Replies

"No apologist can claim that Martin Luther bore his anti-Jewishness out of youthful naivete', uneducation, or out of unfounded Christianity. On the contrary, Luther in his youth expressed a great optimism about Jewish conversion to Christianity. But in his later years, Luther began to realize that the Jews would not convert to his wishes. His anti-Jewishness grew slowly over time. His logic came not from science or reason, but rather from Scripture and his Faith. His "On the Jews and Their Lies" shows remarkable study into the Bible and fanatical biblical reasoning. Luther, at age 60 wrote this dangerous "little" book at the prime of his maturity, and in full knowledge in support of his beliefs and Christianity."

"Few people today realize that Luther wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies.' (He also wrote such works like "Against the Sabbatarians.") Freethinkers should become aware of the anti-Semitic influence that Luther has brought on the world. His vehement attack on Jews and his powerful influence on the believers of the Germans has brought a new hypothesis to mind: that the Jewish holocaust, and indeed, the eliminationist form of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany may not have occurred without the influence from Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies."

"Walter Buch, the head of the Nazi Party court, admitted Luther's influence on Nazi Germany:

When Luther turned his attention to the Jews, after he completed his translation of the Bible, he left behind "on the Jews and their Lies" for posterity."
-cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

"Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held.... From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds."
-"Geist und Kampf" (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

"Hans Hinkel, a Nazi who worked in Goebbels' Reich Chamber of Culture said:

"Through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun."
-cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich

"Bernhard Rust served as Minister of Education in Nazi Germany. He wrote:

"Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance.... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp". [Schrot und Korn].
-Volkischer Beobachter, 25 Aug. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Martin Luther's dirty little book: On the Jews and their lies

GiovannaNicoletta.

I suppose one could say, since you wrote nothing of your own in this post, that you left no fingerprints on what you posted. On the other hand, due to the fact that you posted it without comment, one is left to draw one’s own conclusions about your reasons, which I will not presume to divine. But the very fact that you excerpted what you did excerpt and post from what are already self-evidently (c’mon, the site is nobeliefs.com!!!!!!!) agenda-driven excerpts does not engender in me any confidence in your scholarship or ethics.

As to the treatise, “On the Jews and their lies,” both its writing and publication were unfortunate, but sadly typical of late medieval Europe. Jews were entirely expelled from England in 1290, from France in 1394, and from Spain in 1492 with the support of the Inquisition. The various and many disparate German states began to do similarly in the 16th century. It is a sad chapter in the history of Europe from which no one emerges without some degree of guilt. You, of course, know all this, do you not?

Several things should be said about both what Luther wrote in the treatise and about Lutherans in general. First, Luther did not advocate their death. He expressly wrote: “We dare not avenge ourselves.” (Luther’s Works, vol. 47, p. 268) Second, he concluded the treatise by saying, “My Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of Him, which is eternal life. Amen.” (LW 47, p. 306) Beyond pointing out those two facts, I will not defend any of Luther’s advice to the governing authorities. Third, the very fact that he said, “dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule - if my counsel does not please you, find better advise ...” tells you something about the Lutheran doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. The church has no power of the sword. That belongs to the state. To their great credit the Lutheran princes either did not follow Luther’s advice in this or, if they took any of it, it was very little. But their decision to decline Luther’s advice did not in the end stop the growth of anti-semitism in the German states. And it certainly did nothing to reverse what had already happened in England, France, and Spain, nor would it do anything to alter the anti-semitism which was widespread in the various Slavic states farther east. As I said, this is a sad chapter in Europe’s history. No one comes out looking very good.

Lastly, official Lutheran doctrine is to be found in the Book of Concord, which in our day all pastors of the Lutheran groups in America subscribe to unconditionally ... except those of the ELCA. In it there is no endorsement of the kind of thinking behind Luther’s wrong-headed advice regarding the Jews whatsoever. One could even go so far as to say there is not even a hint of it whatsoever. It was repudiated. And it remains so to this day. Those few Lutheran-in-name-only officials of the era of the Third Reich were just that, Lutherans in name only. Naziism by its very nature is anti-Christian, even pagan. The same could be said for any of the so-called Roman Catholics in that era, they were Catholics in name only. I can be very critical of Roman Catholicism, as you and others know, but I readily state that it does not endorse persecution of the Jews, nor to my knowledge does any other reputable variant of Christendom. Thus even the attempt to brand Hitler as a Catholic is ludicrous. Whether he was Catholic at some time earlier in his life he is immaterial. As an adult he was apostate, pagan, and utterly anti-Christian.

The Lutheran bottom line is that Martin Luther too falls under the authority of the Holy Scriptures, which alone interpret themselves and determine true heavenly doctrine from false. Martin Luther was no pope, nor was he ever accepted or endorsed as such. His advice in this case was sadly and inexplicably wrong and shameful. It was rejected. That is the fuller story, brief though it is here given, that your mere quotation of the worst of the excerpts did not bother to touch on.