A recent e-mail on Luther has got me questioning and thinking in my conclusion, determining whether Luther was antisemitic is not a simple yes or no question. The complexities of the issue, intertwined with his historical significance, demand a more nuanced exploration, which this article aims to provide.
Both Luther and Calvin rooted their theology from Augustine who stated He states in Contra Faustum XXII.8:
“The Lord Himself said, Slay them not, lest at any time they forget My law. Let them only be wanderers, like Cain, and let not their land be inhabited, their kingdom being taken from them… For it is for this reason that they do not rule, but serve those who did not believe in Christ, that the prophecy might be fulfilled… Thus the Jews are preserved, not to be put to death, but to be dispersed everywhere, as witnesses of the scripture and of the sin which they committed in killing Christ.“
The Jerusalem Post argues that Augustine Laid the foundations of anti Semitism in Christianity Summarised Augustine “…the very presence of the Jewish people in the world … puts a great question against Christian belief in a new covenant made through Christ.”
https://www.jpost.com/blogs/the-jewish-problem—from-anti-judaism-to-anti-semitism/foundations-of-antisemitism-augustine-and-christian-triumphalism-365442#google_vignette
Martin Luther, a seismic figure of the 16th century, instigated the Protestant Reformation, a movement that fundamentally reshaped the religious and political landscape of Europe and beyond. His courageous challenge to the established doctrines of the Catholic Church ignited the Protestant Reformation, reshaping the religious, political, and cultural landscape of Europe and beyond. His emphasis on sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone), alongside his groundbreaking translation of the Bible into the vernacular German, democratised access to religious texts and empowered individual interpretation. The 500th anniversary of his pivotal act – the posting of the 95 Theses – spurred widespread commemoration and critical re-evaluation of his enduring influence. However, any honest appraisal of Luther’s legacy must confront a deeply troubling aspect of his later years: his increasingly vitriolic pronouncements against the Jewish people, culminating in works like “On the Jews and Their Lies” (1543). While these writings have understandably led to accusations of anti-semitism, to simply apply this modern term without careful consideration of the historical context and the distinct development of anti-Jewish prejudice risks a significant oversimplification of a complex and controversial legacy.
As the transcript from the Morgan Library discussion highlights (Chubin, 2016), judging historical figures like Luther through a contemporary lens is fraught with peril. Applying modern values and understandings directly to the past disregards the different social norms and values that prevailed in earlier eras. What was considered acceptable, normal, or even virtuous centuries ago can be abhorrent by today’s standards. Concepts like human rights, equality, and tolerance have undergone considerable development, and imposing these evolved values retrospectively ignores the specific context in which historical figures lived and acted.
Furthermore, the different understandings and definitions of terms and concepts across time are crucial (Vahlefeld, 2016). What “freedom,” “justice,” or even “religion” meant in the 16th century likely differed significantly from our contemporary interpretations. Applying our modern definitions to historical figures and their actions can lead to profound misinterpretations. Moreover, historical actors operated with limited information and perspectives compared to the vast amount of historical data and diverse voices accessible today.
The application of modern ideas and social structures to the past is inherently anachronistic, distorting our comprehension of the unique challenges and opportunities faced by people in different eras. This is particularly relevant when considering complex issues like prejudice. While certain universal moral principles may exist, their application and interpretation are heavily influenced by the prevailing cultural and historical context. Understanding this context is essential for analysing historical actions within their specific time frame, rather than simply labelling them as “good” or “bad” by present-day standards.
Judging the past solely through the lens of the present can also lead to presentism, where historical interpretations are driven by contemporary political or social agendas, resulting in biased and inaccurate portrayals. Finally, applying a modern moral framework can flatten the nuance and complexity of historical events and the motivations of historical actors, overlooking the contradictions and intricacies inherent in the past.
The understanding of anti-semitism reveals a significant change from Luther’s time to the modern day (Hoger, 2016; Bell, 2016). In the 16th century, anti-semitism was overwhelmingly rooted in religious beliefs. Jews were viewed as responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, obstinately refusing Christian doctrine and adhering to a “rejected” covenant. This religious animosity was often intertwined with economic and social resentment, as Jews frequently occupied specific economic roles, such as moneylending, which were viewed with suspicion. Luther’s own anti-semitic writings, particularly his later works like “On the Jews and Their Lies” (1543), were deeply theological, arguing that the Jews’ rejection of Christ demonstrated their inherent wickedness and advocating for harsh measures against them. Crucially, the modern concept of race as a biological and hierarchical category was not yet fully developed; the primary distinction was religious. Luther’s views were also shaped by his disappointment that Jews did not convert to his reformed version of Christianity.
https://www.lutheranlibrary.org/pdf/OnTheJewsAndTheirLies.pdf
For a thousand years and more the Church remorselessly searched out Christian beliefs considered heresies, hunted down, tortured and murdered their adherents. So how explain the survival of Jews? Not until the twentieth century were the Jews subject to extermination as a group, and that by secular forces in the Christian West. Under religious authorities the Jews were persecuted, expelled, murdered; the Crusades saw whole communities put to the sword en route to “liberate” Jerusalem from the infidels.
The Church’s problem with the survival of Judaism grew increasingly difficult beginning in the 4th century. Judaism was not, of course, a “heresy.” But the survival of Jews and Judaism in a post-messianic era posed a question of the legitimacy of Christian claims to be the “new” Israel; questioned even the role of Jesus as messiah.
In seeking to understand Luther without solely applying a modern lens, it is important to acknowledge the context of his time. His primary focus was a radical reform of Christian doctrine and practice, driven by his interpretation of scripture. His engagement with the Jewish community, particularly his earlier hopes for their conversion as outlined in “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” (1523), stemmed from this theological framework. He believed that with a purified understanding of the Gospel, the Jews, too, would recognise Christ. His later, deeply regrettable shift towards hostility arose from his profound disappointment and frustration at their continued adherence to Judaism, which he saw as a rejection of clear biblical truth. While this does not excuse the abhorrent nature of his later pronouncements, it situates them within his overarching theological concerns. Furthermore, the prevailing social and religious climate of 16th-century Europe was marked by widespread negative attitudes towards Jews, rooted in centuries of Christian theological tradition. While Luther’s rhetoric undoubtedly amplified this prejudice, it did not emerge in a vacuum.
https://www.ccel.org/l/luther/works/v45/v45-020.htm
It is also crucial to recognise the development of his own views (Hoger, 2016). His early writings expressed a degree of hope and even advocated for kinder treatment of Jews to facilitate conversion. The hardening of his stance was a process influenced by specific events, his theological interpretations, and the anti-Jewish polemics circulating at the time. Understanding this progression, without excusing its tragic outcome, adds a layer of complexity to simply labelling him an “anti-semite” by contemporary standards.
https://www.lutheranlibrary.org/pdf/OnTheJewsAndTheirLies.pdf
However, this contextualisation must not, in any way, diminish the gravity and reprehensibility of “On the Jews and Their Lies.” This book, written towards the end of his life, is filled with hateful and dangerous rhetoric that called for the persecution of Jewish people. While we can strive to understand the historical and theological context that contributed to its creation, the content itself is undeniably damaging and had a profound negative impact on subsequent centuries. To defend Luther by downplaying the severity of this work would be a grave disservice to the victims of anti-semitism throughout history. It is also important to remember that while the book reflected some prevailing prejudices, it was condemned by some of his contemporaries, highlighting that even within its historical context, its extremism was recognised.
Finally, it is wrong to use Hitler as a direct example to accuse Luther of creating the Holocaust. While Hitler and the Nazis certainly exploited historical anti-Jewish sentiments, including Luther’s writings, to further their own horrific agenda, the Holocaust was the product of a specific confluence of 20th-century racial ideologies, political extremism, technological advancements, and a unique historical context. To directly blame Luther for the Holocaust is to ignore the centuries of intervening history and the distinct nature of Nazi racial anti-semitism, which was fundamentally different from Luther’s primarily religious antagonism. If Luther were alive during the time of Hitler, it is highly probable he would have condemned the extermination of the Jews, albeit from his own theological perspective. His anti-Jewish sentiment, rooted in religious conviction, aimed at conversion or, failing that, their marginalisation within Christian society. The Nazi ideology, however, was based on racial extermination, a concept alien to Luther’s 16th-century worldview. While his writings undoubtedly contributed to a climate of hostility that later anti-semites exploited, the leap from theological opposition to systematic, industrialised genocide based on racial grounds represents a fundamental shift in ideology and intent that Luther’s writings, however reprehensible, did not directly advocate. His understanding of the world and his theological framework, while deeply flawed in their view of Judaism, did not encompass the racial pseudo-science that underpinned the Holocaust.
In a similar light, John Calvin, another key figure of the Reformation, gave rise to what is often termed “replacement theology” or “supersessionism.” This theological viewpoint posits that the Christian Church has superseded or replaced the Jewish people as God’s covenant people, arguing that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ has nullified the Mosaic Covenant. While this theological framework is viewed by many as anti-semitic in its implications, as it denies the ongoing covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish people and can lead to the rejection of a continued distinct role for Israel, it is crucial to understand its 16th-century context within Reformation history. Calvin’s focus, like Luther’s, was primarily theological, centred on his interpretation of scripture regarding the nature of the new covenant in Christ.
Examples within some strands of Reformed theology illustrate this rejection of a contemporary distinct role for Israel as a nation and the Jewish people as a racial identity in God’s plan. Certain interpretations emphasise a purely spiritual understanding of “Israel” in the New Testament, equating it solely with the Church, comprised of both believing Jews and Gentiles. This view often leads to a rejection of the modern State of Israel as having any specific theological significance or connection to biblical prophecy. Furthermore, some Reformed theologians, focusing on the spiritual nature of the covenant, have historically downplayed or rejected the concept of a distinct Jewish racial identity with specific covenantal promises tied to their lineage. They argue that salvation is now solely through faith in Christ, transcending ethnic or national distinctions. However, it is important to note that Reformed theology is diverse, and many contemporary Reformed thinkers have moved away from strict supersessionism, recognising a continued role for the Jewish people and the State of Israel.
Therefore, just as judging Luther solely through a modern anti-semitic lens is overly simplistic due to the historical and theological context of his views, so too is a simplistic condemnation of Calvin solely based on the implications of replacement theology without understanding its 16th-century theological framework within the Reformation. While both figures articulated views that have had deeply problematic and, at times, anti-semitic consequences throughout history, a nuanced understanding requires engaging with their primary theological concerns and the historical context in which their ideas developed, without ever diminishing the harm caused by such viewpoints.
Bibliography:
- Bell, Dean Phillip. (2016). Panel Discussion on Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism. The Morgan Library, New York. (Based on the provided transcript).
- Chubin, Lyndon. (2016). Opening Remarks. Panel Discussion on Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism, The Morgan Library, New York. (Based on the provided transcript).
- Hoger, Martin. (2016). Presentation on Martin Luther and the Churches in Germany. Panel Discussion on Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism, The Morgan Library, New York. (Based on the provided transcript).
- Luther, Martin. (1523). That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew.
- Luther, Martin. (1543). On the Jews and Their Lies.
- Vahlefeld, Britta. (2016). Welcome Remarks. Panel Discussion on Martin Luther and Anti-Semitism, The Morgan Library, New York. (Based on the provided transcript).
“While some articles on this site are fully AI-generated, they are based on my original arguments, ideas, and perspectives. I ensure that the generated content aligns with my theological views and is in harmony with the integrity and message of the website. AI is used as a tool to assist in creating content efficiently, not as a replacement for my personal contributions or intellectual input.
Utilising AI is a way to enhance productivity, not to replace personal engagement or effort. Just as scholars use various resources to aid in research or writing, I use AI to streamline the process while ensuring the content remains accurate and consistent with my views. I take responsibility for reviewing and refining the content to align with my theological perspective. This is a form of stewardship and responsibility, not laziness.
Additionally, I will cite references from other writers in the articles as quotations where they reflect my arguments, and these will always be in quotation marks to maintain transparency and proper attribution.”