Martin Luther

[Anna_Scott]

That was one of my favorite passages as a kid, mainly because I liked the idea of a big valley full of bones coming together.

Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones is a prophesy of there resurrection at the crucifixion and the Final Resurrection when Christ return and the dead will rise up again. As the Nicene Creed says, Christ is He Who “will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead.” In fact, in the Orthodox Church this passage is read on Holy Saturday during Great Lent.

The Church Fathers often taught that the two sticks Ezekiel is ordered to hold up and put together are the cross - for it was two beams of wood that made the cross. It was by this cross that the Resurrection was made possible.

The language of the everlasting covenant is similar to the language used in the prophesy in Jeremiah (which I quoted in one of my last posts), particularly when the Lord speaks of the risen “obeying His statutes.”

Byzantine_Wolf:

Your interpretation is allegorical, and it is a beautiful allegory.

As I said before, the interpretation of Ezekiel 37 has been debated for centuries.

I see the “vision” as allegory; and I see the interpretation provided in Ezekiel-- as a literal prophesy of the salvation of Israel, the Jewish people, God’s chosen people, with whom we share in the promise.

Ezekiel 37: 11Then he said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.’

This speaks of the “whole house of Israel,” who I think refers to the Jewish people, and the Gentiles who are “grafted in,” through Christ, as we are told in the NT.

Ezekiel 37: 12Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. 14And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the LORD." I Will Be Their God, They Shall Be My People

God does not speak of Israel accepting Him or believing in Him, or having faith in Him.
God says he will put His Spirit within them, and they shall live. This happens after they are resurrected. Israel is passive in this description of their salvation.

Ezekiel 37: 15The word of the LORD came to me: 16 "Son of man, take a stick[d] and write on it, ‘For Judah, and the people of Israel associated with him’; then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him.’ 17And join them one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand.

This speaks of the people of Israel associated with both Judah and Ephraim. There is a long Biblical history of the tribes and all their conflicts.

At what point in Scripture does “Judah” and “Ephraim,” cease to be historical and become symbolic of something entirely different–like the “two beams of wood that made the cross?”

The interpretation of the vision is provided in Ezekiel. So, you are “interpreting” the provided “interpretation,” meaning this vision goes from allegory to literal interpretation and back to allegory again.

The most amazing interpretation of this Scripture actually came from the LDS, who use the sticks of Judah and Ephraim as an allegorical proof of Mormonism. Though I am not in anyway comparing Mormonism to Christianity–Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant or otherwise.

Ezekiel 37: 22And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. 23 They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them from all the backslidings[f] in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Again, this is saying they will no longer be two nations and no longer divided into two kingdoms. The reference to idols, detestable things, backsliding seems to sum of the struggles of Israel. I think this is a literal reference to the whole house of Israel, including us as Gentiles.

Ezekiel 37: 28Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore."

Again, I think this is a literal sanctification of Israel.

Well, I am tired my friend.

I look forward to your comments. Though I think we will end up disagreeing. That’s O.K.

I will go back to your Jeremiah quotes.

Anna

 

[Contarini]

**I am a U.S. Citizen.

For those who claim that Martin Luther’s writing do not constitute anti-Semitism; I refer you to this link: state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf**., which will take you to* Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism Report Released by the Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, U.S. Department of State*.

Yes, but when speaking historically I, as a church historian, am more likely to listen to other historians than to contemporary government documents which are concerned with particular contemporary movements. And historians frequently make a sharp distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. The Jewish historian of early Christianity, Paula Fredriksen, makes this distinction. It’s not just some kind of Christian apologetic dodge.

Heiko Oberman, in *The Roots of Anti-Semitism, *argued that of the major early-sixteenth-century thinkers Erasmus may have been the closest to genuine anti-Semitism (even though he wasn’t particularly vitriolic in his attitude toward Jews), because Erasmus spoke disparagingly of the Old Testament on the grounds that it was “Jewish.”

Reading Luther (or Chrysostom, or even Torquemada, though he’s closer given the rules he and other Spanish inquisitors established discriminating against people of Jewish ancestry) in the light of modern anti-Semitism is anachronistic and unfair. Of course we can recognize and deplore how Luther’s rhetoric was used by Hitler. But if we want to assess Luther himself, we need to look at him in historical context. And contemporary government documents don’t help us do that.

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, but when speaking historically I, as a church historian, am more likely to listen to other historians than to contemporary government documents which are concerned with particular contemporary movements. And historians frequently make a sharp distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. The Jewish historian of early Christianity, Paula Fredriksen, makes this distinction. It’s not just some kind of Christian apologetic dodge.

Heiko Oberman, in *The Roots of Anti-Semitism, *argued that of the major early-sixteenth-century thinkers Erasmus may have been the closest to genuine anti-Semitism (even though he wasn’t particularly vitriolic in his attitude toward Jews), because Erasmus spoke disparagingly of the Old Testament on the grounds that it was “Jewish.”

Reading Luther (or Chrysostom, or even Torquemada, though he’s closer given the rules he and other Spanish inquisitors established discriminating against people of Jewish ancestry) in the light of modern anti-Semitism is anachronistic and unfair. Of course we can recognize and deplore how Luther’s rhetoric was used by Hitler. But if we want to assess Luther himself, we need to look at him in historical context. And contemporary government documents don’t help us do that.

Edwin

Edwin: It is interesting to hear your point of view as a church historian. I think you have brought very interesting points into the discussion throughout this Thread.

I do agree that contemporary government documents do not speak to Luther’s writings in historical context. Though contemporary documents and views speak to our particular point in history, are they not still a culmination of all the previous history?

As for anti-Semitism vs. anti-Judaism, isn’t this just semantics to a certain degree? So, few Jews converted to Christianity. Do you think people of Luther’s time made a clear distinction between race and beliefs, when it came to the Jewish people? Could you give me some quotes from Luther to help me understand your position on this?

The following article speaks to the issue of Anti-Semitism, Anti-Judaism, and the “culmination” effect in history.

www.holocaustchronicle.org
The Holocaust Chronicle ©2002 Publications International, Ltd.

Christian Antisemitism: holocaustchronicle.org/StaticPages/42.html

Nazi antisemitic propaganda drew inspiration from a 2000-year, anti-Jewish tradition that had been cultivated by Christian churches. The stereotyped and wholly false image of Jews as the “killers of Christ” persisted through the centuries. Desecration of the crucifix (pictured) has been another common theme.

At times, Jews were humiliated, expelled from countries, and even massacred. Forbidden from marrying Christians, Jews were forced to wear identifying clothing, restricted to certain occupations, and often segregated in certain sections of towns. Failure during the medieval period to convert Jews to Christianity resulted in greater fear, suspicion, and hatred. Caricatures depicted Jews in satanic imagery. Even more harmful was “blood libel,” charging Jews with ritual murders of Christian children. The myth circulated even into the 20th century that Jews used the blood of Christian virgins in baking matzo for Passover.

Sixteenth-century Protestant reformer Martin Luther was a virulent antisemite in his later years. Angered by the Jews’ refusal to convert, he unleashed the scathing tract On the Jews and Their Lies, depicting them as Christ killers and criminals bent on ruling the world. Luther advocated burning synagogues, schools, and homes, and driving Jews “like mad dogs out of the land.” The Nazis prominently displayed this treatise at Party rallies.

What disturbs me is that some Posts attempt to excuse Luther, claiming he was a product of his time. One could say Hitler was a product of his time, but that does not excuse his actions. Gottle of Geer made an interesting comment to that effect:

Trying to blame Hitler’s policies on his beliefs alone, & denying that those policies were made possible by the legacy of centuries of hatred for the Jews, is just not convincing; for what could he have done, if millions had not held similar views ?

In a previous Post, you stated, “First of all, it wasn’t antisemitism. It was anti-Judaism. Anti-Semitism means that you think Jews are intrinsically bad as a race. . .Luther had no such attitude. He thought that Judaism as a religion had rejected Christ and adopted a false faith in their own good works. He thought that large sections of Christianity (particularly the Papacy and most members of the monastic orders) had done the same thing.”

Luther did, as you said, target what he believed to be “false teaching” of large sections of Christianity. He called for burning of books, and was quoted as saying, “I will curse and scold the scoundrels until I go to my grave, and never shall they hear a civil word from me. I will toll them to their graves with thunder and lightning. For I am unable to pray without at the same time cursing. If I am prompted to say: ‘hallowed be Thy name’, I must add: ‘cursed, damned, outraged be the name of the papists’. If I am prompted to say: ‘Thy Kingdom come’, I must perforce add: ‘cursed, damned, destroyed must be the papacy.’ Indeed I pray thus orally every day and in my heart without intermission” (Sammtl. W., XXV, 108).

Even with such terrible words, did he advocate the same penalty for those of “false faith” in Christianity, as he did for the “false faith” he attributed to the Jewish people? I have not read all of Luther’s writings. Since, you are a church historian, please shed some light on this.

 

[Contarini]

As for anti-Semitism vs. anti-Judaism, isn’t this just semantics to a certain degree? So, few Jews converted to Christianity.

Relatively few, but still a significant number. In fact, it was often converted Jews (alas) who were the most virulent in advocating the destruction of Jewish books and things like that. (One of the big controversies right around the time Luther got started was between a converted Jew, Pfefferkorn, who wanted to destroy Jewish books and a scholar named Reuchlin who wanted to preserve them so Christians could study them. Humanist scholars at the time tended to identify this controversy with the controversy over Luther’s ideas, seeing both Luther and Reuchlin as defenders of theological inquiry and critics of hide-bound dogmatism. This of course is ironic given that Luther would later advocate many of the same things as Pfefferkorn.)

Do you think people of Luther’s time made a clear distinction between race and beliefs, when it came to the Jewish people?

Well, that’s a difficult question, since some scholars would argue that “race” is an anachronistic concept applied to the 16th century. I’m not sure that’s true, given the restrictions that the Spanish (for instance) put on Christians of Jewish ancestry. Certainly the two ideas flowed into each other. But I’d say that they were still distinct, and just because the Spanish came up with a doctrine of “pure blood” doesn’t mean that other anti-Jewish Christians held the same attitudes.

Could you give me some quotes from Luther to help me understand your position on this?

Well, we could start with the infamous “On the Jews and their Lies” itself. One of the basic “lies” Luther ascribes to the Jews is the claim that they are superior to other people because of their “noble birth.” I can’t quote the entire passage here, but I’ll give as much as I can:

There is one thing about which they boast and pride them selves beyond measure, and that is their descent from the foremost people on earth, from Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and from the twelve patriarchs, and thus from the holy people of Israel. . . . In comparison with them and in their eyes we Gentiles (Goyim) are not human; in fact we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by them. For we are not of that high and noble blood, lineage, birth, and descent. . . . .

To be sure, before the world one person is properly accounted nobler than another by reason of his birth, or smarter than another because of his intelligence, or stronger and more handsome than another because of his body, or richer and mightier than another in view of his possessions, or better than another on account of his special virtues. For this miserable, sinful, and mortal life must be marked by such differentiation and inequality; the requirements of daily life and the preservation of government make it indispensable.
But to strut before God and boast about being so noble, so exalted, and so rich compared to other people—that is devilish arrogance, since every birth according to the flesh is condemned before him without exception in the aforementioned verse, if his covenant and word do not come to the rescue once again and create a new and different birth, quite different from the old, first birth. So if the Jews boast in their prayer before God and glory in the fact that they are the patriarchs’ noble blood, lineage, and children, and that he should regard them and be gracious to them in view of this, while they condemn the Gentiles as ignoble and not of their blood, my dear man, what do you suppose such a prayer will achieve? This is what it will achieve: Even if the Jews were as holy as their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob themselves, yes, even if they were angels in heaven, on account of such a prayer they would have to be hurled into the abyss of hell. How much less will such prayers deliver them from their exile and return them to Jerusalem!
For what does such devilish, arrogant prayer do other than to give God’s word the lie. . .
Oh, what do we poor muck-worms, maggots, stench, and filth presume to boast of before him who is the God and Creator of heaven and earth, who made us out of dirt and out of nothing! And as far as our nature, birth, and essence are concerned, we are but dirt and nothing in his eyes; all that we are and have comes from his grace and his rich mercy.
Abraham was no doubt even nobler than the Jews, since as we pointed out above, he was descended from the noblest patriarch, Noah *. . . *and yet this did not in the least aid him in being numbered among God’s people. No, he was idolatrous, and he would have remained under condemnation if God’s word had not called him. . . .
Even later, after he had been called and sanctified through God’s word and through faith, according to Genesis 15, Abraham did not boast of his birth or of his virtues. When he spoke with God (Genesis 18) he did not say: “Look how noble I am, born from Noah and the holy patriarchs, and descended from your holy nation,” nor did he say, “How pious and holy I am in comparison with other people!” No, he said, “Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes” [Gen. 18:27]. This is, indeed, how a creature must speak to its Creator, not for getting what it is before him and how it is regarded by him. For that is what God said of Adam and of all his children (Genesis 3:19 ), “You are dust, and to dust you shall return,” as death itself persuades us visibly and experientially, to counteract, if need be, any such foolish, vain, and vexatious presumption.
Now you can see what fine children of Abraham the Jews really are, how well they take after their father, yes, what a fine people of God they are. They boast before God of their physical birth and of the noble blood inherited from their fathers, despising all other people, although God regards them in all these respects as dust and ashes and damned by birth the same as all other heathen. . . .
Esau or Edom, as far as his physical birth is concerned, was as noble as Jacob, since he was not only the son of the same father, Isaac, and of the same mother, Rebekah, but he was also the firstborn; and primogeniture at that time conferred the highest nobility over against the other children. But what did his equal birth or even his primogeniture by virtue of which he was far nobler than Jacob benefit him? . . . But tell me, what good did his physical birth and his noble blood inherited from Abraham do him?
Someone may interpose that Esau forfeited his honor because he became evil, etc. We must rejoin, first of all, that the question at issue is whether nobility of blood in itself is so valid before God that one could thereby be or become God’s people. If it is not, why then do the Jews exalt this birth so highly before other children of men! But if it is valid, why then does God not guard it from falling? For if God regards physical birth as adequate for making the descendants of the holy patriarchs his people, he dare not let them become evil, thereby losing his people and becoming a non God. If he does, however, let them become evil, it is certain that he does not regard birth as a means of yielding or producing a people for him.
. . .
Why should so much ado be made of this? After all, if birth counts before God, I can claim to be just as noble as any Jew, yes, just as noble as Abraham himself, as David, as all the holy prophets and apostles. Nor will I owe them any thanks if they consider me just as noble as themselves before God by reason of my birth. And if God refuses to acknowledge my nobility and birth as the equal to that of Isaac, Abraham, David, and all the saints, I maintain that he is doing me an injustice and that he is not a fair judge. For I will not give it up and neither Abraham, David, prophets, apostles nor even an angel in heaven, shall deny me the right to boast that Noah, so far as physical birth or flesh and blood is concerned, is my true, natural ancestor, and that his wife (whoever she may have been) is my true, natural ancestress; for we are all descended, since the Deluge, from that one Noah. We did not descend from Cain, for his family perished forever in the flood together with many of the cousins, brothers-in-law, and friends of Noah.
I also boast that Japheth, Noah’s firstborn son, is my true, natural ancestor . . . Indeed, if birth is to play a role, then Japheth as the oldest son and the true heir has reason for boasting over against Shem, his younger brother, and Shem’s descendants, whether these be called Jews or Ishmaelites or Edomites. But what does physical primogeniture help the good Japheth, our ancestor? Nothing at all. Shem enjoys precedence—not by reason of birth, which would accord precedence to Japheth, but because God’s word and calling are the arbiter here.
I could go back to the beginning of the world and trace our common ancestry from Adam and Eve, later from Shem, Enoch, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; for all of these are our ancestors just as well as the Jews’, and we share equally in the honor, nobility, and fame of descent from them as do the Jews. We are their flesh and blood just the same as Abraham and all his seed are. For we were in the loins of the same holy fathers in the same measure as they were, and there is no difference whatsover with regard to birth or flesh and blood, as reason must tell us. Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools, much more absurd than the Gentiles, to boast so before God of their physical birth, though they are by reason of it no better than the Gentiles, since we both partake of one birth, one flesh and blood, from the very first, best, and holiest ancestors. Neither one can reproach or upbraid the other about some peculiarity without implicating himself at the same time.

 

[Contarini]

Clearly these are not the words of a racist. The point Luther is making is that humans of all races are condemned before God as sinners and only justified by faith. This is precisely the ground on which the Confessing Church opposed Hitler (and in fact they get criticized for this today, because they actually argued that the Nazis’ racism was “Jewish,” which made sense at the time but today seems like a monstrous example of blaming the victim). If Luther had thought that Jews were intrinsically worse than other races, here would be the perfect place to say so. But he doesn’t. He says explicitly that anyone who “reproaches or upbraids” someone else for their ancestry is pointing the finger back at himself.

The following article speaks to the issue of Anti-Semitism, Anti-Judaism, and the “culmination” effect in history.

It’s unquestionably true that anti-Judaism paved the way for anti-Semitism. My point is simply that the two things remain distinct, and I hope that the long quote from Luther above makes that clear.

What disturbs me is that some Posts attempt to excuse Luther, claiming he was a product of his time. One could say Hitler was a product of his time, but that does not excuse his actions.

First of all, you need to understand that on these boards Catholics use Luther as a stick to beat Protestants, ignoring their own legacy of anti-Judaism. The point that some of us are making in response is not that Luther was guiltless, but that Luther was part of a *Catholic *culture of anti-Judaism and it’s absurd to claim that Luther’s inheritance of this attitude from late medieval Catholicism somehow discredits Protestantism *over against *Catholicism.

In the second place, the problem with many of the attacks on Luther is that they don’t hold him responsible simply for what he actually said and did but for the use Hitler made of his words centuries later. That’s completely unfair.

And finally, I think it is fair to say that someone is *less *guilty (though not innocent) when they take up vicious ideas from their culture than when they originate wicked ideas or (more often) push them farther than they had been taken before. Hitler is much less guilty than he would have been if (implausibly) he had woken up one morning in a world free of racial prejudice or hostility to Jews and decided that Jews should all be killed because he personally didn’t like them. But he is horribly guilty because he took a widespread prejudice and turned it into a deliberate and systematic program of mass murder.

So I’m not “excusing” Luther in the sense of saying that Luther is beyond criticism for the horrible things he said. But it is important to put Luther in context rather than holding him uniquely guilty, as many here want to do.

In a previous Post, you stated, “First of all, it wasn’t antisemitism. It was anti-Judaism. Anti-Semitism means that you think Jews are intrinsically bad as a race. . .Luther had no such attitude. He thought that Judaism as a religion had rejected Christ and adopted a false faith in their own good works. He thought that large sections of Christianity (particularly the Papacy and most members of the monastic orders) had done the same thing.”

Luther did, as you said, target what he believed to be “false teaching” of large sections of Christianity. He called for burning of books, and was quoted as saying, “I will curse and scold the scoundrels until I go to my grave, and never shall they hear a civil word from me. I will toll them to their graves with thunder and lightning. For I am unable to pray without at the same time cursing. If I am prompted to say: ‘hallowed be Thy name’, I must add: ‘cursed, damned, outraged be the name of the papists’. If I am prompted to say: ‘Thy Kingdom come’, I must perforce add: ‘cursed, damned, destroyed must be the papacy.’ Indeed I pray thus orally every day and in my heart without intermission” (Sammtl. W., XXV, 108).

Even with such terrible words, did he advocate the same penalty for those of “false faith” in Christianity, as he did for the “false faith” he attributed to the Jewish people? I have not read all of Luther’s writings. Since, you are a church historian, please shed some light on this.

I haven’t read all of Luther’s writings either. Maybe somebody somewhere has. But there are an awful lot of them. One wonders how Luther managed to write them all. . . .

But to your point: Luther rhetorically advocated that bishops and popes and friars be killed. Practically speaking, this wasn’t possible. I think that if members of the Catholic hierarchy and religious orders who stubbornly opposed Luther’s teaching had been reduced to a position of no more power than Jews had in Luther’s day, Luther would have advocated equally draconian measures against them, if not worse ones. It’s also important to realize that Luther did not condemn the entire medieval or contemporary “Catholic Church”–he recognized that that would saw out the limb on which he sat. Rather, he condemned (as I said) the hierarchy and religious orders and scholastic theologians.

However, the other point to bear in mind is that (as I keep saying) Luther was not advocating anything new. He was jumping on a bandwagon. So of course he was freer to make such recommendations with regard to Jews–by doing so he was showing that he was a good Christian and hated Christ’s enemies.

Edwin

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

First of all, you need to understand that on these boards Catholics use Luther as a stick to beat Protestants

I don’t Edwin I have learned a lot from the writings of Luther.

Now I have used Luther to show that there are Protestants who believe in the Real Presence and practice infant baptism for example and that people can’t generalize these beliefs as* ‘un-Biblical Catholic beliefs’*. Perhaps this is what you are referring to?

God bless you

 

[Anna_Scott]

The following has been quoted and praised by a number of different posters on CAF. In terms of this thread, I’d put it in the “miscellaneous” category:

“Telling Catholics that they aren’t perfect makes as much sense as telling fish they’re wet. We know already. Move on.”

• Fr. Philip Neri Powell, O.P., Ph.D., Church is not Wal-Mart (UPDATED).

PeterJ: I do think this is an honest and relevant quote. I could definitely apply this quote to myself, as a Protestant.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Relatively few, but still a significant number. In fact, it was often converted Jews (alas) who were the most virulent in advocating the destruction of Jewish books and things like that. (One of the big controversies right around the time Luther got started was between a converted Jew, Pfefferkorn, who wanted to destroy Jewish books and a scholar named Reuchlin who wanted to preserve them so Christians could study them. Humanist scholars at the time tended to identify this controversy with the controversy over Luther’s ideas, seeing both Luther and Reuchlin as defenders of theological inquiry and critics of hide-bound dogmatism. This of course is ironic given that Luther would later advocate many of the same things as Pfefferkorn.)
Contarini;5507401:

Well, we could start with the infamous "On the Jews and their Lies

" itself. One of the basic “lies” Luther ascribes to the Jews is the claim that they are superior to other people because of their “noble birth.”

Thank you for quoting a section of “On the Jews and their Lies” (Martin’s work that has been such a difficult issue for me.) Luther does speak about birth and ancestry, etc. He disputes what he perceives to be a claim by the Jews to be superior to other people, by “noble birth.”

So, are you saying this proves Luther was anti-Jewish as opposed to anti-Semitic?

I think arguing Luther’s views were anti-Jewish as opposed to anti-Semitic, is interesting in the context of history; but it seems inconsequential in the scheme of things. Either way, “On the Jews and Their Lies” is a despicable work, that had far reaching consequences for the Jewish people. I wonder how the Jewish people would view this conversation.

I think this quote demonstrates the blurring of Anti-Semitism & Anti-Judaism:

www.holocaustchronicle.org
The Holocaust Chronicle ©2002 Publications International, Ltd.

Christian Antisemitism:

holocaustchronicle.org/StaticPages/42.html

Nazi antisemitic propaganda drew inspiration from a 2000-year, anti-Jewish tradition that had been cultivated by Christian churches. The stereotyped and wholly false image of Jews as the “killers of Christ” persisted through the centuries. Desecration of the crucifix (pictured) has been another common theme.

At times, Jews were humiliated, expelled from countries, and even massacred. Forbidden from marrying Christians, Jews were forced to wear identifying clothing, restricted to certain occupations, and often segregated in certain sections of towns. Failure during the medieval period to convert Jews to Christianity resulted in greater fear, suspicion, and hatred. Caricatures depicted Jews in satanic imagery. Even more harmful was “blood libel,” charging Jews with ritual murders of Christian children. The myth circulated even into the 20th century that Jews used the blood of Christian virgins in baking matzo for Passover.

Sixteenth-century Protestant reformer Martin Luther was a virulent antisemite in his later years. Angered by the Jews’ refusal to convert, he unleashed the scathing tract On the Jews and Their Lies, depicting them as Christ killers and criminals bent on ruling the world. Luther advocated burning synagogues, schools, and homes, and driving Jews “like mad dogs out of the land.” The Nazis prominently displayed this treatise at Party rallies.

Regarding Luther, you stated, “. . . He thought that Judaism as a religion had rejected Christ and adopted a false faith in their own good works. He thought that large sections of Christianity (particularly the Papacy and most members of the monastic orders) had done the same thing.”

My main question for you would be: Did Luther advocate the same penalty for those of “false faith” in Christianity, as he did for the “false faith” he attributed to Judaism?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Contarini: I apologize for not reading the second half of your post before responding. You answered some of my questions in part 2. I’ll respond to your second post shortly.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

clearly these are not the words of a racist. The point luther is making is that humans of all races are condemned before god as sinners and only justified by faith. This is precisely the ground on which the confessing church opposed hitler (and in fact they get criticized for this today, because they actually argued that the nazis’ racism was “jewish,” which made sense at the time but today seems like a monstrous example of blaming the victim). If luther had thought that jews were intrinsically worse than other races, here would be the perfect place to say so. But he doesn’t. He says explicitly that anyone who “reproaches or upbraids” someone else for their ancestry is pointing the finger back at himself.

Interesting point. That is something I will consider.
contarini;5507438:

it’s unquestionably true that anti-judaism paved the way for anti-semitism. My point is simply that the two things remain distinct, and i hope that the long quote from luther above makes that clear.

I still have a difficult time seeing a clear line of distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. I think arguing Luther’s views were anti-Jewish as opposed to anti-Semitic, is interesting in the context of history; but it seems inconsequential in the scheme of things. Either way, “On the Jews and Their Lies” is a despicable work, that had far reaching consequences for the Jewish people. Though Luther would have no way of knowing that the likes of Hitler would use his writing as he did. That is both unfortunate and tragic for Luther and the way he is viewed in history.

first of all, you need to understand that on these boards catholics use luther as a stick to beat protestants, ignoring their own legacy of anti-judaism. The point that some of us are making in response is not that luther was guiltless, but that luther was part of a *catholic *

culture of anti-judaism and it’s absurd to claim that luther’s inheritance of this attitude from late medieval catholicism somehow discredits protestantism *over against *catholicism.

I understanding what you are saying here; and I think you are right.

I know there was a long-standing Catholic culture of anti-Judaism; and that Luther did inherit this attitude from late medieval Catholicism-he himself being Catholic.

in the second place, the problem with many of the attacks on luther is that they don’t hold him responsible simply for what he actually said and did but for the use hitler made of his words centuries later. That’s completely unfair.

I think you are right about this. Hitler’s use of Luther’s words centuries later continues to have a profound effect on how Luther is viewed. My own response is a perfect example.

and finally, i think it is fair to say that someone is *less *

guilty (though not innocent) when they take up vicious ideas from their culture than when they originate wicked ideas or (more often) push them farther than they had been taken before. Hitler is much less guilty than he would have been if (implausibly) he had woken up one morning in a world free of racial prejudice or hostility to jews and decided that jews should all be killed because he personally didn’t like them. But he is horribly guilty because he took a widespread prejudice and turned it into a deliberate and systematic program of mass murder.

I can see your point, but it seems to go back to the idea of sin as relative. We could all claim that our actions, sinful or not, are a product of our times. Are their degrees of guilt?

This very issue of “being a product of our times” is why I remain in the Protestant Sector. I believe in going directly to Scripture, and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, using God’s word as our measure. I believe we must follow in the footsteps of Christ, and I do not rely upon a church to define that for me. I know these words may unleash a backlash from Catholic members. But, if we all agreed, we would all be of the same religion.

so i’m not “excusing” luther in the sense of saying that luther is beyond criticism for the horrible things he said. But it is important to put luther in context rather than holding him uniquely guilty, as many here want to do.

I do not hold him as uniquely guilty, though some of my posts may have sounded that way. Luther is the topic of this Thread.

. . But to your point: Luther rhetorically advocated that bishops and popes and friars be killed. Practically speaking, this wasn’t possible. I think that if members of the catholic hierarchy and religious orders who stubbornly opposed luther’s teaching had been reduced to a position of no more power than jews had in luther’s day, luther would have advocated equally draconian measures against them, if not worse ones. It’s also important to realize that luther did not condemn the entire medieval or contemporary “catholic church”–he recognized that that would saw out the limb on which he sat. Rather, he condemned (as i said) the hierarchy and religious orders and scholastic theologians.

Your comment answers the question in my last Post: "My main question for you would be: Did Luther advocate the same penalty for those of “false faith” in Christianity, as he did for the “false faith” he attributed to Judaism?

This is a tough issue. Unfortunately, Luther is less remembered for “rhetorically advocating that bishops and popes and friars be killed;” and famous for “On the Jews and Their Lies.”

However, the other point to bear in mind is that (as i keep saying) luther was not advocating anything new. He was jumping on a bandwagon. So of course he was freer to make such recommendations with regard to jews–by doing so he was showing that he was a good christian and hated christ’s enemies.
Edwin

I cannot agree with your statements here. I do not believe showing hatred to Christ’s enemies is showing that a person is a good Christian. Is that really what you mean?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

This speaks of the “whole house of Israel,” who I think refers to the Jewish people, and the Gentiles who are “grafted in,” through Christ, as we are told in the NT.

Interestingly enough, there is no reference of anyone outside the house of Israel being included in, let alone any one being “grafted in,” in the original passage. This has to either be assumed or read into the passage. We know for certain God did not hide salvation among the Jews, for He granted salvation to those outside of Israel. What then could this mean?

As I stated before (quoting Justin Martyr as an example of early belief in this), Church Tradition has held for 2000 years (both between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches) that the new Israel is the Church, made up of both Jews and Gentiles. You may have (I think accidentally ) alluded to this near the end of your post:

I think this is a literal reference to the whole house of Israel, including us as Gentiles. [emphasis mine]

Jews and Gentiles are not separate entities in the covenant, but rather one body serving the one God. They became one body within the Church.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. [1 Corinthians 12:13]

God does not speak of Israel accepting Him or believing in Him, or having faith in Him.
God says he will put His Spirit within them, and they shall live. This happens after they are resurrected. Israel is passive in this description of their salvation.

Out of curiosity, are you Calvinist, or have a Reformed opinion of predestination? I’m simply curious, because I’ve read much from their point of view (a close friend of mine is a Reformed Baptist), and this language is similar to how they believe regarding election.

If we are to assume that even unbelieving Jews will be saved, we must review any possible theological contradictions found in the New Testament regarding salvation through Christ and the new covenant arranged on the cross, which I cited in my previous posts. To Jews (religious Jews, not ethnic), Christ crucified is a “stumbling block” (1 Cor 1:23).

We must ask ourselves, if all of Israel (which I can only assume means all Jews) will be saved, does this mean even those bad Jews will be saved? Therefore, does that mean Judas will be restored? Will Caiaphas be restored? Will those Jews who mocked Christ and never repented for it be restored? Will Jews who perform bad deeds in this life on top of denying Christ be restored? To put it plainly, will Jews who break the commandments be saved? Will God simply breathe life into them and all their past sins be forgotten?

Of course, we know that even when they had yearly Temple sacrifices the Jews were still expected to live a godly life, and follow God’s commands. Christ told the Jews, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham” (John 8:39). He then told them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me” (John 8:42), adding afterward, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father” (John 8:44). This fits in line with Saint John the Theologian’s teachings: “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?” (1 John 2:22); and, “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist…” (1 John 4:2-3) This is why when Paul speaks of Jews he often means ethnic Jews, and why he makes reference to those Jews who remained faithful to God with Elijah when he speaks of those Jews who have come to Christ (Rom 11:1-5).

This speaks of the people of Israel associated with both Judah and Ephraim. There is a long Biblical history of the tribes and all their conflicts.

At what point in Scripture does “Judah” and “Ephraim,” cease to be historical and become symbolic of something entirely different–like the “two beams of wood that made the cross?”

The interpretation of the vision is provided in Ezekiel. So, you are “interpreting” the provided “interpretation,” meaning this vision goes from allegory to literal interpretation and back to allegory again.

To respond to your question, I believe, many times in scripture, events often serve both as allegory and historical fact. This is seen many times in Isaiah, where Isaiah not only prophesies something that will become historical fact but also what will foretell Christ. The Church Fathers found this many more times in the Bible, such as the passing of command from Moses to Joshua, which they considered a Messianic prophesy. It symbolized that one cannot use only the Law (which Moses gave) but must have Grace as well (which was given by Christ). It is further emphasized when we realize Joshua’s Hebrew name (Yeshua) was also Jesus’s original Hebrew name.

To respond to your point in the last paragraph, I would not say it is an “interpretation” of an “interpretation,” but a realization of this interpretation’s fulfillment. To Orthodox, the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament, in the sense that nearly all of the Old Testament is a testimony of the coming of Christ, and the build up of God’s people to the climax that was the Resurrection. Furthermore, there is still much to be said on exegesis and understanding of scripture - after all, Christ explained both the Parable of the Tares and the Parable of the Sower, yet patristics and scholastics have written at length further on what these parables mean and Christ’s explanations mean.

The most amazing interpretation of this Scripture actually came from the LDS, who use the sticks of Judah and Ephraim as an allegorical proof of Mormonism. Though I am not in anyway comparing Mormonism to Christianity–Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant or otherwise.

Yes, two Mormons who visited me tried to pull that on me - they claim one stick is the Bible and the other is the Book of Mormon. Another case of a supposed prophesy that’s easy to destroy if you read what comes before and after.

 

[Peter_J]

“Telling Catholics that they aren’t perfect makes as much sense as telling fish they’re wet. We know already. Move on.”

• Fr. Philip Neri Powell, O.P., Ph.D., Church is not Wal-Mart (UPDATED).

PeterJ: I do think this is an honest and relevant quote. I could definitely apply this quote to myself, as a Protestant.

Anna

Thanks Anna.

Regarding your last sentence … well, I’m not entirely sure if this is what you mean, but I definitely don’t think the attitude expressed in the Fr. Powell quote is unique to Catholics. (I would be equally bothered if I heard a Methodist say “Telling Methodists that they aren’t perfect makes as much sense as telling fish they’re wet. We know already. Move on.”)

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, but when speaking historically I, as a church historian, am more likely to listen to other historians than to contemporary government documents which are concerned with particular contemporary movements. And historians frequently make a sharp distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. The Jewish historian of early Christianity, Paula Fredriksen, makes this distinction.** It’s not just some kind of Christian apologetic dodge.**

I would say that intrinsically it isn’t, but it can be used as an apologetic dodge.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

As an Orthodox, that is irrelevant to my own personal opinion, given that it came 500 years after the Schism And as someone who believes in Church Infallibility and not Papal Infallibility, I would argue again that the opinions of one church official do not constitute the opinion of the entire Church. However, I will allow the Roman Catholics apologists on this forum to deal with that. I will say, however, if you have chosen to move on from Saint John Chrysostom, I can only assume you have nothing left to talk about him.

Yes I do. If you can present to me argumentation as to how Luther’s writings weren’t antisemitic, I welcome them.

Luther’s antisemitic writings came much after his pro-Jewish writings, and I would argue even his “pro-Jewish” writings would still be found unfavorable to you (given how you reacted to Saint John Chrysostom).

It sounds like you are painting a bitter picture of events, and I agree some might take it to a certain extreme and leave things out. Yet as Anna Scott said, if you are going to write about a person’s life, or you are going to go into their personality and what they were, then you have to understand the good and bad parts of their personality. While paying attention only to the negative aspects may be seen as bashing a person, focusing only on the good aspects of a person will only be seen as sugar-coating.

Maybe a novel mixing history & time-travel & scientifiction would be the answer: SJC could be whisked into 16th-century Germany, & meet Luther - who could as a result be knocked into 4th-century Antioch. They could lead one another’s lives from then on…​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…
Ezekiel 37 (ESV):

1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD and set me down in the middle of the valley;[a] it was full of bones. 2And he led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. 3And he said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” And I answered, “O Lord GOD, you know.”

4Then he said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. 5Thus says the Lord GOD to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath** to enter you, and you shall live. 6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the LORD.”**

**7So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling,[c] and the bones came together, bone to its bone. 8And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. **

9Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.” 10So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

**11Then he said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.’ **

12Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. 14And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the LORD." I Will Be Their God, They Shall Be My People

**15The word of the LORD came to me: 16 "Son of man, take a stick[d] and write on it, ‘For Judah, and the people of Israel associated with him’; then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him.’ 17And join them one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand. **

**18And when your people say to you, ‘Will you not tell us what you mean by these?’ 19say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am about to take the stick of Joseph (that is in the hand of Ephraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with him. And I will join with it the stick of Judah,[e] and make them one stick, that they may be one in my hand. **

**20When the sticks on which you write are in your hand before their eyes, 21then say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. **

22And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. 23 They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them from all the backslidings[f] in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

…

Footnotes:

a. Ezekiel 37:1 Or plain; also verse 2
b. Ezekiel 37:5 Or spirit; also verses 6, 9, 10
c. Ezekiel 37:7 Or an earthquake (compare 3:12, 13)
d. Ezekiel 37:16 Or one piece of wood; also verses 17, 19, 20
e. Ezekiel 37:19 Hebrew And I will place them on it, the stick of Judah
f. Ezekiel 37:23 Many Hebrew manuscripts; other Hebrew manuscripts dwellings**
g. Ezekiel 37:26 Hebrew lacks in their land

I welcome all your comments on Ezekiel 37. Please don’t hold back.

Anna (Recomposed)

## Good

Compare that chapter with this from Matt.27:

• **52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; **
• 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

IMO, the passage in Matt 27 is a dramatised commentary on Ezek 37.12-13 f.: it is something like the interpretation of an apocalyptic text, in the form of history - several considerations suggest this:

• Matt does something similar in chapter 2, by giving us a dramatisation of Psalm 60 & Psalm 72 when he shows the Magi adoring Jesus as King: which makes a similar treatment of a prophetic text here, at the end of the gospel, not unlikely: structurally fitting, in fact
• This chapter of Ezekiel includes the favourite Matthean motif of Kingship, in v. 25; & in 26, a new covenant (compare “This is the new covenant in My Blood” in Matt. 26.26) - Ezekiel’s “covenant of peace”
• The sticks in Ezek 37.15-20 would be a very natural hint at the Cross with its superscription.
• The Crucifixion-Resurrection & the Gift of the Spirit seems also to be a fulfilment of Ezek 37.12-14
• Verses 9-10, 14: Jesus is the “son of man” (like Ezekiel) Who imparts the Breath-Ruach-Pneuma of God to the dead (note the Pauline echoes…); in contrast perhaps to Gen. 2.7, where the man receives the breath of life from God
• v. 22 is fulfilled in Christ the King
• verse 27 is fulfilled in Christ, in the Church, & in the Eucharist

Hope that helps http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/i...eologyweb.com/campus/images/smilies/blush.gif

 

[Peter_J]

Maybe a novel mixing history & time-travel & scientifiction would be the answer: SJC could be whisked into 16th-century Germany, & meet Luther - who could as a result be knocked into 4th-century Antioch. They could lead one another’s lives from then on…​

Sounds a little like Is There Such a Thing as “Mere Christianity”? by Peter Kreeft - a trialogue with C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther, and Thomas Aquinas. (Used to be available online; doesn’t seem to be anymore.)

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for quoting a section of “On the Jews and their Lies” (Martin’s work that has been such a difficult issue for me.) Luther does speak about birth and ancestry, etc. He disputes what he perceives to be a claim by the Jews to be superior to other people, by “noble birth.”

 

[Contarini]

I can see your point, but it seems to go back to the idea of sin as relative. We could all claim that our actions, sinful or not, are a product of our times. Are their degrees of guilt?

I certainly think that there are. However, I agree with Butterfield that it’s not that important to try to work out those degrees. We can’t read the hearts even of living people–dead ones are harder.

This very issue of “being a product of our times” is why I remain in the Protestant Sector. I believe in going directly to Scripture, and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, using God’s word as our measure.

But even if you don’t want to admit that Scripture was in many respects also a product of its times, it’s certainly true that our interpretations of Scripture are. So I don’t think this is a very helpful approach. You can’t go directly to Scripture. You can persuade yourself that you are doing so, but it’s an illusion. You always see Scripture through a lens of interpretation. “Going directly to Scripture” is going to keep you a product of your times. It’s just too easy to “tame” Scripture to our needs unless we hold ourselves accountable to the ways Christians have read Scripture throughout the centuries. (But the reverse is also true–we must allow Scripture to challenge tradition as well. And that’s one reason I am still a Protestant–of sorts–as well.)

This is a tough issue. Unfortunately, Luther is less remembered for “rhetorically advocating that bishops and popes and friars be killed;” and famous for “On the Jews and Their Lies.”

Right. But is that fair to Luther?

I cannot agree with your statements here. I do not believe showing hatred to Christ’s enemies is showing that a person is a good Christian. Is that really what you mean?

Sorry. I was speaking as a historian, describing a common attitude in Luther’s day. One of the saddest things about the sixteenth century (and perhaps about human nature generally!) is that one way Protestants could try to refute the charge of heresy was to attack (literally or rhetorically) one of the common enemies of traditional Christianity–Anabaptists, anti-Trinitarians, Jews, or Muslims. If you burn someone at the stake for denying the Trinity, can you really be such a terrible heretic yourself?

Edwin

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thanks Anna.

Regarding your last sentence … well, I’m not entirely sure if this is what you mean, but I definitely don’t think the attitude expressed in the Fr. Powell quote is unique to Catholics. (I would be equally bothered if I heard a Methodist say “Telling Methodists that they aren’t perfect makes as much sense as telling fish they’re wet. We know already. Move on.”)

I agree PeterJ.

 

[jake23]

Allot of babbling going on here!