Was Martin Luther an Anti-Semite?

Townhall.com ^ | April 1, 2017 | Michael Browne

[Kaslin]

As we approach the 500^th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, focus will return to the leader of that movement, Martin Luther. What kind of man was he, really? More specifically, what kind of Christian was he?

At a recent conference of R. C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, panelists Stephen Nichols and W. Robert Godfrey discussed “whether Martin Luther was guilty of anti-Semitism,” and there is good reason to raise this question.

As Nichols rightly points out, in 1523, Luther reached out with kindness and humility to the Jewish people, denouncing how the Church had treated them up to now with the hope that many would become Christians. Twenty years later, when that did not happen, and when Luther, now old and sick, had been exposed to some blasphemous, anti-Jesus writings penned by Jews in past generations, he wrote his infamous document Concerning the Jews and Their Lies.

In this mini-book, he told the German princes how to deal with “this damned, rejected race of Jews.”

First, their synagogues should be set on fire...Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed....Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds...Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more...Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely for­ bidden to the Jews....Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury [charging interest on loans]....Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the ax, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle, and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses...We ought to drive the rascally lazy bones out of our system....Therefore away with them....

To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden-the Jews.

Yes, all this came from the pen of Martin Luther. (Brace yourself. There’s more to come.)

Of this despicable document, Nichols said that “Luther unleashes his rhetoric against the Jews and is very forceful in his rhetoric.” Very forceful? I’d call that a gross understatement.

Nichols continues:

Now we need to say that he was an equal opportunity offender. It wasn’t just—that rhetoric was not just reserved—for the Jews, he used the same rhetoric for the Papists, for the Anabaptists, for the nominal Christians, that he used for the Jews. But he was wrong. He spoke harshly, and I think he abused his influence that he had in speaking harshly. And so, we need to say that Luther was wrong in that. But this isn’t necessarily anti-Semitism, that’s really a 20th-century phenomenon.

Once again, I must take exception to these words, which minimize the horror of what Luther wrote.

Tragically, Adolph Hitler thought that Luther was a genius who figured out how dangerous the Jewish people were. And the date that many historians mark as the beginning of the Holocaust, Nov. 9, 1938, was the day that Hitler put Luther’s advice into practice, setting on fire and vandalizing Jewish synagogues, shops, and homes.

In that light, I cannot agree with Nichols in saying, “I think he abused his influence that he had in speaking harshly.” That, again, is a gross understatement, regardless of how ugly Luther’s rhetoric was towards other groups and regardless of how coarse the rhetoric of the day might have been. For a Christian leader, such writings must be renounced in the strongest possible terms, even with tears and wails.

Robert Godfrey, the other Ligonier panelist, commented:

Just to add one more thing . . . the one little that should be added is Luther, all his life, longed that Jews should be converted and join the church. Hitler never wanted Jews to join the Nazi party. That’s the difference between anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish. Luther wasn’t opposed to the Jews because of their blood. He was opposed to the Jews because of their religion. And he wanted them to join the Christian church. If you’re really anti-Semitic, you’re against Jews because of their blood and there’s nothing Jews can do about that. There’s not change they can make to make a difference. You’re absolutely right, Luther’s language should not be defended by us because it’s violent against the Jews. It was not against an ethnic people, as you said, but against a religion that he reacted so sharply.

Is Godfrey right? Yes and no. On the one hand, the real issue was the  Jewish religion (specifically, from Luther’s point of view, Jewish unbelief in Jesus) as opposed to being Jewish in and of itself. On the other hand, there was a fine line between the two, as historian Eric W. Gritsch pointed out in his book, Martin Luther’s Antisemitism: Against His Better Judgment.

He writes,

There is even a hint of racism in Luther when he commented on the unsubstantiated rumor that Jews killed Christian children. This crime "still shines forth from their eyes and their skin. We are at fault in not slaying them [the Jews]." Such a declaration cannot be limited to a specific historical context. It is timeless and means "death to the Jews," whether it is uttered by Luther or Adolf Hitler. Moreover, Luther himself was willing to kill "a blaspheming Jew": "I would slap his face and, if I could, fling him to the ground and, in my anger, pierce him with my sword.”

So wrote Martin Luther. And I find little comfort in the fact that he wrote about others, like the peasants, in similarly dreadful terms: “On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants, let no one have mercy, but let everyone, as he is able, hew, stab, slay, lay about him as though among mad dogs, . . . . so that peace and safety may be maintained... etc.”

Returning to Luther and the Jews, quotes like this make it difficult to separate his theological Jew-hatred from his ethnic Jew-hatred:

A Jew or a Jewish heart is as hard as stone and iron and cannot be moved by any means. . . . In sum, they are the devil’s children damned to hell . . . . We cannot even convert the majority of Christians and have to be satisfied with a small number; it is therefore even less possible to convert these children of the devil! Although there are many who derive the crazy notion from the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans that all Jews must be converted, this is not so. St. Paul meant something quite different.

As a non-Catholic, Jewish believer in Jesus, I am indebted to Luther’s positive contributions and recognize the hellacious battle he fought with corrupt traditions. But I appeal to followers and admirers of Luther today: Please do not minimize the horror of what he wrote (against the Jews and others). Please don’t downplay all this as an example of Luther having “feet of clay” (in the words of Nichols).

There is a lot of blood on those clay feet – including Jewish blood.

Let’s own it with sadness and grief. To do otherwise is to be less than honest with the memory of Martin Luther.

[af_vet_1981]

As Christians we must remember that no mere human has ever lived without dreadful, soul-damning sin -- not Paul, Peter, John, Joseph, Mary or anyone else.

False narrative; they did not end their lives hating their brethren. Your argument would be stronger if it were based on:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.

Matthew, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses twenty one to twenty three,
First John, Catholic chapter three, Protestant verses nine to nineteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[ealgeone]

False narrative; they did not end their lives hating their brethren. Your argument would be stronger if it were based on:

How do you know Luther ended his life hating his brethren?

[Always A Marine]

If Mary was without sin as some believe, then Jesus could not be her Savior because she would have had nothing to be saved from. Throughout history, God has selected mortal, sinful men to carry out his plan, and Mary was greatly favored to be the mother of Jesus. But Mary was not a goddess, and needed the same grace for her salvation that we require.

[af_vet_1981]

How do you know Luther ended his life hating his brethren?

I read his letters to his wife.

[af_vet_1981]

Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God: defend me from them that rise up against me. Deliver me from the workers of iniquity, and save me from bloody men. For, lo, they lie in wait for my soul: the mighty are gathered against me; not for my transgression, nor for my sin, O Lord. They run and prepare themselves without my fault: awake to help me, and behold. Thou therefore, O Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, awake to visit all the heathen: be not merciful to any wicked transgressors. Selah. They return at evening: they make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city. Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear? 8 But thou, O Lord, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision. Because of his strength will I wait upon thee: for God is my defence. The God of my mercy shall prevent me: God shall let me see my desire upon mine enemies. Slay them not, lest my people forget: scatter them by thy power; and bring them down, O Lord our shield. For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying which they speak. Consume them in wrath, consume them, that they may not be: and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth. Selah. And at evening let them return; and let them make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city. Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied. But I will sing of thy power; yea, I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the morning: for thou hast been my defence and refuge in the day of my trouble. Unto thee, O my strength, will I sing: for God is my defence, and the God of my mercy.

Psalms, Catholic chapter fifty nine, Protestant verses one to seventeen,

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks, Marine, for your thoughtful response.

"If Mary was without sin as some believe, then Jesus could not be her Savior because she would have had nothing to be saved from."

There are two ways to save somebody from a pit: by pulling them out, or by preventing them from falling into a pit they otherwise would have fallen into.

Mary was saved the second way, in view of her being destined to be the Mother of the Messiah: she was to be the unique and only source of His human nature (since He had only one human parent), so the human nature she passed on to him would have to be complete and unstained by corruption: unwarped by iniquity and the curse.

I can't think of another logical way to interpret the title the Archangel revealed in his greeting: Kecharitomene.

When an angel appeared to Isaiah, it was basically,"Yeah, you DO have unclean lips. If you're going to speak God's words, you need radical cleansing, you need to be purified with a burning coal." But when the Archangel came to Mary to bear the very Word of God within the intimacy of her body, building Himself literally from her substance, there was no hint of such a purification being needed. Just the opposite, he said she was Kecharitomene: the lady who has (already) been filled with grace.

"Throughout history, God has selected mortal, sinful men to carry out his plan."

Exactly true.

"Mary was not a goddess, and needed the same grace for her salvation that we require." Exactly true again. She needed grace. We believe she received it when she needed it: at the beginning of her existence, Day One of her prenatal life.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

You’re the one confusing arguments. No one can possibly refute that God desires all men to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:3-4

Note that you're using a verse and an argument that Augustine specifically addressed and refuted, thus proving my point that Augustine's position is different from the Catholic church.

Universalism is the idea everyone will be saved

You're just distorting my language to make believe I am referring to universal salvation. I am referring to the same thing your Pope is referring to here:

"Pope John Paul II: "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation." (Redemptoris Missio, n. 10).

[Rome2000]

https://quizlet.com/132039075/henry-viii-spread-of-protestant-ideas-flash-cards/

https://quizlet.com/21780225/chapter-16-4-the-spread-of-protestantism-flash-cards/

https://quizlet.com/20443111/the-spread-of-protestantism-32-flash-cards/

The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/let-my-people-go-the-catholic-church-and-slavery.html

Attempting to justify their position, they pointed out that God sanctioned slavery in the Old Testament. The Bible did not condemn slavery, they argued, so it must be all right.
http://www.christianchronicler.com/history1/slavery_and_the_churches.htm

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/03/white_social_justice_warrior_dies_at_hands_of_black_killer_.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_Christian_denominations#North_America

The Protestant Churches on Abortion:
Complex, Contradictory, and Challenging
https://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/1999/NRL199/sween.html

Who’s backing Trump and who’s for Clinton?
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/whos.backing.trump.and.whos.for.clinton.the.battle.for.evangelical.endorsements/91632.htm

[vladimir998]

“Note that you’re using a verse and an argument that Augustine specifically addressed and refuted, thus proving my point that Augustine’s position is different from the Catholic church.”

It doesn’t prove that at all. Again, the problem is not St. Augustine. It’s just how you’re viewing him. Protestants do this with Augustine all the time - they try to isolate him as if he held the same views as Protestants (which he did not).

And what you posted from John Paul II is in no way “universalist”. Notice, he does not say that everyone is saved. “Universalism” is about everyone being saved not everyone having access to grace. A man need not have free will if he is somehow foreordained to have no possibility of access whatsoever, to grace. Yet St. Augustine believed in Free Will: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1510.htm

[vladimir998]

https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-john-paul-ii-write-that-everyone-would-be-saved

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don’t even know who Tim Staples is.

Nobody (except a handful of people here at FR, it seems) thinks that flowers, and elaborate ornamentation, and the kind of ceremonial observances used at Wedding and Funeral and Military - Patriotic memorials, is the same as adoration. These thing are, rather, in line with the Greek word “Dulia “ which means honor.

We all understand that there are levels of honor, some sacred, some secular, some more solemn, some more casual. They are not all identical, but they are all in the same ball park.

We who are members of the Body of Christ are members of one another; and, like any living organism, we communicate continuously. We share spiritual goods. That is an aspect of our love for each other, in Christ, which is expressed in prayer.

Now I could understand it if you said you don’t actually believe in that “members of one body” stuff, but even if you don’t, the idea should not be that difficult to grasp.

Neither is it pitiful. All if this dulia, both sacred and secular-— expresses some precious aspects of our spiritual bonds of respect snd affection with one another.

If you think that is pitiful, I don’t understand you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Sorry, missed it. Where?

[vladimir998]

Tim Staples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2dFzuY5lPo

His brother became a priest if I recall correctly. Here’s his story if I am not mistaken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twrDAjW8JQs

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

It doesn’t prove that at all.

It's literally the exact opposite of what you're teaching. You teach salvation is available to "all" people. Augustine says it isn't, and that "all" only means "all kinds of people, the wealthy, the poor, the old," etc.

And what you posted from John Paul II is in no way “universalist”. Notice, he does not say that everyone is saved.

At this point I think you're just being intentionally obtuse.

[ealgeone]

I don’t even know who Tim Staples is.

You're not missing much. He's a Roman Catholic apologist.

We all understand that there are levels of honor, some sacred, some secular, some more solemn, some more casual. They are not all identical, but they are all in the same ball park.

However, the ones claimed by Roman Catholics that apply to Mary are not in the New Testament ballpark. Maybe one in the Vatican, but not in the NT. (Seeing how it's about to be baseball season).

What you express is a nice sentiment. However, what Roman Catholics have elevated Mary to is way beyond sentiment.

We properly express sentiment to Mary when we remember her as Luke recorded...all will count her blessed. No more no less.

Neither is it pitiful. All if this dulia, both sacred and secular-— expresses some precious aspects of our spiritual bonds of respect snd affection with one another.,

If you think that is pitiful, I don’t understand you.

The attempt to justify the idols of Mary, kneeling before the idols, the prayers to Mary, the belief a medal or piece of cloth will save or benefit you in some manner with a wedding or a picture of your earthly parents is a pitiful attempt to rationalize the Roman Catholic treatment of Mary.

I'm sorry the word pitiful hurts...but it is a very, very weak argument. Coming from you I expect a better line of reasoning.

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[Elsie]

I wonder if the Waldensians will ask for forgiveness for their heresy in the Middle Ages, their heresy in the modern era and their support for gay marriage?

---

Two men considering a religious vocation were having a conversation.

"What is similar about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders? " the one asked.

The second replied, "Well, they were both founded by Spaniards -- St. Dominic for the Dominicans, and St. Ignatius of Loyola for the Jesuits. They were also both founded to combat heresy -- the Dominicans to fight the Albigensians, and the Jesuits to fight the Protestants."

"What is different about the Jesuit and Dominican Orders?"

"Met any Albigensians lately?"

[Elsie]

If one believes the apparitions of Mary they will believe the false promises of the apparition as well.

Hey Elsie...check out the pics!

Hey EVERYONE!

Check out the promises of 'Mary'!!

---

 

---

The 15 promises

(Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan de la Roche)

1	Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces.
2.	I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.
3.	The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies
4.	It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means.
5.	The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.
6.	Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying Himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise Him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just, he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.
7.	Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church.
8.	Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise.
9.	I  shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.
10.	The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven.
11.	You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.
12.	All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.
13.	I  have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death
14.	All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ.
15.	Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

 

"The Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem,

no matter how difficult it is, wheter temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families...that cannot be solved by the Rosary.

There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary."

Sister Lucia dos Santos

[Elsie]

But we know

yup...

You post links to GOD knows who; while we post DATA directly from Catholic archives.