Home: NTRmin.org
Martin Luther’s Attitude Toward The Jews
June 2005
-Table of Contents-
Introduction: Is
Luther Being “Whitewashed” By Protestants? :
Did the 2003 Luther movie present
Luther accurately? Why didn’t the film include his comments about the
Jews? A brief overview of the Roman Catholic
concern for Luther’s remarks on the Jews.
II. Was Luther an Anti-Semite?:
A brief overview of Luther’s 16th
century anti-Semitism, theological anti-Semitism and its differences with
modern anti-Semitism.
III. Luther’s Apocalyptic Expectation And
His Volatile Language:
Luther saw the Judgment Day quickly
approaching and his rhetoric against the Jews raised in intensity.
IV. 16th Century Anti-Jewish Roman Catholic
Theologians:
A comparison of the leading 16th
Century Roman Catholic theologian, John Eck, with Martin Luther.
V. Luther's Early Attitude Toward The Jews:
The young Luther slowly moves away from the
prevailing cultural negativity towards the Jews. An overview of Luther’s
lifelong theological opinion on the Jews.
VI. 1523: Luther's Treatise “Jesus Christ
Was Born a Jew”:
Luther goes against the prevailing anti-Jewish
sentiment of his time and writes a treatise inviting the Jews to the Christian
faith.
VII. 1537: The Josel Of Rosheim
Controversy:
After years of failure in converting the Jews,
a political request from a Jewish leader marks the beginning of Luther’s
anti-Jewish attitude.
VIII. 1538: Luther's Treatise
"Against The Sabbatarians":
Luther’s first anti-Jewish writing. A review
of the theological arguments put forth.
IX. 1543: Luther's Treatise "On The
Jews And Their Lies":
Luther’s infamous anti-Jewish book. A review
of its arguments and attacks against the Jews.
X. 1543: Luther’s Treatises “On The
Ineffable Name” and “The Last Words of David”:
A brief look at Luther’s lesser-known
anti-Jewish writings.
XI. 1546:
Luther’s Last Words About The Jews:
Luther’s comments about the Jews from his
letters to his wife. An investigation of Luther’s last sermon and its
anti-Jewish exhortations.
Appendix 1: The Reaction to Luther’s Anti-Jewish
Writings:
Citations noting the reaction of Luther’s
contemporaries to his polemic against the Jews.
Appendix 2: Citing Luther Out Of Context:
Examples of inaccurate Luther citations on the
Jews.
Endnotes: Bibliographic material and interaction
with various anti-Luther writers and Catholic apologists.
*Throughout this
paper, citations from Martin Luther will be in blue.*
Introduction: Is Luther Being “Whitewashed”
By Protestants?
The 2003 Luther movie
portrayed the young Reformer valiantly battling the injustices of the sixteenth
century Roman Catholic Church. Catholic criticism of the film said this
depiction of Luther was severely one-sided. One Catholic review said the film “conveniently
shies away from any unflattering facts that would cast Luther in an unfavorable
light…”[1] Said one
Catholic apologist, “The ‘Luther-as-always-the-noble-hero-and
slayer-of-hopelessly-corrupt-Rome-Babylon’ myth, however, also holds that he
was the champion of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, for men to
worship as they please. This is simply not true…”[2] This
author then goes on to point out many of Luther’s less-than-tolerant
attributes, including Luther’s negative statements about the Jews. He quotes
Luther as saying:
“Let their houses also be
shattered and destroyed . . . Let their prayer books and Talmuds be taken
from them, and their whole Bible too; let their rabbis be forbidden, on pain of
death, to teach henceforth any more. Let the streets and highways be closed
against them. Let them be forbidden to practice usury, and let all their money,
and all their treasures of silver and gold be taken from them and put away in
safety. And if all this be not enough, let them be driven like mad dogs out of
the land.”[3]
I suspect many would be shocked
to learn the man who said these words was also the man heroically portrayed in
the Luther movie. In discussions I have had with Roman Catholics, they
dismiss the movie because it did not mention his negativity towards the Jews.[4] They
argue, “how could a movie claiming to present a hero of freedom and human
dignity neglect to mention such blatant hatred for an entire group of people?”
One must seriously question whether or not the Reformation Luther started
against the Roman Catholic Church was a movement really interested in
freedom and human dignity. Perhaps Luther has been overly romanticized: the Church he fought against really
wasn’t as bad as portrayed. Luther’s anti-Semitic statements prove
unhesitatingly he could not have been a “Reformer” in any sense of the word. A
true man of God could never say such awful things.[5]
There is an obvious answer as to why the film didn’t take Luther’s negative statements about the Jews into consideration. Luther’s negativity towards the Jews comes primarily late in his career, while the Luther movie focuses on the initial impact of the Reformation in Luther’s early career. Luther’s first “anti-Jewish” writing was Against the Sabbatarians (1538). Popularly, Luther’s career begins in 1517 with the posting of the 95 Theses. Thus, for around 20 years, Luther said little about the Jews, and what he did say was positive (when judged by the standards of popular culture of his time). Luther’s “anti-Jewish” writings span his last 8 years (1538-1546).
Even many good
biographies only focus on the first years of Luther’s career up to 1530.[6] Hence,
the Luther movie follows one of the normal patterns of biographical
presentation by ending with the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. One probably could
then argue the film should have spanned more years of Luther’s life.
However, I think the filmmakers rightly focused on the issue that thrust Luther
into the spotlight: the indulgence controversy. Secondarily, Luther’s attitude
toward the Jews is somewhat peripheral to his overall life’s work. As the largest collections of his writings show,
comparatively, very few of those pages are dedicated to his opinions on the
Jews.[7]
There is no getting
around it: in his later years, Luther did say some awful things about the
Jewish people. Where Luther was gravely mistaken, Protestants must admit his
faults. Even the editors of Luther’s Works included some of Luther’s harsh
writings against the Jews. There was no
attempt to hide the material from the public eye. They explain:
“The fact that Luther, during the last years of his life,
wrote treatises harshly condemnatory of the Jews and Judaism is rather widely
known. The treatises themselves, however, have not previously been available in
English. The publication here of the longest and most infamous of them, On
the Jews and Their Lies, will no doubt prove dismaying to many readers, not
only because it shows Luther at his least attractive, but also because of the
potential misuse of this material. The risk to Luther’s reputation is gladly
borne, since the exposure of a broader range of his writings to modern critical
judgment is an inherent purpose of this American edition. However, the thought
of possible misuse of this material, to the detriment either of the Jewish
people or of Jewish-Christian relations today, has occasioned great misgivings.
Both editor and publisher, therefore, wish to make clear at the very outset
that publication of this treatise is being undertaken only to make available
the necessary documents for scholarly study of this aspect of Luther’s thought,
which has played so fateful a role in the development of anti-Semitism in
Western culture. Such publication is in no way intended as an endorsement of
the distorted views of Jewish faith and practice or the defamation of the
Jewish people which this treatise contains.”[8]
Along with the sentiment
expressed by these editors, I likewise do not condone Luther’s anti-Jewish
writings.[9] He was
deeply wrong. I have sadness and anger towards
Luther’s later anti-Jewish writings and his generation’s treatment of the Jews.
Honest answers must be given as to why Luther said what he did, and those
answers do not completely exonerate him of anti-Semitism.
However,
before delving into those answers, one has to stop and ask some important
questions: Why do Catholics resort to bringing up Luther’s later attitudes
toward the Jews?[10]
“Why would Luther’s attitudes toward the Jews affect the accuracy of the 2003 Luther
movie? Is it because the Roman Catholic Church has a spotless record of
defending the Jews and other groups against intolerance and hatred? Are they
the watchdogs of all religious intolerance?
The answer: No, they
do not posses a spotless record of defending the minority against the majority,
nor do they have a spotless record in their relations with the Jews:
“In 1553 all copies of the Talmud found in Rome
were burned in public. Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) ordered measures to be taken
against the Jews, and twenty-four men and one woman were burned at the stake.
On July 12, 1555, he issued a bull that renewed all the oppressive medieval
legislation against the Jews, excluding them from professions, limiting their
financial and commercial activities, forbidding them to own real estate, and
humiliating them by obliging them to wear yellow hats.”[11]
Rather, Roman Catholics
try to deflect the guilt of their church’s abuses and doctrinal confusion that
Luther rightly fought against. Instead of dealing with the blatant abuses, need
for reform, and muddled theology inherent in the sixteenth century church, the
tactic is to discredit Luther by any means possible.[12]
Simply because Luther was wrong on his attitude toward the Jews does not
necessarily mean he was wrong on the need for church reform, the proclamation
of the gospel of justification by faith alone, or sola scriptura. No bona fide
Protestant argues that Luther was an infallible interpreter, divine authority,
or immaculately conceived. We realize
Luther was a man of many faults. Yet when he proclaims the gospel, he is absolutely
correct because the Bible clearly teaches it. When he speaks out against the abuses of the Roman Catholic
Church he is right because history shows this was the case. When he
makes terrible statements about the Jews, he’s not right (or wrong) because he
was somehow a Protestant pope or the originator of Protestantism, he’s wrong
because a clear exposition of the Scriptures do not support such terrible
statements.
To reason that Luther’s work is
somehow nullified because of his anti-Jewish writings is perhaps an argument
for an impossible standard: it is to say that one must live a life of
perfection in order for their work to have validity. Many examples can be drawn from the Scriptures to prove that God
uses sinful people to proclaim his truth. I would
have never imagined that Peter, who walked daily with the Lord Jesus Christ,
would deny the Gospel and face correction by Paul (Galatians 2:11-21). Solomon
“offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places” (1 Kings 3:3) to
appease the multiple “foreign women” he married (1 Kings 11). The most striking example is King David,
whose legacy includes adultery and conspiracy to murder. Yet God used these men
despite heinous sin. The Bible presents the Christian life as a struggle with
sin (1 John 1:8-10; Romans 7). It also presents the normal Christian life as a
living faith showing itself alive by its works (James 2:14-26; Ephesians
2:8-10). Luther’s life has been scrutinized by countless biographies: those
that fairly evaluate his life see a man struggling to live corum deo.[13]
As I would stand against Peter’s denial, Solomon’s idolatry, David’s adultery
and conspiracy to murder, so I would stand against Luther’s anti-Jewish
writings. That a holy God chooses to use sinful men to accomplish his will is
an example of his mysterious divine providence: all things work together for
His glory.
Since I’ve run into a
number of Catholic laymen criticizing the Luther movie for leaving out
Luther’s negativity towards the Jews, I thought it would be helpful to explain
and explore Luther’s treatment of the Jews, and the historical context these
writings were written in. It will be shown that Luther’s writings began
favorably toward the Jews, but as the years progressed, he developed a deep
hostility that was nurtured in medieval stereotype and bias, as well as his
apocalyptic expectation. That the older Luther wrote anti-Jewish writings does
not negate his positive work of proclaiming the Gospel and his battles against
the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church.
Some may wonder why I
would spend the time presenting information that is readily available in many
good biographies on Luther. I realize this paper in some ways is simply
“reinventing the wheel.” However, I have found that cyber-space contains very
little helpful information on this subject. One is usually bombarded with
Internet links viewing Luther as the precursor to Hitler. The on-line articles
that do attempt to deal with the facts honestly are usually sparse: they leave
out significant amounts of helpful information.
II. Was
Luther an Anti-Semite?
It should be kept in my mind that Luther’s later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current anti-Semitism. Luther was born into a society that was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ.[14] Heiko Oberman points out,
“One thing must be clearly understood: Luther was anti-Jewish in his repeated warnings against the Jews as bearers of an anti-Christian religion which had established itself both within and outside Christianity. But Luther was not an anti-Semite or racist of any kind because- to apply the test appropriate to his time- for him a baptized Jew is fully Christian. Conversely, he said that among us Christians in Germany there are horrifyingly many who in their hearts deny Christ. Those are the true Jews! Not race but belief in the law, in good works, makes Jews.”[15]
Lutheran scholar Eric
Gritsch echoes Oberman’s point: “Luther was not an anti-Semite in the racist
sense. His arguments against the Jews were theological, not biological.”[16]
Gritsch goes on to point out the origin of biological anti-Semitism:
“Not until a French cultural anthropologist in
the nineteenth century held that humankind consisted of ‘Semites’ and ‘Aryans’ were
Semites considered inferior. Alfonse de Gobineau’s views were quickly adopted
by European intellectuals and politicians, and Jews became the scapegoats of a
snobbish colonialist society in England, France, and Germany. The rest is
history- including the Jewish holocaust perpetrated by Adolf Hitler and his
regime. National Socialists used Luther to support their racist anti-Semitism,
calling him a genuine German who had hated non-Nordic races.”[17]
In his article “Luther’s
Attitudes toward Judaism,” Carter Lindberg provides an excellent example
proving Luther’s anti-Jewish writings were not motivated by biological racism.
Lindberg says,
“More to the point is Luther’s stance on religious
intermarriage. In his criticism of the medieval Catholic canonical prohibition
against a Christian marrying a Jew, Luther wrote, "Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and
deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in
wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools who forbid
it. You will find plenty of Christians—and indeed the greater part of them—who
are worse in their secret unbelief than any Jew, heathen, Turk, or heretic. A
heathen is just as much a man or a woman—God's good creation—as St. Peter, St.
Paul, and St. Lucy, not to speak of a slack and spurious Christian."[18]
Rather than being
motivated by biological factors, Luther’s criticisms were motivated by
theological concerns. Luther directed intensely abusive language against Anabaptists,
lawyers, the papacy, and the Jews.[19]
Luther felt these groups were united in the conviction that men were ultimately
made right before God by the law.[20]
Anabaptism held a moralistic view of the gospel with an emphasis on the heavy
burden of righteousness placed upon men in order to be accepted before God.
Lawyers made their living by imposing the law. The papacy was viewed as the
antichrist, which promoted a false religion with a false view of salvation
through obedience to the law. The Jews had a religion based upon works
righteousness. When Luther attacked these groups, he felt he was attacking the
devil- the underlying spirit of works righteousness.[21]
In his last expositions on Genesis in 1544, Luther
makes it explicit that no one has the right to boast on their race or lineage:
“Accordingly,
the Jews have no grounds for boasting; they should humble themselves and
acknowledge their maternal blood. For on their father’s side they are Israelites;
but on their mother’s side they are Gentiles, Moabites, Assyrians, Egyptians,
Canaanites. And by this God wanted to point out that the Messiah would be a
brother and a cousin of both the Jews and the Gentiles, if not according to
their paternal genealogy, at least according to their maternal nature.
Consequently, there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles, except that
Moses later separated this people from the Gentiles by a different form of
worship and political regime. Moreover, these things were written to make it
known to all that the Messiah would gather the Gentiles and the Jews into one
and the same church, just as they are joined by nature and consanguinity.”[22]
In his commentary on Galatians 3:28, Luther explains
we are all equal. No particular people has any right to claim special privilege
before God:
“ ‘There
is neither magistrate nor subject, neither professor nor listener, neither
teacher nor pupil, neither lady nor servant.’ For in Christ Jesus all social
stations, even those that were divinely ordained, are nothing. Male, female,
slave, free, Jew, Gentile, king, subject—these are, of course, good creatures
of God. But in Christ, that is, in the matter of salvation, they amount to
nothing, for all their wisdom, righteousness, devotion, and authority.”[23]
Luther’s most well known anti-Jewish writing was On
The Jews and Their Lies. It is often quoted and cited as the clearest
example of Luther’s anti-Semitism. Interestingly though, this very document
proves that Luther was not a biological anti-Semite, he was not against
the Jews as people, nor did he seek for their extermination.[24]
In that treatise, Luther launches into a long
section against any notion that the Jews are better than anyone else. He puts
forth an alleged popular anti-Jewish argument that they thanked God that
they were not born gentiles or women. In arguing against this caricature,
Luther mocks those who think any one particular people is better than another:
“…[T]he
Greek Plato daily accorded God such praise and thanksgiving—if such arrogance
and blasphemy may be termed praise of God. This man, too, praised his gods for
these three items: that he was a human being and not an animal; a male and not
a female; a Greek and not a non-Greek or barbarian…Similarly, the Italians
fancy themselves the only human beings; they imagine that all other people in
the world are nonhumans, mere ducks or mice by comparison.”[25]
Luther also levels the playing
field in regards to sexuality. He sees it as blasphemy to view women as inferior
to men: “[They]
are also human beings and the image of God as well as
we; moreover, they are our own flesh and blood, such as mother, sister,
daughter, housewives, etc...”[26] Luther insists that before
God, we are all equal, and this equality consists in the entire human race
standing condemned by our sin before a holy God:
“…[T]o
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.”[27]
“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.” [28]
III. Luther’s Apocalyptic Expectation And
His Volatile Language
End Times
Essential to understanding
Luther’s attitude toward the Jews is the eschatological framework of his theology.
As early as 1522, Luther preached that his generation was living in the last
days: “I do not wish to force any one to believe as I
do; neither will I permit anyone to deny me the right to believe that the last
day is near at hand. These words and signs of Christ compel me to believe that
such is the case. For the history of the centuries that have passed since the
birth of Christ nowhere reveals conditions like those of the present.”[29] In 1542, Luther said, “I hold that Judgment day is not far away. I say this because
the drive of the gospel is now at its height.”[30] Thus, the entirety of his Reformation career
embraced an impending consummation of history.[31] Lutheran
scholar Paul Althaus notes that the “Middle Ages feared the Day of Wrath but
Luther desires the coming of Jesus, because he will bring an end to the
antichrist and bring about redemption. Luther can call it ‘the most happy Last Day.’”[32]
Toward the end of his life, this
expectation gained in momentum. Luther spoke out strongly against those groups
who went against the Gospel: the Papacy, Turks, radicals, and the Jews. These
groups were led by the devil, used for continued opposition of the gospel.[33] Early in
his career, his treatise That Jesus Christ Was born a Jew kindly
appealed to the Jews to embrace the Gospel. Later in his career, the impending
Judgment Day compelled Luther to appeal to the authorities to protect
Christendom against those groups that continually chose not to convert and
opposed to the Gospel. Those that did not embrace the Gospel were not
indifferent to it, but rather were opposed to it. Heiko Oberman explains,
“[Luther] spoke to the Christian authorities: the Last
Judgment is fast approaching, so woe to those temporal rulers who have
neglected their duty to protect Christendom! Now is the time for defense
against the storm troopers of the Antichrist, whether they descend upon
Christendom from the outside in the form of the Turks, subvert the preaching of
the Gospel and order in the empire from inside the Church like the pope and
clerics beholden to him, or, like the Jews, undermine the public welfare from
the inside. Luther had discovered this concatenation of Jews, pope, and Turks
as the unholy coalition of the enemies of God long before he began leveling his
massive assaults on the Jews. Now that the terrors of the Last Days had been
unleashed, the Church and temporal authorities were forced into their own
defensive battle, one without the promise of victory but with the prospects of
survival. Christian rulers, you should “not
participate in the sins of others, you must pray humbly to God that he should
be merciful to you and allow your rule to survive.”[34]
There are those who misunderstand Luther’s Eschatology. For instance,
Roman Catholic writer Erik R. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn misunderstands the
relationship of the Jews and Luther’s belief he lived during the last days. von
Kuehnelt-Leddihn says,
“Of course, there are some dark aspects to Martin Luther, for instance, his inordinate non-racist but religious hatred for the Jews, whom he wanted to put into labor-battalions to let them work "in the sweat of their nostrils." Why? They had rejected his outstretched hand and his call for conversion. Since Luther was convinced that the Pope is Antichrist and because, according to tradition, the conversion of the Jews heralded the Day of Judgment, he published a pamphlet inviting the Jews to the baptismal font. Had they accepted his offer, he would have proved his point against the Papacy, but the Jews failed to react and this infuriated him enormously. Thus he became even more anti-Jewish than Marx or Engels.”[35]
For this explanation to be coherent, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
needs to explain why Luther still believed it was ‘last days’ despite
the non-conversion of the Jews. von Kuehnelt-Leddihn can’t do this because
early in Luther’s Reformation career, Luther already affirmed that the Jews
would not convert in mass.[36] In a sermon on Luke 21:25-36 Luther said, “[Jesus] calls the Jews
‘this generation.’ And this verse clearly obliges us to believe that the common
talk that the Jews are all to become Christians is not true.”[37] Later in his
career, Luther still held this position: “Of the great mass of Jews he who will may
harbor hope. I have no hope for them, nor do I know any passages of Scripture
that does.”[38] Gordon Rupp
also has pointed out,
“In his lectures on Romans (1515-6) Luther had to treat Paul's hopes for the Jews in chapters 9-11. About a final conversion of the Jewish people Luther is skeptical and though he admits there is patristic support for this, he continued to affirm that he could find no clear word in Holy Scripture that more than a few individuals might be saved. It is true that in his second course of lectures on the Psalms (1519-21) Lewin thought that at Psalm 14 Luther struck a more optimistic note when he prays that, at the very last, divine mercy will intervene. For such an intervention, Luther prayed in one of his very last writings, but it is clear that as far as the Jews are concerned he had no theology of hope.”[39]
Luther’s Volatile Language
There is also concern
over Luther’s language, which becomes quite foul towards the Jews in his later
treatises. In regards to Luther’s foul language, Roland Bainton has
observed, “The volume of coarseness,
in his total output is slight. Detractors have sifted from the pitchblende of
his ninety tomes a few pages of radioactive vulgarity.”[40] But
though small in percentage, it is there nonetheless and needs to be accounted
for. Lest some think that Luther’s harsh language against the Jews was unique,
his language against the Papacy was stronger, and his words against the Turks
and false brethren were almost as strong:
“Neither the vulgarity nor the violence nor the charges of satanic motivation nor the sarcastic mocking is unique to [Luther’s later Jewish] treatises. If anything, Luther’s 1541 Against Hanswurst and his 1545 Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil contain more scatology, more sallies against the devil, more heavy sarcasm, and more violence of language and recommendations. The polemics of the older Luther against the Turks and Protestant opponents are only slightly more restrained. Against each of these opponents- Catholics, Turks, other Protestants and Jews- he occasionally passed on libelous tales and gave credence to improbable charges. In all these respects Luther treated the Jews no differently than he treated his other opponents.”[41]
Some think that illness and
depression caused the “old” Luther to explode in violent harsh outbursts of
profanity towards his enemies. It is a convenient explanation which locates the
cause of his harsh polemics in unavoidable human frailty: senility, disease,
and depression.[42] But, a much more
likely explanation is that put forth by Heiko Oberman. Oberman traces
Luther’s harsh language as far back as sermon preached in 1515, thus proving
the young Luther used the same type of speech as the old Luther.
Most importantly, Oberman provides insight rather than psychological
condemnation. He points out, “In the total historical context,
…Luther’s scatology-permeated language has to be taken seriously as an
expression of the painful battle fought body and soul against the Adversary,
who threatens both flesh and spirit.”[43] Luther’s
rough language was therefore a weapon to use against the devil. “…[A]ll true
Christians stand in a large anti-defamation league and are called upon to
combat the God-awful, filthy adversary, using his own weapons and his own
strategy: ‘Get lost Satan…”[44] In other
words, Luther used scatological language to fight against Satan. Since Luther
felt Satan was the mastermind behind works-centered religions (like Judaism),
Luther attacks those religions using Satan’s own weapons against him.[45]
For Luther, his use of
scatological language exposes the Devil, who has hidden himself in the papacy,
behind the Turks, and in the theology of Judaism. Since it is the Last Days,
Satan must be resisted with all one’s might: with as much energy and all the
vehemence possible. By exposing Satan in these systems, Satan becomes enraged
and fights harder against God. By fighting harder, the Last Day approaches
quicker.[46]
Luther also felt he was following
the example of Christ. Luther asks rhetorically if the Lord used abusive
language against his enemies: “Was he abusive when he
called the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation, an offspring of vipers,
hypocrites, and children of the Devil?… The truth, which one is conscious of
possessing, cannot be patient against its obstinate and intractable enemies.”[47] In similar fashion, Luther responded to his
opponent Latomus:
“He
[Latomus] says that I lack the evangelical modesty
which I enjoin, and that this is especially true of the book in which I replied
to the sophists of Louvain when they condemned my teachings. Now I
have never insisted that anyone consider me modest or holy, but only that
everyone recognize what the gospel is. If they do this, I give anyone freedom
to attack my life to his heart’s content. My boast is that I have injured no
one’s life or reputation, but only sharply reproached, as godless and
sacrilegious, those assertions, inventions, and doctrines which are against the
Word of God. I do not apologize for this, for I have good precedents. John the
Baptist [Luke 3:7] and Christ after him [Matt.
23:33] called the Pharisees the “offspring of vipers.”
So excessive and outrageous was this abuse of such learned, holy, powerful, and
honored men that they said in reply that He had a demon [John 7:20]. If in this
instance Latomus had been judge, I wonder what the verdict would have been!
Elsewhere Christ calls them “blind” [Matt. 23:16], “crooked,” “liars,” “sons of the devil” [John 8:44,
55]. Good God, even Paul lacked evangelical modesty
when he anathematized the teachers of the Galatians [Gal. 1:8] who were, I suppose, great men. Others he calls “dogs”
[Phil. 3:2], “empty
talkers” [Tit. 1:10],
“deceivers” [Col. 2:4, 8]. Further, he accused
to his face the magician Elymas with being a “son of the devil, full of all
deceit and villainy [Acts 13:10].” [48]
IV. 16th Century Anti-Jewish
Roman Catholic Theologians
Similar to Luther,
one of the leading Roman Catholic theologians of his day, his nemesis Johann
Eck[49],
also wrote some virulent anti-Jewish tracts.[50]
Here we find two leading theologians of the Protestant Church and the Roman
Catholic Church both engaging in clearly anti-Christian attitudes. How could
two of the best minds of the sixteenth century be so wrong and not realize it?
Had it just been Luther, perhaps a critic could say: “See the basis of
Protestantism is flawed and leads to anti-Semitism.” However, Johann Eck was
considered a Roman Catholic theologian of great brilliance. He was respected
and revered by the Papacy (and utilized by the Papacy!), and yet he also
attacked the Jews unjustly:
“…Luther’s arch-antagonist John Eck published a similar treatise entitled Refutation of a Jew-Book (Ains Judenbuechlins Verlegung). Fulminating against the “cunning, false, perjured, thievish, vindictive, and traitorous Jews,” he decries the security and freedom they had hitherto been granted and recommends new and more stringent anti-Jewish laws.”[51]
“The absolute nadir of anti-Jewish polemic in the early modern period was by Luther’s Catholic opponent Johannes Eck, whose 1541 Refutation of a Jew Book was ‘a summa of the anti-Jewish literature of the Middle Ages, leaving out no accusation of genocide, blasphemy, or treason.’ ”[52]
“Could [the Jews] but drown all Christians in one spoon, said Johann Eck in the course of one of the most vicious of all anti-Jewish diatribes, ‘they would eagerly do it.”[53]
“By the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the campaign against Jewish physicians…attained a high pitch of virulence. No slander was too mean to be turned to account… ‘When they come together at their festivals, each boasts of the number of Christians he has killed with his medicine; and the one who has killed the most is honored,’ runs Johann Eck’s variation upon an inexhaustible theme.”[54]
“In 1540, when another ritual murder charge was raised against the Jews in Sappenfeld, Eck wrote Refutation of a Jewish Booklet in which he explains that Jews needed Christian blood in order to wash away their own blood stains which God had inflicted on them because they had crucified Christ. He concludes that, ‘it is no wonder that the Jews now buy the blood of innocent children, just as their fathers had bought the innocent blood of Jesus Christ from Judas with thirty pennies.’ ”[55]
“Although Johannes Eck, Luther’s dedicated opponent, and others wrote vitriolic attacks on the Jews, some of Luther’s collegues, such as his dear friend Justas Jonas, present at Luther’s deathbed, Andreas Osiander, reformer in Nuremberg, were very understanding of the position of the Jews.”[56]
“When Osiander ventured to publish an anonymous tract defending Jews against the charge of ritual murder, Eck, knowing the true identity of the author, calls him the ‘evangelical scoundrel’ who dared to defend the ‘bloodthirsty Jews’. The Lutherans, Eck curses on, were all evil monks who had stirred up the Peasants War and were now defending the archenemies of Christendom… Eck concludes his long-winded vituperation by accusing Osiander of slander against the whole of Christianity, because by denying the truth of ritual murders, the evangelical reformer was in essence accusing Christians of murder, magic, and lies.”[57]
“Luther’s Roman Catholic
opponents frequently considered Luther to be a friend of the Jews. This was
especially true in the early years of the Reformation, but even as late as the
1540’s, Eck considered the Lutheran Reformer Andreas Osiander to be a
‘Luther-son’ and thus a ‘Jew-father.’ In other words, Luther’s Catholic
opponents attacked what they perceived to be his pro-Jewish opinions. This in
turn led to the Counter-Reformation revival of medieval anti-Jewish
perspectives out of concern that Jewish biblical interpretation supported
Protestant teachings.”[58]
A telling comparison can be made by consulting the
way the Catholic Encyclopedia evaluates the anti-Jewish remarks of Johann Eck and
Martin Luther. The Catholic Encyclopedia highly praises Eck: “He was the
most distinguished theologian of the time in Germany, the most scholarly and
courageous champion of the Catholic Faith. Frank and even in disposition, he
was also inspired by a sincere love of truth; but he showed none the less an
intense self-consciousness and the jovial bluntness of speech which
characterized the men of that day.”[59] Interestingly, the Catholic
Encyclopedia makes no mention of Eck’s anti-Jewish writings.
However, in their entry on “Luther” they point out,
“It was while in this agony of body and torture of mind, that his
unsurpassable and irreproducible coarseness attained its culminating point of
virtuosity in his anti-Semitic and antipapal pamphlets.”[60] In the Catholic
Encyclopedia’s entry on the “History of the Jews,” no mention is made of Johann
Eck. However, of Luther they point out, “Luther himself, towards the end of
his life, was [the Jews] greatest opponent,” and, “Luther, on the
other hand, required their absolute expulsion. . . . It was reserved for him to
place Jews on a level with Gypsies. . . . He was the cause of their being
expelled by Protestant princes”[61]
I submit that many Roman Catholics evaluate Luther’s
anti-Semitism the same way the Catholic Encyclopedia does. The Catholic Encyclopedia fails to document
that one of the leading theologians of the sixteenth century was blatantly
hostile towards the Jews, but rather characterizes him to be “inspired by a
sincere love of truth.” I’ve met many Roman Catholics in discussion who
point out that Johann Eck defeated Luther in debate, and was a champion for the
Roman Catholic Church. How many of them would dismiss the entirety of Eck’s
work because he was blatantly anti-Semitic?
V. Luther’s Early Attitude Toward The Jews
Martin Luther was born into a society of animosity toward the Jews. The Jews were stigmatized as those who killed Christ, and deserved to experience God’s wraith as His rejected people. They had become the scapegoats of society, blamed for countless evils befalling the medieval age. The populace had gone as far to create fictional crimes to charge to their account. They were said to partake in ritual murders: slaughterers’ of Christian children for blood to use during Passover.[62] Mark U. Edwards explains,
“Only on rare occasions did
Luther encounter Jews; he never lived in close proximity to them, but he
inherited a tradition, both theological and popular, of hostility toward them.
He lived within a larger community, Western Christendom, which saw Jews as a
rejected people guilty of the murder of Christ, and capable of murdering
Christian children for their own evil purposes. And he lived within a local
community that had expelled Jews some ninety years earlier.” [63]
In the earliest days of Luther’s academic career, Luther held four theological opinions on the Jews, which were to remain unchanged his entire career. Gordon Rupp presents these as follows:
1. God's Wrath has fallen on his disobedient people and only God can take it away.
2. Humanly speaking, the Jews are unconvertible and they cannot be saved by human action.
3.
Because they reproach God and blaspheme against Christ their faith is an
actively anti-Christian religion.
4. But these things are true not only of the Jews, but of all human beings who set themselves against God, so that unbelieving Jews and Christians are comprehended within one solidarity of guilt.[64]
While his theological attitude did not change, his opinion toward them did. Early in his career, one finds glimmers of Luther breaking from the anti-Jewish cultural climate. During the controversy over the banning and destroying of Hebrew books in the 1510’s, the young Luther sided with the great Hebraist John Reuchlin who was being investigated by the Inquisition for his interest in Hebrew literature. Luther saw the great value of Reuchlin’s Rudiments, the first Hebrew grammar published in Germany. Luther expressed his concern in 1514 for the great Hebraist: “let us pray for our Reuchlin.”[65] Luther saw great value in learning the Hebrew language. When an opportunity arose in 1519 to have the learned Jewish scholar Matthew Adrian teach at Wittenberg, Luther made haste to acquire him. This is not to suggest that Luther was a defender Judaism. Rather, his primary concern was “the preservation of Hebrew literature for scholarly purposes, rather than the merits of Judaism or the Jews as such.”[66]
In 1516, one finds Luther moving towards the position of friendliness towards the Jews that would be explicit of his work in the 1520’s:
“…[M]any people are proud with
marvelous stupidity when they call the Jews dogs, evildoers, or whatever they
like, while they too, and equally, do not realize who or what they are in the
sight of God. Boldly they heap blasphemous insults upon them, when they ought
to have compassion on them and fear the same punishments for themselves.
Moreover, as if certain concerning themselves and the others, they rashly
pronounce themselves blessed and the others cursed. Such today are the
theologians of Cologne, who are so stupid in their zeal, that in their
articles, or rather their inarticulate and inept writings, they say that the
Jews are accursed. Why? Because they have forgotten what is said in the
following chapter: “Bless and do not curse” (Rom. 12:14), and in another place:
“When reviled, we bless; when slandered, we try to conciliate” (1 Cor.
4:12–13). They wish to convert the Jews by force and curses, but God will
resist them.”[67]
With Luther’s proclamation of the Gospel in the
early 1520’s, Luther, against the prevailing culture of his day re-evaluated
the plight of the Jews. For a time, he
rose above cultural conformity and extended the Gospel message to the Jewish
people. Perhaps it was due to the persecution he received from the Roman
Catholic Church. In his exposition of the Magnificat in 1521 Luther said, “We ought, therefore, not to treat the Jews in so unkindly a
spirit, for there are future Christians among them, and they are turning every
day.”[68] In his lectures on the
Psalms during the period of 1519-1521, Luther chastises his “Christian” culture
that oppressed the Jews:
“The fury of some Christians (if they are to be called Christians) is damnable. They imagine that they are doing God a service when they persecute the Jews most hatefully, think everything evil of them, and insult them with extreme arrogance and contempt amid their pitiable misfortunes, whereas, according to the example of this psalm and that of Paul (Rom. 9:1), a man ought to be most heartily sorry for them and continually pray for them. These folk ought certainly see to it that they listen to Paul (Rom. 11:18): "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." And again (v. 20): "Be not high-minded, but fear." But by this tyrannical attitude of theirs these godless people, who are Christians in name only, are inflicting no light injury on the Christian name as well as Christian people. And they are guilty and partakers of Jewish godlessness. By the example of this cruelty they are, as it were, repelling Jews from Christianity, whereas they ought to attract them by all manner of gentleness, patience, pleading, and care.”[69]
“There are even some theologians so unreasonable as to sanction such cruelty to the Jews and to encourage people to it; in their proud conceit they assert that the Jews are the Christians’ slaves and tributary to the emperor, while in truth they are themselves Christians with as much right as any one nowadays is Roman Emperor. Good God, who would want to join our religion, even though he were of a meek and submissive mind, when he sees how spitefully and cruelly he is treated, and that the treatment he can expect is not only unchristian, but worse than bestial? If hating Jews and heretics and Turks makes people Christians, we are beyond a doubt worse than Jews, heretics, and Turks, because no one loves Christ less than we. The rage of these people reminds me of children and fools, who, when they see a picture of a Jew on a wall, go and cut out his eyes, pretending that they want to help the Lord Christ. Most of the preachers during Lent treat of nothing else than the cruelty of the Jews towards the Lord Christ, which they are continually magnifying. Thus they embitter believers against them, while the Gospel aims only at showing and exalting the love of God and Christ.”[70]
Against the spirit of his day, Luther did not singularly blame the Jews for the death of Christ. Eric Gritsch points out, “Luther did not, however, hold Jews responsible for the death of Christ. As he wrote in a hymn, ‘We dare not blame…the band of Jews; ours is the shame.’ And he felt that at least a few Jews might be won for Christ”[71] It was the sins of all men that brought about Christ’s death. Heiko Oberman explains, “Though his attitude toward the Jews remained medieval, even in the last phase of his life he never took over that medieval hatred for the Jews as ‘murderers of Christ’ which subjected them ‘in a Christian spirit’ to the rage of the mob.”[72]
VI.1523: Luther’s Book “Jesus Christ Was Born
A Jew”
In 1523 Luther published Jesus Christ was born a
Jew. The occasion of the writing occurred when Luther’s enemies charged him
with denying the virgin birth of Christ. They promulgated the rumor that Luther
held Christ was the natural son of Joseph.[73] Luther announces early in
the treatise that he will exonerate himself by proving from the Scriptures that
Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, and in doing so might “perhaps also win some Jews to the Christian faith.”[74] Luther would not only prove
his detractors false, but for the benefit of the Jews he would prove the Old
Testament scriptures prophesied of the New Testament Jesus:[75] “Let
[the Jews] first be suckled with milk, and begin by recognizing this man Jesus
as the true Messiah; after that they may drink wine, and learn also that he is
true God. For they have been led astray so long and so far that one must deal
gently with them, as people who have been all too strongly indoctrinated to
believe that God cannot be man.”[76]
Against the spirit of medieval culture, Luther took bold steps of tolerance towards the Jews. He said,
“I would
request and advise that one deal gently with them and instruct them from
Scripture; then some of them may come along. Instead of this we are trying only
to drive them by force, slandering them, accusing them of having Christian
blood if they don’t stink, and I know not what other foolishness. So long as we
thus treat them like dogs, how can we expect to work any good among them?
Again, when we forbid them to labor and do business and have any human
fellowship with us, thereby forcing them into usury, how is that supposed to do
them any good? If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our
dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love. We must
receive them cordially, and permit them to trade and work with us, that they
may have occasion and opportunity to associate with us, hear our Christian
teaching, and witness our Christian life. If some of them should prove
stiff-necked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians
either.”[77]
In this treatise, Luther expresses sympathy toward the Jews saying that he would not have become a Christian either if he had been born a Jew under the papacy:
“Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks—the crude asses’ heads—have hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves an