks for your response.

Read in context, yes, it is quite, quite shocking, and scripture comes to mind about the bitter and the sweet not coming forth from the same spring.

To use my own analogy from earlier in the thread, David was not an unrepentant murderer, but Luther seems to be a convinced and determined anti-semite.

Much to think about.

As promised, the following is the actual text where Luther made his horrendous ‘recommendations’. As you have been reading that Luther’s ‘teaching’ on the Jews is really not all that important, and that (of course) there were Catholics who were ‘just as bad’ or something very close. Neither of those things are true at all and those arguments that we have been reading will be examined in good time. For now though, it is important to note that NOT ONE Catholic Theologian made ANY of the following seven recommendations as to what should physically happen to the Jews. NOT ONE. You will read a lot of things that suggest otherwise but no actual text will be offered. If anyone would like to suggest that this or that Catholic was ‘as bad’, then let them post the quotes that support that. In addition, I would like to suggest that as the initial ‘Reformer’, a man who basically started his own version of Christianity, what Luther taught about the Jews and everything else for that matter IS worthy of scrutiny, much more scrutiny than whatever some Medieval Catholic Scholar who did NOT develop radical doctrines. With all that being said, we return to the subject of Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies”

After recommending that Jews be hung on the gallows and claiming that the fault lies with Christians for not killing them, Luther gets down to the specifics of what he thinks should be done to the Jews.

** “Finally, Luther advised secular and ecclesiastical authorities to implement a specific program against the Jews,** a middle course between conversion and vengeance, labeled ‘sharp mercy.’” (Gritsch pg. 86) Luther’s recommendations were certainly “sharp”, but the “mercy” was unfortunately similar to that which he showed his other opponents.

** “What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews?** Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing, and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat.** I shall give you my sincere advice:**

**First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, **so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly—and I myself was unaware of it—will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.” Luther’s Works, Vol. 47, pg. 268-9

** “Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.** For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
**
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.**

 

[Topper17]

**Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. **For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuternomy 17 :10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.” Thoses villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], “You are Peter,” etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.” Luther’s Works, Vol. 47, pg. 269-70
**
By “pain of loss of life and limb”, Luther is saying that if the Jewish rabbis are caught teaching the Jewish faith to Jewish people, they are to be executed. **Obviously Luther had ‘evolved’ a great deal from the time at the beginning of his career when he called for religious toleration, but then at that earlier point, he was calling for people to tolerate HIS beliefs, which is completely different than him being tolerant of the beliefs of others.

Again the question is this – How could this man be SO wrong about the Jews (along with so many other things) and have somehow been correct in his challenging of so many established Christian doctrines. In other words, what is the likelihood that Luther was simply another in a long line of heretics who THOUGHT that he was doing God’s Will, including doing God’s will in his recommendations on the Jews?

**“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. **For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I have heard it said that a rich Jew is now traveling across the country with twelve horses—his ambition is to become a Kokhba—devouring princes, lords, lands, and people with his usury, so that the great lords view it with jealous eyes. If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway legally, some day a troop may gather against them, having learned from this booklet the true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their activities. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in all their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it.” LW, Vol. 47, pg. 270

**“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, **and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause.” LW, Vol. 47, pg. 270

It should be noted that usury was a worse sin because it was the Jews who were committing it: “Although always concerned over the problem of usury….Luther became even more concerned over Jewish usury in his later years.” (Mark Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 132.) Earlier, (in 1523) Luther had recognized that the Jews had been driven to usury by Christian restrictions on how they could make a livelihood.