Luther, the Jews, and the Holocaust


Adolph HitlerWe live in a post-Holocaust world. One of the consequences of this is that many people think that anything that even smells like anti-Semitism must in fact be anti-Semitism. We are right to express serious concern over the seeds of Jewish hatred because we have seen the devastation to which it can lead and have seen how deep that hatred can go. However, as valid as this concern may be, many have let it shape their reading of pre-Holocaust history and claim to see anti-Semitism where it doesn’t truly exist. This is true in the case of much of the historical scholarship that seeks to explain just how German Nationalism came about and what historical ideologies led to the Holocaust. One explanation commonly offered is that Martin Luther’s written work on the Jews was the precursor to late nineteenth, and early twentieth-century German anti-Semitism and that the ideological program for the Holocaust was energized by these writings.

The logic usually runs along these lines: because Luther said terrible things that he shouldn’t have said about the Jews, it must have contributed to the ideology of Nazi anti-Semitism. However, as we will see, such an understanding of history can only stand on a highly selective and narrow reading of Luther.

A Pro-Jewish Luther

Luther’s criticism of the Jews near the end of his life is often the place where people begin and end their study of Luther on this matter. But when we take into account the whole corpus of Luther’s writings on the Jews, we find that there is too much that not only doesn’t support Nazi ideology but directly challenges and contradicts it. Consider whether the following statements could serve to support Nazi anti-Semitism:

They [Roman Catholic leaders] 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.[1]

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.[2]

Therefore, I would request and advise that one deal gently with them [the Jews] 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?[3]

If we really want to help them [the Jews], 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.[4]

Absurd theologians defend hatred for the Jews….What Jew would consent to enter our ranks when he sees the cruelty and enmity we wreak on them-that in our behavior towards them we less resemble Christians than beasts.[5]

I do not defend Martin Luther in order to defend Christianity. One can rightly dismiss any of Luther’s wrongdoing as  rooted in a misunderstanding of Scripture and the Christian faith. Any shortcomings of Martin Luther are no invection against the truth of the Christian faith. No one stated more clearly the faults of Luther than Luther himself. As he said to his wife Katie, “Why, I sometimes rage about a piddling thing not worthy of mention. … Isn’t that a shameful thing?”

As with the study of any aspect of Luther’s thought, we should make no attempt to whitewash Luther’s view of the Jews. There are good reasons that the church no longer speaks about the Jews as he said. Nevertheless, in our treatment of Luther we must not lay blame where it doesn’t belong. There are things for which one can legitimately fault Luther, but contributing to Nazi ideology is not one of them.

“On the Jews and Their Lies”

Luther’s favor toward the Jews turned to “harsh mercy”[6] when he saw how greatly opposed they were to the message of the gospel that he preached. He originally thought that they would be converted since the gospel was no longer being perverted by Rome, but soon became frustrated with the reaction of the Jews to his preaching.

There is not space here to wade through all of the negative things Luther said about the Jews, so I’ll quote the sections that are clearly the most egregious and offensive. The following is the advice that Luther gives to magistrates regarding Jews.

“First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.” While this statement cannot be defended in general, we can nevertheless see from Luther’s next statement that it does not share even so much as the same motivation as Nazism: “This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians.”[7]

Luther also writes, “I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam.”[8]

“I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses.”[9]

Two Luthers?

Often critics argue that in “On the Jews and Their Lies” Luther was repudiating his earlier pro-Jewish statements.

Luther scholar, Heiko Oberman, rejects the notion that we have a contrast between “two Luthers” – one, the “bold Reformer, the liberating theologian, the powerfully eloquent German”; the other, an “anti-Semite” who “wrote mainly about Jews,” and “preached hatred.”[10] Oberman demonstrates, this is nothing but a caricature of Luther.

As divergent as Luther’s later statements may appear to be from his earlier statements, there are too many statements in the later part of his life that harken back to the younger Luther for us to ultimately divide the two ideologically.

Even when the older Luther discussed one of the most extreme questions of whether the authorities should expel the Jews from the country, he still acknowledged a special status of Jews over Gentiles. He wrote to Josel von Rosheim that nothing would prevent the misery of exile unless “you accept your cousin and Lord, the beloved crucified Jesus, along with us heathens.”[11] This statement provides a strong point of continuity with his earlier statements in which he upholds the Jewishness of Jesus and the Jews as his wayward people. The historical context of Luther’s statement is also significant. Luther was responding to Rosheim’s request that Luther help protect the Jews against exile. He appealed to Luther specifically because he knew that Luther did not share in the common anti-semitic attitude and was often ridiculed by Catholics as a “friend of the Jews.”

In his reply to Rosheim he also wrote, “Would you kindly accept my advice….Because for the sake of the crucified Jew, whom no one shall take from me, I would gladly do my best for all you Jews, unless you should use my favor for your stubbornness. This is what you should know.”[12]

That Luther recognized the familial relation of Jews and Christ establishes a sharp discontinuity with the widely-held Nazi belief that Jesus was Aryan not Jewish. H. S. Chamberlain’s book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century was probably the most influential anti-semitic work on this question. He wrote: “The probability that Christ was no Jew, that he had not a drop of genuinely Jewish blood in his veins, is so great that it is almost equivalent to a certainty.”[13]  As influential as this work was, it was only one of many at the time denying the Jewishness of Christ.

Luther’s last statement on the Jews is found in his final sermon just three days before his death. In this sermon he writes, “we want to practice Christian love toward them [the Jews] and pray that they convert.”[15]

Luther wrote all of these statements in the later years of his life and they are clearly consistent with previous pro-Jewish writings such as, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew.”

In spite of these later positive statements, Luther’s negative statements remain the object of focus much more. What he said is indeed regrettable and shameful. Whether Luther said terrible things about the Jews is an altogether different question from whether he shares responsibility in any way for the atrocities of the Holocaust. On the latter issue, he shares no guilt — not because his statements can be excused altogether — but because the asymmetry between Luther’s view of the Jews and the Nazi view of the Jews is simply too great.

Luther’s criticism of the Jews was theological not biological or political. He had no concept of ethnic superiority or a desire to witness the extermination of the Jewish race. The Holocaust was rooted in an entirely different motivation. Nazism was not angered by the Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, but simply by the Jewishness of the Jews.

Furthermore, it was not Luther’s desire to rob Jews of prosperity. He simply did not want them to be prosperous in Germany, and believed that their prosperity had not been achieved by ethical means. Right or wrong, Luther believed that Jews were taking advantage of Christian nations in the commerce sector of society and wanted to see them stopped. In his mind, because of immoral business practice, Jews should be forced to return to agriculture where one cannot cheat the land. There they would earn what they earn by the honest work of the sweat of their brow not by chicanery.

Roland Bainton concurs when he says that Luther’s criticism of the Jews was:

“entirely religious and in no respect racial. The supreme sin for him was the persistent rejection of God’s revelation of himself in Christ. The centuries of Jewish suffering were themselves a mark of the divine displeasure. They should be compelled to leave and go to a land of their own. This was a program of enforced Zionism. But if it were not feasible, then Luther would recommend that the Jews be compelled to live from the soil. He was unwittingly proposing a return to the condition of the early Middle Ages, when the Jews had been in agriculture. Forced off the land, they had gone into commerce and, having been expelled from commerce, into money lending. Luther wished to reverse the process and thereby inadvertently would accord the Jews a more secure position than they enjoyed in his day.”[16]

For all the wrong that he spoke against the Jews, Luther nevertheless thought them worthy of the gospel. He believed that Christ was their Messiah: “I also would wish that through your example and your work, Christ might also be made known among other Jews, who were predestined, are called, and shall come to their king David, in order that he might lead and save them.”[17] In Luther’s historical Christian context this sentiment was at odds with the popular Christian opinion.  His method for bringing them to Christ was undoubtedly flawed, but we can nevertheless establish for Luther an entirely different motivation than that of Hitler.

Luther was not against Jews as Jews. In fact, Luther always thought Jews have advantages that Gentiles do not.[18] If a Jew did not blaspheme Christ and call him “a bastard son” or speak of “that whore, Mary” (both were phrases which Luther heard from many Jews) then Luther had no problem with this person. Luther even went so far as to argue that money should be taken from unbelieving Jews and given to Jews who convert to the Christian faith.[19] While immoral in its own right, this statement nevertheless demonstrates that Luther thought highly of converted Jews. Nazism, on the other hand, did not care in the least what confession Jews made about Christ. Christian Jews (and there were some) were under just as much oppression by Nazi government as any Jew. Properly used, then, the term “anti-Semite” does not apply to Luther. He was not against Jews as a race; he was against Jews according to their religious creed and to the extent that they rejected faith in Jesus Christ. His position is properly characterized as anti-Judaism. Even in his most virulent attack against the Jews, “On the Jews and Their Lies,” he still says of the Jewish people that “they are set apart from all other nations by this holy circumcision and made a holy people of God.” Statements such as this cannot be attributed to an anti-Semite and certainly could not energize an entire genocidal program.

Also, unlike many in his time, Luther did not even hold Jews responsible for the death of Christ. As he wrote in a hymn: “Our great sin and sore misdeed/ Jesus the true Son of God, to the Cross has nailed./ Thus you poor Judas, as well as all the Jews/ we may not upbraid inimically,/ for the guilt is ours.”[20] Blaming Jews for the death of Christ was frequently the cause of Christian violence against Jews in Luther’s day. Yet he recognized that the blame is upon all of us not a certain few.

This evidence distances Luther both from the attitude toward Jews in his own day as well as that of the Nazis. Nothing in Luther’s writings even hints at a program of racial extermination, or a desire to see them wiped from the face of the earth.

Luther in a Nazi context

I have argued that when we situate Luther in the context of his own day he stands out as a much more moderate voice. But what of Luther’s place in the context of pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany? When Luther’s view is contrasted with Hitler’s program of ethnic cleansing, it is clear just how impossible it is that Luther could motivate such a dedicated anti-Semitism. As we consider Luther’s place in the religious context of Nazi Germany, there are numerous facts which we must take into account.

  • Six thousand of the nearly 14,000 Protestant pastors in Germany (the vast majority of which were Lutheran) illegally expressed opposition to the Nazi state.[21] This is a far greater percentage than that of the Catholic German priests who expressed opposition.
  • Those pastors who opposed Hitler’s Jewish program did not do so by abandoning Lutheran theology, rather Lutheran theology was the very basis of their opposition to it. Devout Lutherans such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Lutheran Mayor of Leipzig, Carl Goerdeler were executed for their opposition to the Third Reich, and they staked their opposition on Lutheran theology. Lutherans Hanns Lilje, Martin Niemoeller, and Heinrich Grueber were all imprisoned for their resistance to the Nazi party and remained committed to Lutheran theology..[22]
  • Following World War Two, the Lutheran church in Germany drew from Luther’s writings to show that those who used Luther to justify their racism had done so only by selectively quoting him and ignoring his many statements contrary to their racism.
  • The Confessing Church, a Protestant organization of clergy and layleaders that opposed Nazism, was comprised almost entirely of devout Lutherans who saw no support for the Holocaust in Luther’s writings.

Now there is no doubt that Hitler and other Nazis appealed to Luther in defense of their anti-Semitism and the atrocities they committed against the Jews. But the question of whether the Nazis appropriated Luther for their anti-Semitism is not the same as the question of whether Luther’s writings were responsible for their anti-Semitism. The appeal to Luther was a post-facto justification for their anti-Semitism and not the impetus of it. Furthermore, as we have seen, it was a selective appropriation of Luther without due consideration for his pro-Jewish sentiments.

Who gets the blame?

Nazi Belt BuckleGordon Rupp was one of the first post-war Luther scholars to disconnect Luther from the motivation of Nazi anti-Semitism “…Needless to say, there is no trace of such a relation between Luther and Hitler. I suppose Hitler never once read a page by Luther. The fact that he and other Nazis claimed Luther on their side proves no more than the fact that they also numbered Almighty God among their supporters. Hitler mentions Luther once in Mein Kampf in a harmless context.”[23]

What many who associate the Holocaust with Luther often fail to recognize is that Hitler and the leading members of his cabinet – Himmler, Goebbels, and Streicher – were all lapsed Roman Catholics. There was much more of an abundance of anti-Semitism (not just anti-Judaism) in Catholic writings than one could hope to find in the narrow slice of Luther’s writings.

As Rupp points out:

Luther’s antagonism to the Jews was poles apart from the Nazi doctrine of “Race”. It was based on medieval Catholic anti-Semitism towards the people who crucified the Redeemer, turned their back on the way of Life, and whose very existence in the midst of a Christian society was considered a reproach and blasphemy. Luther is a small chapter in the large volume of Christian inhumanities toward the Jewish people.[24]

Moreover, the anger, negativity, and call for resistance found in Luther’s writings on the Jews is outmatched – both in sheer volume and in the tone –  by what is found in Luther’s comments against medieval Roman Catholicism. If Luther opposed anything it was the Catholic religion into which Hitler himself was baptized. This fact alone is enough to demonstrate that any appropriation which Hitler made of Luther’s writings was not built widely on the whole of his theology but only a highly selective reading of him for the purpose of supporting his own pre-formed ideology. It is no surprise that Nazi leaders claimed Luther for their cause. He was only one of many sources brought into to propagandize the nation, sources which extended even as far as the Jewish Scriptures themselves.

Remarkably ironic as it is, those who see a parallel between Luther’s attitude toward the Jews and the Nazi attitude toward the Jews are still reading Luther in the same selective and shallow way that the Nazis did. Those who knew better then and who know better now recognize that for all of Luther’s failures to deal properly with the Jews, the Nazi program differs too greatly from Luther to say that he bears any of the responsibility.

As unacceptable as Luther’s views of the Jews are today, when we place them in their historical context, his view of the Jews surpassed and matured far beyond the medieval soil from which Luther himself grew. His unchanging belief in the positive ontological status of the Jews transcended his criticism of their behavior or their religion, and with this he separates himself from the common perception of Jews in his own day as well the perception of Jews under Nazism. Both medieval theology and Nazi ideology can be united by the more severe action which they called for with no regard for the Jewish spiritual condition. Luther’s is a view all his own. Luther’s theology was properly used to combat the ideology of Nazism both during and after it’s reign. If one is looking for a historical link between the Holocaust and Christianity, she will find a much more likely source in medieval theology than could ever be found in Luther.


[1] Luther, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” (1523). This entire document is available in sections at: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/lutheranism/108584

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Luther quoted in Elliot Rosenberg, But Were They Good for the Jews? (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1997), 65.

[6] Luther, “On the Jews and Their Lies.” This work is available at: http://reactor-core.org/jewish-lies.html

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Luther 1537, quoted in Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwartzbart, 2nd Eng. Ed. (New York: Image Books, 1992), 294.

[11]Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Chamberlain quoted in Maurice casey, “Who’s Afraid of Jesus Christ? Some Comments on Attempts to Write a Life of Jesus Christ,” in Writing History, Constructing Religion, eds. James G. Crossley, Christian Karner (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2005), 130.

[14] “On the Jews and Their Lies”

[15] Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978), 299.

[16] Luther, “Letter to Bernhard, a Converted Jew”, 1523.

[17] “We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are” (“That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew”).

[18] “On the Jews and Their Lies”

[19] Luther quoted in Oberman, Luther, 297.

[20] Heiko Oberman, The Roots of Antisemitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation, trans. James I. Porter (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 94.

[21] William Lazareth, Christians in Society: Luther, the Bible, and Social Ethics (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 9.

[22] For a detailed account of the Lutheran resistance to Nazism, see: Uwe Siemon-Netto, The Fabricated Luther: Refuting Nazi Connections and Other Modern Myths 2nd ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2007).

[23] Gordon Rupp, Martin Luther: Hitler’s Cause or Cure? (London: Lutterworth Press, 1945), 84.

[24] Ibid., 75.

About Rev. John Fraiser

Pastor at Holy Trinity Lutheran Church - LaGrange, KY htlc-lagrange.org
This entry was posted in Church History, Lutheranism, Martin Luther, Theology, Worldviews and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Luther, the Jews, and the Holocaust

  1. Joe Keysor says:

    Dear Sir,

    I was glad to read your defense of Luther on this site.

    Here is quote from Luther’s “On the Jews and Their Lies” stating that persecution would not accomplish anything, and the Jews should b expelled from Germany instead. This was unChristian and wrong, but it is not as bad as what Luther is usually accused of and it would have prevented the Holocaust. Here is the quote (I have never seen anyone use it except myself):

    [http://www.humanitas-international.org/
    showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm] – this passage comes from Part 12:

    But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews’ synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God’s name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. For our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all, and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God. So let us beware. In my opinion the problem must be resolved thus: If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country. Let them think of their fatherland; then they need no longer wail and lie before God against us that we are holding them captive, nor need we then any longer complain that they are burdening us with their blasphemy and their usury. This is the most natural and the best course of action, which will safe guard the interest of both parties.

    Also, as you know, Luther was not interested in Jewish plots to control the world; Aryan racial purity; imperialism; militarism; or authoritarianism. Hitler’s ideas are much more openly stated in Wagner, Haeckel, and Chamberlain. Hitler’s condemnation in Mein Kampf of Jews as materialistic is identical to Kant’s. Hitler did not use Luther’s arguments or reasoning.

    Too little is said about Nietzsche’s “Antichrist.” There Nietzsche states that Christianity is (a) false; (b) Jewish in its origins; and (c) part of a Jewish plot to control the world. Fichte, Gobineau, Hegel, Kant, Lagarde, Haeckel, and Nietzsche all contributed much more to modern racial secular anti-Semitism. Chamberlain, whom Hitler often followed, specifically condemned religious anti-Semitism.

    Sincerely,
    Joe Keysor
    http://www.bedfordgaol.com
    http://www.bedfordgaol.com/book1-VIII.html

  2. Jonathan says:

    Fraiser,
    I just finished reading Hitler’s Cross by Lutzer. In the book he makes the dichotomy between “early Luther” and “Later Luther” that you discuss but he does point out that Luther’s harsher feelings toward the Jews wasn’t racially motivated but due to frustration with their stubbornness toward the gospel. Thanks for the quotes that harmonizing the younger and older Luther.

  3. Pingback: Here he stands. He could not do otherwise. God help him. | MetaFilter

  4. Nicole says:

    on this hitler image on the exact web site on the following .who is in the background.
    http://chaosandoldnight.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/hitler-speech.jpg

  5. Greg says:

    If the Nazis handed out copies of your anti-Semitic tract at their rallies you contributed to the holocaust. Period. This is pure apologetic nonsense. And we haven’t even touched on those that differed with Luther and Calvin in their day. They whole-heartedly approved of the execution of contemporaries who opposed them on even the slightest of doctrinal matters. Stop deluding yourselves.

    • I don’t say this lightly, but this comment is entirely stupid. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and yet you act like you do.

      1) I’m not aware that Martin Luther’s tract was handed out by Nazis at there rallies. Where is your evidence of this?

      2) The Nazis published literature that used the words of Jesus in support of there cause. Does that make Jesus a contributor to the Holocaust?

      3) Can you provide even one shred of evidence that Luther “heartily approved of the execution of contemporaries who opposed [him] on even the slightest doctrinal matters”? Name one person that Luther sanctioned the execution of over a doctrinal matter of any magnitude. Luther vehemently argued against burning heretics at the stake. (I can provide a citation, if you really doubt this.) So get your facts straight before start popping off about things you don’t know much about.

      • Greg says:

        Let me speak to your second point. If Bobby and Susie are throwing a ball in the house and Bobby’s last throws hits mom’s favorite vase and shatters it, which is guilty of wrongdoing? Would you tell Susie, “Well you lucked out this time girl, Bobby’s getting a good whippin for this one”. I hope not. Both participated in the wrongdoing. Bobby’s errant throw just happened to find the vase. Who knows, it could be Susie’s fault for being a poor catch. Both are equally guilty. This is my feeling on Luther. Luther may not have been the worst voice. He may not have been the most contemporary voice. But please, don’t pretend that his late life attitude toward and writings about the Jews served as a benign voice. Maybe Catholic anti-Semitism was worse but Luther adding his two cents surely gave an assist. Sounds to me like Luther’s Catholic roots may have crept back in on him there at the end.

        And as for your asking if Christ should be implicated. I’ve only begun to consider what impact the sayings attributed to Jesus and our fear of them has had on the world. Whether they were correctly appropriated or not, it is clear that the fear produced by Jesus’ words has resulted in much bloodshed in His name. Would the Crusades have happened were it not for that fear?

        True Jesus had some harsh words for the Pharisees but, I don’t recall Jesus ever using language like “incorrigible whore”, “evil slut”, “full of the devil’s feces” and “swine-like” to describe his people as a whole. I don’t ever remember Jesus saying that Jews should be avoided and warned against and be refused housing among certain people groups. That they should have their Torah taken away and their Rabbis silenced, that it should be open season on Jews traveling the highways, that they should have their valuables taken away and be denied participation in the monetary system of the day, that their confiscated wealth should be held in safe keeping for compliant Jews that converted to Christianity and that they should be put to work doing manual labor. Many a scholar has likened Luther’s “On The Jews and Their Lies” to a blueprint for the beginning of the holocaust and Kristallnacht. What else, short of their mass murder, was done to the Jews except everything that Luther prescribed? I guess in your eyes since Luther stopped short of saying that they should be rounded up and taken to concentration camps and exterminated he is innocent of their blood.

        If Hezbollah rockets kill Benjamin Netanyahu tomorrow in Tel Aviv would you argue that Iran’s Ahmadinejad is innocent of Bibi’s blood because all Mahmoud really did was talk about wiping out the Jews, he didn’t actually do it yet? Is your argument that Luther is not guilty because he did not light the ovens? I did not say that the whole of Nazi ideology hung on Luther’s writings. Hitler was an opportunistic madman that used any and every means at his disposal to sway the masses. It is just my contention that Luther, intentionally or not, assisted him in his cause. Are you saying that Luther’s writings had no impact on the holocaust? It sounds to me like you are.

        By the way, please don’t mistake me for a Jewish apologist. I think the Canaanite genocides described in the book of Joshua, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the mass murders of communist regimes, the 9/11 attacks and untold other evils were all gross atrocities.

      • Greg says:

        This has been such a stimulating conversation. Do you interact on any of your blogs?

  6. Greg says:

    Didn’t Luther in “On The Jews and Their Lies” also include the following statement, “we are at fault in not slaying them”? Words have meaning, impact and sometimes consequences. Especially the words of renowned leaders.

  7. Greg says:

    You describe my original statement as entirely stupid. From your article, “Remarkably ironic as it is, those who see a parallel between Luther’s attitude toward the Jews and the Nazi attitude toward the Jews are still reading Luther in the same selective and shallow way that the Nazis did. Those who knew better then and who know better now recognize that for all of Luther’s failures to deal properly with the Jews, the Nazi program differs too greatly from Luther to say that he bears any of the responsibility.” Again, “The Nazi program differs too greatly from Luther to say that he bears any of the responsibility.” And you know this how? How exactly did you quantify this conclusion. If anything is entirely stupid it is this part of your essay.

    So you want us to believe that the Lutheran denomination started in the 1500s during the Reformation, at the end of his life Luther castigated the Jews and prescribed horrible atrocities be committed toward them, generations of German Lutherans were not even aware of Luther’s vitriolic writings and they had no influence on Lutherans attitudes toward the Jews from the 1540s until the 1930s. Seriously? Once again, what else was done to the Jews, short of their near extermination, that Luther did not endorse in his later years. Just because you and other Lutherans wish it so that Luther did not contribute to the holocaust does not make it so. And one other thing that shocks me about the apologetics I hear regarding Luther and the holocaust is that Luther cannot be called an anti-Semite because his vitriol toward the Jews was not motivated by race but rather Christian doctrine. So, religious persecution is more admirable or defensible than the medieval racism of the Nazis. How so? Based on this logic I could deduce that the 9/11 attacks were not so bad compared to the slavery of the antebellum South because they didn’t result in as many deaths and they were motivated by religious ideology and not racism. Seems to me that using the Christian scriptures to justify the persecution of a non-Christian sect is much worse than the xenophobic ignorance you claim motivated the Nazis. Doesn’t say much for what can be gleaned from the scriptures if those who make doctrine of it can twist it into a blueprint for persecution. But that is the essence of your claim.

    And your quote from Rupp, “Luther’s antagonism to the Jews was poles apart from the Nazi doctrine of “Race”. It was based on medieval Catholic anti-Semitism towards the people who crucified the Redeemer, turned their back on the way of Life, and whose very existence in the midst of a Christian society was considered a reproach and blasphemy. Luther is a small chapter in the large volume of Christian inhumanities toward the Jewish people.” This quote starts by claiming that Nazi anti-Semitism, in contrast to Luther’s, is based on “Race”. He then proceeds to articulate nothing but religious doctrinal reasons for the Nazi’s rage, just like Luther. How does quoting Rupp support your claim? It seems to me to show that Luther’s and the Nazi’s hatred of the Jews was based on the exact same thing, religion.

  8. Greg says:

    You say:
    “3) Can you provide even one shred of evidence that Luther “heartily approved of the execution of contemporaries who opposed [him] on even the slightest doctrinal matters”? Name one person that Luther sanctioned the execution of over a doctrinal matter of any magnitude. Luther vehemently argued against burning heretics at the stake. (I can provide a citation, if you really doubt this.) So get your facts straight before start popping off about things you don’t know much about.”

    Reply:
    Martin Luther 1536: That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death.

    (Martin Luther: pamphlet of 1536; in Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891]; Vol. X, 222-223).

    But I guess once again, Luther was not complicit because he did not actually plunge the sword. Oh, and execution by sword is much more humane than burning at the stake. Did he vehemently argue against the beheading of blasphemers? There is other evidence, in Luther’s hand, that makes clear that he thought it necessary to eliminate blasphemers. I assume that, being a seminary trained theologian, you know this to be true. I have no religious training but I can read. Why can’t we admit that the behavior of Luther and other “Pillars of the Faith”, Catholic and Protestant, committed atrocious acts in the name of God and stop worshipping them as heroes?

  9. Greg says:

    Rev. Fraiser,

    Have you decided not to dignify my “popping off” with a response? If what I say is so “stupid” why not respond? I’ve responded to two of your objections. Why not respond in kind?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s