"Von den Jüden und iren Lügen" (its a book)

utilyan

Active member



^link to wiki articles.

Was this a hoax? Did he really hate Jews?


There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses - namely, that God has struck [the Jews] with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind' [Deuteronomy 28:28]. So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them ---Martin Luther On the Jews and their Lies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses - namely, that God has struck [the Jews] with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind' [Deuteronomy 28:28]. So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them ---Martin Luther On the Jews and their Lies.

Luther's comment here is a response to misinformation he believed about the Jews in Germany. While I would still argue the comment can be classified in modern terms as antisemitic, in context, Luther is not saying that the Germans should go out and kill the Jews. Luther goes on to say a few pages later... not to "harm their persons."

For a full treatment of this exact quote from the wiki article, see my extended comments here.

An irony of the Wiki link this Luther quote comes from is that it references something I wrote.
 



^link to wiki articles.

Was this a hoax? Did he really hate Jews?


There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses - namely, that God has struck [the Jews] with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind' [Deuteronomy 28:28]. So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them ---Martin Luther On the Jews and their Lies.
Try reading the actual work.

People who claim Luther was antisemitic aren't thinking clearly because his argument in the work isn't against any of what some people now call "semitic" peoples, but against the religious claims of some semitic people.

Luther wrote some misguided, ignorant, and bad stuff in that work, but no one considers him a Pope or Pope like to be followed when he errs.

You can read what Evangelicals or Lutherans believe here in the Book Of Concord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
Try reading the actual work.
That's a great point. The work is not a page-by-page antisemitic tome... rather, it's mostly theological in nature. Much of it involves arguments based on the Scriptures. Luther argues for equality among groups of people (who are all in sin and condemned by God equally). Luther argues that circumcision is not essential to salvation. He sees that any attempt to link circumcision to giving one a special status with God is a form of works righteousness, and thus a denial of the Gospel. Luther also launches into arguments concerning the law and defends prophecies concerning Jesus. He also defended various charges against the person and work of Christ- many of which that had been part of popular medieval tradition.

True, there is harsh rhetoric throughout, but a good portion of that rhetoric is typical Luther railing against those he perceives as enemies of the Gospel. This is not to deny the anti-Judaic sentiment contained therein, only to point out that there is a wide gulf between Luther and such things like Naziism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
Plus, James, didn't you write that this treatise of Luther's was in response to a Jewish person who called Mary a "whore" and Jesus a "whoreson"? And of course, Luther went ballistic over that? He shouldn't have, of course; he should just have ignored it. It was wrong of him to have written that, no matter what the provocation.

But you are correct--Luther wasn't anti-Semitic in the modern meaning and use of the word, but anti-Judaism. If he were truly anti-Semitic, why would he then say that those who think Jews and Christians should be forbidden to marry were "blockheads"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic



^link to wiki articles.

Was this a hoax? Did he really hate Jews?


There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses - namely, that God has struck [the Jews] with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind' [Deuteronomy 28:28]. So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them ---Martin Luther On the Jews and their Lies.
Some historical perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
Some historical perspective.
Wow! This is great and very insightful.

A young man in our church at midweek Bible study, right before covid-19 hit, told us that, when he was in college, he read about 2/3 of Mein Kampf (in English). He told us that, while Hitler does mention Luther in this book, he does so more in passing and far more often quotes Darwin, using what has come to be known as "social Darwinism" as the way for society to go. I have never read the book, other than a few paragraphs, so I was not aware of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic
Plus, James, didn't you write that this treatise of Luther's was in response to a Jewish person who called Mary a "whore" and Jesus a "whoreson"? And of course, Luther went ballistic over that? He shouldn't have, of course; he should just have ignored it. It was wrong of him to have written that, no matter what the provocation.

But you are correct--Luther wasn't anti-Semitic in the modern meaning and use of the word, but anti-Judaism. If he were truly anti-Semitic, why would he then say that those who think Jews and Christians should be forbidden to marry were "blockheads"?
I like to mention that when Roman Catholics bring up Luther's harsh views of the Jews. They should be especially interested to find out that Luther defends Mary against charges that she was a prostitute and that there was not a virgin birth.

There have been a number of researchers who conclude Luther's later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current (or modern-day) Antisemitism. 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. If one frames the issues with these categories, Luther was not Antisemitic. Post World War II though, there has been much discussion about the nuances and etymology of the term Antisemitism. The contemporary use of the word "Antisemitism" does not typically have its distinction from anti-Judaism considered. The word now has a more broad meaning including anti-Judaism. The debate centers around whether the evolved use of the term is a significant step towards describing previous history or if it's setting up an anachronistic standard for evaluating previous history.
 
He didn't hate Jews he hated Judaism.

Read the work. He points out Jesus in the Old Testament and shows that you don't win brownie points with God for having certain blood in your veins.

Throw out the stuff that isn't good.
 
Wow! This is great and very insightful.

A young man in our church at midweek Bible study, right before covid-19 hit, told us that, when he was in college, he read about 2/3 of Mein Kampf (in English). He told us that, while Hitler does mention Luther in this book, he does so more in passing and far more often quotes Darwin, using what has come to be known as "social Darwinism" as the way for society to go. I have never read the book, other than a few paragraphs, so I was not aware of this.
It shouldn't amuse me, but after the last few years of nonsense it does amuse me that people still quote a, "journalist," Shirer, in this regard. Reporters were no more accurate or trustworthy in the past, especially when one is trying to sell a book, than they are today.

As the article pointed out, race in the modern sense is an invention of the unbelievers. For Luther, as it should be for all Christians, all men are descendants of Adam.

It is one LORD, one faith, one baptism, etc.
 
It shouldn't amuse me, but after the last few years of nonsense it does amuse me that people still quote a, "journalist," Shirer, in this regard. Reporters were no more accurate or trustworthy in the past, especially when one is trying to sell a book, than they are today.

As the article pointed out, race in the modern sense is an invention of the unbelievers. For Luther, as it should be for all Christians, all men are descendants of Adam.

It is one LORD, one faith, one baptism, etc.
Which faith? ?
 
Anything from the NT?
Sure. However, it will only send you back to Moses and the rest of the Scriptures prior to the writing of the NT. There is no right understanding of the NT apart from Genesis 1:1-4:1.

“44. Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45. Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46. and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47. and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48. “You are witnesses of these things.” (Luke 24:44-48, NASB)

A person who understands Genesis 1:1-4:1 as a true historical record will have no trouble righly understanding the incarnation, baptism, the LORD's Supper, etc. For example, if the tree of life was really a tree of life then all neo-platonic attempts to separate or divide the spiritual from the physical are gross errors. Jesus is true God and true man, the bread and the wine are His body and blood, baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ, etc.

However, if one reads the creation account as myth or something other than a reliable historical account then the tree of life is a figure of speech as is the incarnation, etc.
 
Sure. However, it will only send you back to Moses and the rest of the Scriptures prior to the writing of the NT. There is no right understanding of the NT apart from Genesis 1:1-4:1.

“44. Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45. Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46. and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47. and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48. “You are witnesses of these things.” (Luke 24:44-48, NASB)

A person who understands Genesis 1:1-4:1 as a true historical record will have no trouble righly understanding the incarnation, baptism, the LORD's Supper, etc. For example, if the tree of life was really a tree of life then all neo-platonic attempts to separate or divide the spiritual from the physical are gross errors. Jesus is true God and true man, the bread and the wine are His body and blood, baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ, etc.

However, if one reads the creation account as myth or something other than a reliable historical account then the tree of life is a figure of speech as is the incarnation, etc.
With all that said, the NT 'faith' continued with the Apostles and they were sent to the corners of the earth to proclaim Christ and His message. The faith was supposed to be of one accord.

The warning from early on --

1Jn2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.
 
With all that said, the NT 'faith' continued with the Apostles and they were sent to the corners of the earth to proclaim Christ and His message. The faith was supposed to be of one accord.
The one faith, that of Adam,Moses, and the prophets continued with the Apostles. Jesus' message is that of Moses, etc. The vast majority of Jesus' speech in the NT were Scriptural quotes or allusions.
The warning from early on --

1Jn2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.
That passage refers to a denial of Genesis 1:1-4:1, the denial of the promised Seed given over for the sins of all men.

That may not be readily apparent to those who are only aware of the common English translation of Genesis 4:1. A literal translation of the passage has Eve saying that she has begotten the man of the LORD. In other words, she mistakenly believed that Cain was the promised Seed who would bruise or crush the serpent's head.
 
The one faith, that of Adam,Moses, and the prophets continued with the Apostles. Jesus' message is that of Moses, etc. The vast majority of Jesus' speech in the NT were Scriptural quotes or allusions.
and then He spent over a month with His Apostles before ascending into Heaven. Quite a lot to unravel.
 
and then He spent over a month with His Apostles before ascending into Heaven. Quite a lot to unravel.
The one faith is simple, profound but simple. The faith of Adam and Eve is not a different faith than that of Abraham. Abraham's faith was not different from that of Moses, whose faith wasn't different from Isaiah, whose faith was not different from that of Peter, whose faith was not different from that of John.

The one church is not a gnostic church.
 
Back
Top