Why did Martin Luther become an anti-semite?

Question

I don't agree that Martin Luther has always been antisemitic. In fact, his whole in environment was very antisemitic, whereas he wrote things like this: "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...If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles ... When we are inclined to boast of our position [as Christians] we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord.

Answer 1

Many people treat disagreement as a personal attack, they can't simply agree to disagree.  Luther, like most other Christians, then and now, probably couldn't accept that just hearing him state his beliefs wasn't enough to convert all around him, and decided that rejecting his personal views was the equivalent of rejecting God and worshiping the devil.  You see that attitude a lot on Yahoo R/S.

Answer 2

It may not have been for religious reasons.

Answer 3

I did some research for you, but had trouble finding what I've read before.

Bottom line though, it doesn't entirely make sense. Luther had a complex theological argument that he believed in, but all complex theological arguments work from a long history of assumptions. At any stage there can be something that is incomprehensible to those who aren't intimately tied up in that aspect of the tradition.

I wouldn't say that Luther's negative view came suddenly, but rather that he changed what he wanted to do with it. There may have been a nominal trigger (the most common scholarly explanation seems to be a request from a rabbi for Luther's help in getting him an audience with a Saxon prince who had issued edicts preventing any Jew from working or traveling through the region (1536)), but his anti-Jewish views were rooted in the anti-Jewish theology that has been woven into Christianity from the earliest stages of its canon.

The Lutheran Synod has officially denounced Luther's late writings. Their explanation is basically that Luther was old and cranky. Perhaps they're even right.

Answer 4

After reading part of what is now known as Martin Luther's 'dirty little book',  "On Jews and Their Lies",  there can only be one conclusion-- that for some unknown reason (medical?)  Luther had lost his mental balance.

I'm not recommending that anyone read it,  because it is a vile piece of filth.  But no Christian could read that and think that the author was in his right mind.  

Answer 5

Here you go. No arguing, just reading.  

Answer 6

http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggru...

Answer 7

There is no 'reason' why anyone is an anti semite. Sure, we can identify common underlying factors. But Martin Luther had an intense hatred of Jews and was passionate in expressing these views. I appreciate the need to try and find a rational account for his hatred, but you won't find one. It's a bit like asking, 'why do the KKK hate black people?' There's never any logical reason for anyone to hate, period.

EDIT

I'm slightly troubled by one of your edits. You *seem* to be suggesting that Luther was not an anti semite UNTIL he realised Jews were not going to become Christians.

Maybe it's just the way it's worded but again, it *seems* almost as though you're suggesting this as a 'reason' for his hatred?

Even IF Luther hated Jews because we wouldn't abandon Judaism that ITSELF is anti semitism - as it's the DENIAL of OUR right to REMAIN Jewish.

Answer 8

I am afraid Martin Luther, being a fallible human being, misread the scriptures when it came to Israel, and came to believe that Christians are the new Israel, and that the Hebrew "race" had been abandoned by God for disobedience.  

Answer 9

You more or less answered your own question in the early portion.  It is something I've witnessed many times IN PERSON from Christians that will declare how much they love me and then work hard to get me to abandon my faith in God through Judaism to become a Christian and "accept" Jesus sacrifice for my sin.

After we have "rejected" their heart felt message, many turn from telling us how much they love us to then declaring that if we don't believe the way they do, that if we don't "accept" Jesus, we are of "our father the devil" and then we hear all the antisemitic passages in the New Testament hurled at us telling us how we are evil and will suffer eternally.  

No one here can delve into Martin Luther's dead mind to know for certainty, but his writings certainly reflect that thinking.

The Fordham University translation that was the most reputable and well known..of On Jews and Their Lies I see has been removed because of some kind of copyright infringement so I just Googled for another reference.  I haven't read through this one to verrify it,

However millions of Jews over the centuries, even before the n***s, suffered in waves of persecution with people often quoting Martin Luther.

I could point out a yahoo user or two who displayed the exact same type of behavior and then you ask them why THEY turned from writing words of love about Jews to writing horrible wishes and hate about Jews..and see if you can get any reason.  My guess is that it will be the same sort of justification used BY Martin Luther and later Hitler...that they were doing the work of God and enacting the curse that Jews have for "rejecting" Jesus

edit:  The second link below is one I hope all here will read. It is a cache of a page I can't seem to open today.

The following is from that link:

Although Luther did not invent anti-Jewishness, he promoted it to a level never before seen in Europe. Luther bore the influence of his upbringing and from anti-Jewish theologians such as Lyra, Burgensis, (and John Chrysostom, before them). But Luther's 1543 book, "On the Jews and their lies" took Jewish hatred to a new level when he proposed to set fire to their synagogues and schools, to take away their homes, forbad them to pray or teach, or even to utter God's name. Luther wanted to "be rid of them" and requested that the government and ministers deal with the problem. He requested pastors and preachers to follow his example of issuing warnings against the Jews. He goes so far as to claim that "We are at fault in not slaying them" for avenging the death of Jesus Christ. Hitler's n**i government in the 1930s and 40s fit Luther's desires to a tee.

So vehemently did Luther speak against the Jews, and the fact that Luther represented an honorable and admired Christian to Protestants, that his written words carried the "memetic" seeds of anti-Jewishness up until the 20th century and into the Third Reich. Luther's Jewish eliminationist rhetoric virtually matches the beliefs held by Hitler and much of the German populace in the 1930s.

Luther unconsciously set the stage for the future of German nationalistic fanaticism. William L. Shirer in his "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," puts it succinctly:

"Through his sermons and his magnificent translations of the Bible, Luther created the modern German language, aroused in the people not only a new Protestant vision of Christianity by a fervent German nationalism and taught them, at least in religion, the supremacy of the individual conscience. But tragically for them, Luther's siding with the princes in the peasant rising, which he had largely inspired, and his passion for political autocracy ensured a mindless and provincial political absolutism which reduced the vast majority of the German people to poverty, to a horrible torpor and a demeaning subservience. Even worse perhaps, it helped to perpetuate and indeed to sharpen the hopeless divisions not only between classes but also between the various dynastic and political groupings of the German people. It doomed for centuries the possibility of the unification of Germany."

In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. And similar to Luther in the 1500s, Hitler spoke against the Jews. The n**i plan to create a German Reich Church laid its bases on the "Spirit of Dr. Martin Luther." The first physical violence against the Jews came on November 9-10 on Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) where the n***s killed Jews, shattered glass windows, and destroyed hundreds of synagogues, just as Luther had proposed. In Daniel Johah Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners, he writes:

"One leading Protestant churchman, Bishop Martin Sasse published a compendium of Martin Luther's antisemitic vitriol shortly after Kristallnacht's orgy of anti-Jewish violence. In the foreword to the volume, he applauded the burning of the synagogues and the coincidence of the day: 'On November 10, 1938, on Luther's birthday, the synagogues are burning in Germany.' The German people, he urged, ought to heed these words 'of the greatest antisemite of his time, the warner of his people against the Jews.'"

No apologist can claim that Martin Luther bore his anti-Jewishness out of youthful naivete', uneducation, or out of unfounded Christianity. On the contrary, Luther in his youth expressed a great optimism about Jewish conversion to Christianity. But in his later years, Luther began to realize that the Jews would not convert to his wishes. His anti-Jewishness grew slowly over time. His logic came not from science or reason, but rather from Scripture and his Faith. His "On the Jews and Their Lies" shows remarkable study into the Bible and fanatical biblical reasoning. Luther, at age 60 wrote this dangerous "little" book at the prime of his maturity, and in full knowledge in support of his beliefs and Christianity.

paperback makes an excellent point that there was hate there before the realization that his message wasn't going to be any more effective than the Catholic, that the belief that Jews were to be thought evil for "rejecting' the New Testament doctrine was already there.  He was simply withholding that tenet until he was convinced that Jews weren't going to accept his version or rationale with his reformation of Christian doctrine.

not sure how much of this will post but it is also one reason why I wanted folk to go to that second link:

"Luther not only wrote 'On the Jews and their lies,' but also dubious and intolerant works such as 'Against the Sabbatarians', 'Against the Antinoman,' and 'Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants.' In the latter, Luther called for the stabbing and slaying of peasant rebels which triggered the death of an estimated 100,000 human beings. These rebels were not only Christians but were mostly slaughtered after their surrender to the German princes. Nor did Luther apologize for his treatise even after world criticism. In his response to his critics in "An Open Letter on the Harsh Book," Luther reiterated his venom: "Therefore, as I wrote then so I write now; Let no one have mercy on the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants who refuse to listen to reason; but let everyone, as he is able, strike, hew, stab, and slay, as though among mad dogs, put to flight, and led astray by these peasants, so that peace and safety may be maintained." In all these harsh treatises, Luther provided an abundance of Biblical passages to justify his attack on his enemies. And, or course (sarcastically speaking), his actions were always through Christian "love" of his enemies, as he audaciously wrote: "The merciless punishment of the wicked is not being carried out just to punish the wicked and make them atone for the evil desires that are in their blood, but to protect the righteous and to maintain peace and safety. And beyond all doubt, these are precious works of mercy, love, and kindness. . ." [Bold characters, mine].

Most Christians staunchly defend their ideas of "true" Christianity (never seemingly to realize that other Christians have their own ideas, or if so, they get labeled as false Christians), but Luther had power and influence, and he vehemently opposed anyone who went against his version of True Christianity. One cannot deny Luther lived as a Christian, and an influential one at that. So to oppose him for practicing his brand of religion cannot serve to justify Christianity anymore than Oskar Schindler can be used to justify "true" Nazism, or neo-communists to justify Communism, or war to justify murder.

But perhaps the most lasting damage of all came from Luther openly advocating the abandonment of using natural reason (Luther considered his use of theological reasoning different from natural reason, i.e., scientific reasoning) . His theological message to live by faith and to abstain from listening to reason has mentally enslaved the lives of millions of Christians to this day. Throughout his literary life he wrote statements such as, "Whoever wishes to be a Christian, let him pluck out the eyes of his reason," "We must give reason a vacation and enter a different school. We must refrain from consulting reason. We must bid reason hold its peace; we must order it to be dead. We must gouge out its eyes and pluck its feathers...," "You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them." I can find no other influential writer who has spent as much ink, ad nauseum, against the very investigative tool which has kept the human species alive-- reason.

cont...

Answer 10

Suddenly?  The Christian Bible is full of anti-Semitism.  He simply became MORE anti-Semitic than the Catholics.

What David W. is referring to is supersessionism:

Part I: What is supersessionism?

The word "supersessionism" comes from the Latin super ("on," "upon," or "above") and sedere ("to sit"), as when one person sits on another person's chair, thereby displacing the other person. Christian theological supersessionism -- as espoused, for example, by Augustine (5th century) and Martin Luther (16th century) -- makes the claim that, following the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christians replaced Jews in God's love and favor and in the divine plan of salvation. According to the supersessionist view, God repudiated the Jewish people for their rejection of Christ. As a result, God's covenantal relationship with Israel was abrogated, to be taken up by the Church; and the Mosaic Law (Torah) was annulled, to be replaced by the law of Christ. Christians inherited all the promises of God to Israel in the Bible; Jews retained all the Bible's prophetic criticism and condemnation. Jewish biblical interpretation was discounted, and the "Old Testament" was assigned only a provisional validity. Judaism came to be regarded as merely a historical and social entity at best, and, at worst, a dead faith, the victim of a Pharisaic-rabbinic obsession with legalistic piety.

In supersessionist theology Jesus' ministry is understood as having been in direct opposition to Judaism. In consequence, Jesus is completely removed from his first-century Jewish context, and he becomes the primary obstacle between Christians and Jews.

Part II: Why is supersessionism a problem?

Implied in the claim that Christians displaced Jews in the covenant with God is the notion that Jews should stop being Jews and become Christians. This ideology under girds a "teaching of contempt" for Jews and Judaism that has marred relations between Christians and Jews for two millennia. Over the centuries anti-Judaic attitudes buttressed by displacement theology have produced evil fruit: legislation designed to discriminate against and suppress the Jews, and open acts of violence -- forced baptism, child stealing, population expulsions, and murderous pogroms. Habits of hatred ultimately paved the way for the n***s' "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem."

The supersessionist theology that created so many burdens for Jews has proved to be a problem for Christians as well. Supersessionism distorted Christian doctrine as it developed in the early Church. It continues to influence much contemporary Christian theology and is continually reinforced by the preaching and teaching presented in many churches. To our shame, moreover, supersessionist attitudes have fostered among Christians demonstrably un-Christian behavior.

Supersessionist theology raises crucial questions that a responsible Christianity cannot afford to ignore. For example, if Jews have been displaced in the divine plan of salvation, how do Christians account for Judaism's continuing existence and for the many faithful and theologically profound people who have been a part of the Jewish community? If a newer revelation displaces an older one, hasn't Christianity been displaced by Islam? Most significantly, what does supersessionist theology imply about the morality and faithfulness of God? If God's promises to the patriarchs and matriarchs of the people Israel could be nullified by the coming of Jesus Christ, what guarantee do Christians have that God's promises to anyone are reliable? The glaring weaknesses in displacement theology ought to make it obvious to Christians everywhere that supersessionism must be abandoned.

Part III: What can be done about supersessionism?

Before discussing those things that Christians can do to reverse the pernicious effects of displacement theology on our minds and hearts, it should be acknowledged with thanksgiving that thoughtful people in many denominations have been working for a number of years to identify and eliminate the vestiges of supersessionism that still taint our faith. Devoted Christians everywhere need to expand these efforts and continue to work until every trace of the "teaching of contempt" has been eradicated.

Overcoming supersessionism is not an insurmountable problem, but it is a complex one. It requires the Church: (1) to question the appropriateness and credibility of its teachings about the God of Israel and the Israel of God, (2) to confront the implications of those teachings, and (3) to reexamine the major doctrines of the Christian tradition in light of what the Church will have learned in the process about itself and its relationship to Judaism and the Jewish people.

Moreover, the Church must reappraise its approach to the Bible. Christians need to acknowledge the anti-Jewish polemic in the Christian Scriptures and understand the historical reasons for its presence. In addition, we must recognize the religious importance of the Hebrew Bible in its own right and establish a proper understanding of the relationship between the two testaments. We must also develop more appropriate ways of interpreting scripture. Most fundamentally, we must acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth lived his life, from the manger to the cross, as a Jew; and we must interpret Paul and his theology in the context of the Judaisms of the first century of the Common Era.

On the most elemental level, it is in the story Christians tell of divine interventions in human history and God's relations with humankind that we image our basic convictions and our understanding of reality and the nature of Christian life. If we are to overcome supersessionism, we must change the way we tell this story.

Finally, we Christians must change our attitudes and behavior toward the Jewish people. We must jettison Christian caricatures and stereotypes of Judaism and learn how Jews understand their own religious beliefs. We must be in conversation with Jews as we do our theology. We must reexamine our efforts to convert Jews to Christianity. Above all, we must teach respect for the Jewish people and for Judaism as a vibrant faith having its own integrity and witness to the world.

http://www.icjs.org/clergy/supersessioni...

.

Answer 11

The Roman Catholic Church held the Jewish people collectively responsible for the death of Christ until 1974.

Answer 12

Luther sincerely believed that the reluctance of  Jews to accept Jesus as their savior was a result of the rank anti-Semitism of many early Christians and the systemic failure of Catholic theologians to explain the New Covenant to Jews in a way they would understand and accept.

He therefore attempted to convert the Jews with a combination of tolerance and scholarly debate. The former was ineffective and the Jews won the latter.

The cognitive dissonance Luther, a scholar of note himself, experienced as a result of this failure caused him to see the Jews as willful agents of Satan.