Luther's Anti-Semitism

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I thought these reflections and articles were well written, and the thoughts are good too. I think one mistake the modern apologists for medieval and renaissance anti-semitism make is that they forget that one cannot separate the Jewish people from their religion. An attack on their religion is an attack on them. Why? Because the victim in both cases are flesh and blood people. If you say "the Jews have a false religion- go and drive them out of your towns" as Luther said, what real difference does it make to saying "the Jews are beasts" as Chrysostom said? Either way- the Jews are attacked, slain and persecuted, essentially for their faith, which is the distinguishing mark of Jewry. I maintain that is is possible to debate religion without calling for physical harm to one's opponent. Unfortunately, Dr. Luther failed on this point, at least later in life. But, as you rightly said, he maintained that "we are beggars", and we are. The problem with Christian anti-semitism is that as it begs for mercy from God it does not show it to its neighbours. Really misses the basic teachings of Jesus.

I do agree that I am a better theologian for reading and devouring Luther's works, but I am deeply saddened and depressed when I think about how far his clarity and charity had fallen towards the end of his life. It is true, we are beggars, all.

Thanks for the reply, I think there is truth in that what you say is that both concepts do affect flesh and blood people Absolutely. But I think the distinction is still rather important to make for several reasons:
1) The first is that Luther get ideologically tied all the time to Nazi Germany. As I noted a quote of his if I am correct is on the door to the Holocaust museum. That is a false connection.
2) For Luther this was not a matter of an inherent flaw or claim to superiority, the motive is completely different. To Luther it is not about being different but being resistant and I think in his view belligerent to the Gospel. Any view that does not recognize his long held work with and towards the people of Jewish faith misses this and sees it as an ignorant hate attack. This is more I think about going way too far with ones frustration and offense in regards to faith.
3) The difference between anti-semitism and anti-Jewish is also quite important. As someone noted, to him a baptized Jew was not "Jewish" because he is not dealing with ethnicity. This is important because it actually does mean that there always was in Luther's mind, even in those late stages, an alternative to violence--namely the gospel itself. Anti-semitism--especially in its extreme forms has no solution but death, to Luther faith was a solution in itself. His outrageous and irresponsible cries for violence to them arises because he sees them avoiding this. Not advocating that style of conversion--be baptized or die (although any study of colonial Christianity in this time will show that was a standard concept in Luther's time in Christendom in general), but simply showing that such an ideology is completely different.

It is true for many people Jewish ethnicity and faith are one and the same, especially because of the role of the Abrahamic heritage in the Jewish faith, but to say they are the same is not true, proven by the fact that there are people who are ethnically Jewish but not religiously. The ability for this distinction to exist means we ought not equate the two simply because for some even many they see them as the same. This is especially true when it is clear in Luther's own writing he did not see them as the same as he speaks of baptized Jews.
So we should rightly be saddened that many suffered from both anti-judaism and anti-semitism. And understand to them they felt violence, period. But ideologically they are quite different.

 

[ContraMundum]

Thanks for the reply, I think there is truth in that what you say is that both concepts do affect flesh and blood people Absolutely.

Thanks for the well thought out response.

But I think the distinction is still rather important to make for several reasons:
1) The first is that Luther get ideologically tied all the time to Nazi Germany. As I noted a quote of his if I am correct is on the door to the Holocaust museum. That is a false connection.

I don't really know about that anymore. I used to think that, but I am (currently) of the opinion that Luther was a fair representative of the attitudes of many Germans in his day. He becomes a spokesman of sorts for those culturally hostile to the Jewish people.

This of course makes his early very pro-Jewish writings all the more powerful and notable. They swim against the tide and are courageous and charitable. What happens later in this light is quite puzzling.

2) For Luther this was not a matter of an inherent flaw or claim to superiority, the motive is completely different. To Luther it is not about being different but being resistant and I think in his view belligerent to the Gospel. Any view that does not recognize his long held work with and towards the people of Jewish faith misses this and sees it as an ignorant hate attack. This is more I think about going way too far with ones frustration and offense in regards to faith.

We have to accept that his behavior towards his Jewish neighbors shows an amazing lack of Christian charity. When I read TJaTL the first time I honestly thought it was the ravings born of temper tantrum, and certainly not that of a regenerate Christian.

Luther's motives might have been to "defend the truth" as he knew it, but this begs the question- was the Gospel really under threat from a tiny population of Jewish folks who no Christian had time for anyway? I think not. I believe this was an irrational and unbalanced attack on the Jewish people cloaked in religious garb. I feel that the Gospel was really not the issue here- it was the excuse.

This is such a difficult topic. When one reads "That Jesus was born a Jew" and the wonderful things Luther said in his early career about the Jews and their culture and language, one sees a man full of Christian charity. There is literally no hint of a man that would turn vicious because his theology would be rejected. Where did this hatred come from? Did a Jew run his wagon over Luther's foot or something? It should have been no surprise that the Jewish people would reject Luther's Gospel because the Jewish rejection of the Gospel is not based on the doctrine of justification by faith alone but because the expectations of the Messiah are based on a completely different interpretation of the OT to that of the NT and so forth. For Luther to have thought that the doctrine of justification would change the Jewish mind about God's nature and the Messiah is rather naive.

I remember reading once about a theory that stated that Luther's real motive was against Jewish bankers, who rejected many of his proposals for social change. The theory stated that the Kingdom of Saxony was deep in debt to these bankers, and Luther called for an end to interest on loans from them and so forth which would have resulted in the bankers calling for immediate repayment from the state. The state therefore rejected Luther's proposal, and he in turn went on a rampage against the Jews. If this were true this would put Dr Luther fair and square in the proto-Nazi camp, eg. blaming the Jews for the woes of the nation.

3) The difference between anti-semitism and anti-Jewish is also quite important. As someone noted, to him a baptized Jew was not "Jewish" because he is not dealing with ethnicity.

Not sure I would agree here. In the renaissance a baptized Jew was compelled to strip himself of all his culture, so of course he would be considered kosher by the church (pardon the pun) To be a Christian was to be baptized into Gentile culture. We have examples of this. It's heartbreaking.

This is important because it actually does mean that there always was in Luther's mind, even in those late stages, an alternative to violence--namely the gospel itself.

I agree here. Luther most certainly believed that the Gospel would transform the world and dissolve all problems. But this is typical of many Christians (and Muslims)- "if we all agree, there will be no disagreement. Problems solved"

Anti-semitism--especially in its extreme forms has no solution but death, to Luther faith was a solution in itself. His outrageous and irresponsible cries for violence to them arises because he sees them avoiding this. Not advocating that style of conversion--be baptized or die (although any study of colonial Christianity in this time will show that was a standard concept in Luther's time in Christendom in general), but simply showing that such an ideology is completely different.

I believe you will find that anti-semitism has many forms with many proposed "solutions", not just "kill the Jews". In the middle ages we often see Jews forced to dress in special clothing or wear yellow stars of David and so forth. Muslims force Jews into dhimmitude and Christian kings were rather fond of exile as means to rid the place of Jews.

It is true for many people Jewish ethnicity and faith are one and the same, especially because of the role of the Abrahamic heritage in the Jewish faith, but to say they are the same is not true, proven by the fact that there are people who are ethnically Jewish but not religiously. The ability for this distinction to exist means we ought not equate the two simply because for some even many they see them as the same. This is especially true when it is clear in Luther's own writing he did not see them as the same as he speaks of baptized Jews.

In Jewish culture (and scripture), Judaism and being Jewish are not separated. A Jew is born Jewish and born into the religion. They may later choose not to be religious, but they will always be a Jew in the eyes of the Jewish community (if they are legally - "halachically" Jewish) Even people like myself, born Jewish but religiously Christian, are still considered Jewish by orthodox authorities. We are basically those who are said to have lost their way (like so many in the OT) and who are missing our true calling in life. That's how the devout Jews (based on the doctrines of the OT) see being Jewish.

It's a notion from the Gentile world that severs being Jewish from being a follower of the Jewish faith. As such I don't think it's fair that such a distinction be held as a universal truth.

For people like myself, being a Christian just makes me a Jew who sees the real Messiah. I would never give up my Jewish name or culture, nor my religious practices that are in harmony with the doctrines of Christ. I would have made a lousy medieval Christian. I wonder what Luther would have thought of me. I'm pretty sure I would have lived in fear of him after TJaTL, despite me being a Christian.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Not sure I would agree here. In the renaissance a baptized Jew was compelled to strip himself of all his culture, so of course he would be considered kosher by the church (pardon the pun) To be a Christian was to be baptized into Gentile culture. We have examples of this. It's heartbreaking.


I believe you will find that anti-semitism has many forms with many proposed "solutions", not just "kill the Jews". In the middle ages we often see Jews forced to dress in special clothing or wear yellow stars of David and so forth. Muslims force Jews into dhimmitude and Christian kings were rather fond of exile as means to rid the place of Jews.


For people like myself, being a Christian just makes me a Jew who sees the real Messiah. I would never give up my Jewish name or culture, nor my religious practices that are in harmony with the doctrines of Christ. I would have made a lousy medieval Christian. I wonder what Luther would have thought of me. I'm pretty sure I would have lived in fear of him after TJaTL, despite me being a Christian.

Just a few thoughts:
1) as much as the time helps us to place Luther's thought, we should not assume all thoughts of the time he shared. I'm not sure there is any evidence (I've certainly never seen any) that Luther sought to distinguish Jewish Christians from others or make them renounce their Jewish name or anything.
2) This is why forms of anti-semitism that have other solutions than death still not a good comparison. Because every one of those forms suggested a separation or distinction-visible or otherwise-of the Jewish people. Without evidence that Luther sought to do so with ethnically Jewish Christians or Jews who converted to Christianity, when some of his comments suggest otherwise I just don't know if that claim can be attributed to him.

 

[ContraMundum]

Just a few thoughts:
1) as much as the time helps us to place Luther's thought, we should not assume all thoughts of the time he shared. I'm not sure there is any evidence (I've certainly never seen any) that Luther sought to distinguish Jewish Christians from others or make them renounce their Jewish name or anything.

It was pretty much the custom of the era. It's not uncommon amongst religions for converts to take a new name. You still see it today in many cases. It was encouraged in those days to take a religious name. Likewise, to then take up a cause against one's old religion (see: Anton Margaritha for a classic example, and this guy probably helped form Luther's view of Judaism and Jews, even though he was refuted thoroughly in public debate by a Rabbi in front of Charles V which resulted in his exile- fascinating)

Even if Luther never sought to distinguish Jewish Christians from the rest, that would still miss the point to some degree. One of the objections raised by Jewish people when considering Christianity is the idea that conversion to Christianity entails the elimination of the Jewish people as a visible nation. When one becomes a Christian, one is encouraged to reject things such as circumcision, keeping Jewish festivals and so forth- things which mark the culture as well as the religious heritage. Meanwhile, when Gentiles convert, they have historically kept large portions of their culture intact, even when it seems rather strange in the light of the Gospel (consider Christmas trees, Latin, liturgical wear) Indeed, even nations have maintained liturgy in their own language, whereas a Jew was for centuries compelled to pray in Latin, or Greek, or Russian, or whatever. Ironic, no?

You often hear from Jews that the children of converts to Christianity are no longer Jewish, having completely disregarded their heritage and culture, and adopted another.

This might seem trivial to you, but there are modern examples that would break your heart. Consider American converts to Islam, a religion that claims to be universal and equal to all mankind. Before long, Dave Smith from Montana becomes Jusef Mohammed al-Ali and starts wearing the clothing of an Arab desert dweller, perhaps even the eye makeup. He learns Arabic so he can read his holy books. If he is serious he marries Sue Davis who then becomes Fatima al-Ali and they have kids named after Muslim (Arab) holy men and women. And it continues. The Smith family have lost their heritage and are no more. This goes on for 20 centuries, and if before you know it, there is no evidence that they were ever American Christians at all. Now, if the religion really was universal and equal for all cultures, then why the name, clothing and language change? Why couldn't Dave Smith stay Dave Smith and dress like he always did, apart from the little muslim hat thingy?

Apply that to the Jews who were converts to Christianity and you'll see what I mean. To give you an example, conversion to Christianity is often referred to as "finishing Hitler's work".

What I think is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the Romans who converted could keep their statues and language, then the Jews who convert should keep their holidays and language. Provided none of these things are against the Gospel, I see no problem. Yet, historically, the church has had a bias against the Jewish people (since Chyrsostom mainly) that says "assimilate or go away", while they let other nationalities bring in and maintain all kinds of customs.

2) This is why forms of anti-semitism that have other solutions than death still not a good comparison. Because every one of those forms suggested a separation or distinction-visible or otherwise-of the Jewish people. Without evidence that Luther sought to do so with ethnically Jewish Christians or Jews who converted to Christianity, when some of his comments suggest otherwise I just don't know if that claim can be attributed to him.

I don't think Luther ever sought to distinguish one Christian for another- but I see no evidence of him speaking against the practice of cultural assimilation. I'd like to find out more about that though, as this impacts the the study of Luther's theory of missiology (often considered somewhat overlooked in the Reformation)