Was Martin Luther an Anti-Semite?

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.”

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.

Re: “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”.

But Hitler’s anti-semitism was not based on Luther. The “bible” for Hitler’s anti-semitism was the ancient Roman historian Tacitus’s book “Germania”. Read “A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus’s Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich” by Christopher Krebs.

“True, but at the same time let’s waste some time by revisiting “perfecting ways of making sealing wax”.”

When “perfecting ways of making sealing wax” has a dramatic impact upon western thought I will. Until then your comment is really just silly.

“If you’re going to get worked up, I suggest starting at the present time - where so called “mainstream Christian churches” condone (and sometimes PROMOTE) homosexuality, abortion, pedophilia and - islam.”

And I would suggest that religious deviance now is rooted in religious deviance BACK THEN so to study one is to help understand the other. This is what thoughtful people do.

“When those are solved, then let’s work our way back and discuss what shaped some guy’s attitudes 500 years ago.”

You can’t solve what has already happened. But you can improve your understanding of it to help with things now. Any other view is a waste of time because it doesn’t take into account human nature, the need for the historical perspective or common sense.

Luther wrote in an early modern form of German. Acutally, his Bible translation was instrumental in forming the modern German language (as a language that could be understood by people in a large geographical area as opposed to dialects that outsiders have trouble understanding). Luther’s Bible was a great achievement in European culture and language.

The negative side of Luther is that his anti-Jewish rants were something the Nazis could easily dust off and publish for their propaganda/incitements. True, for Luther it was a religious thing while the Nazis believed in a bizarre, racist pseudo-science. But words like “burn down their synagogues” obviously meant exactly that - and worse things.

“But Hitler’s anti-semitism was not based on Luther. The “bible” for Hitler’s anti-semitism was the ancient Roman historian Tacitus’s book “Germania”. Read “A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus’s Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich” by Christopher Krebs.”

Hitler’s anti-semiticism was not based on just one book. And he did use Luther in any case:

https://www.amazon.com/Demonizing-Jews-Luther-Protestant-Germany/dp/0253001005

http://scholarship.rollins.edu/mls/20/

http://ww2f.com/threads/sch%C3%B6nerer-hitlers-forerunner.44289/

“I was rather astonished that Georg Ritter von Schönerer, the Nazi forerunner, has never been mentioned at this forum. He was the »Fuhrer’s Fuhrer«. Understanding the Schönerians is fundamental for understading the Nazi movement.

Hitler’s compatriot, born in 1842 in Vienna, pan-German, anti-Slav, anti-Semite, anti-Catholic, Schönerer had significant influence on Austrian and German political thought of the late 19th century. He initiated the climate of hatred and intolerance that Hitler drove to the climax about twenty years later.”

Excellent article by Michael Brown. It has always been heartbreaking to read these hateful, late-life works of a man whom God used so powerfully in his earlier life. Because these evil word so sharply contradict his earlier teachings, I tend to believe they sprang from bitterness in an enfeebled mind. Regardless, these are Luther's words, they are wrong, and they must be refuted.

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. Like us, they were all sinners solely dependent upon the substitution of God's perfect lamb, Jesus Christ, who lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death in our place, and overcame the ultimate penalty of sin by his miraculous resurrection. Were we to have authored God's plan from the beginning, none of us would have chosen a single one of the key actors whom God selected. God's strength is displayed in our weakness.

Even if true has nothing to do with the truth of the reformation,. There are as many or more deitrich Bonhoeffers as nazis I note the Catholic Church did little to stand up to Hitler If you want to debate the reformation let’s do that You are wasting your time e trying to deflect from the great truths of the reformation by smearing some of its adherents I freely admit Luther had deep flaws But you see protestants don’t see their priests and leaders as infallible so it has no effect on the issues that sparked the Reformation I worship Christ not Luther

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.