|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
Basic observations VIII - XII
I saw this comment on the internet recently:
I despise Luther and, obviously, all he stands for. I think his words set a terrible precedent and helped convince Hitler to do what he did. but I still do not know whether Luther was clearly a racist in the sense that he saw the Jews' "evil" as inherited.
A right understanding of Christianity (and in the present context its relation to Naziism) must come from the bible alone, not from Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Aquinas, or any of the other church leaders who have written many things (true, partly true, or false) about Christianity. Many theologians have distorted the message of Christ and it is to Christ alone, and his teachings as expressed in the Old and New Testaments, that we look to for guidance. To the extent that Luther deviated from the bible's message, his teachings are to be condemned and dismissed.
Late in his life, Luther wrote a couple of tracts, "On the Jews and their Lies" and "Vom Shem Hamphoras." These contained many hostile and bitter comments about the Jews that have been a great embarrassment to the church and have caused a lot of confusion in the attempts to understand the relationship of Christianity to Naziism.
It would be easy to dispense with Luther's lamentable attacks as simple disobedience to the plain teachings of scripture, which says: "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (II Timothy). These tracts represent not Christianity, but a deviation from it. However, since Luther (and by extension Christianity) have so often been linked to Hitler because of these remarks, it might be helpful to make a few general observations.
To begin with, the Jews were not an issue in any of Luther's major Reformation works (The 95 Theses, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Bondage of the Will, and others).His main concern was elsewhere, contrary to what some have asserted, and if he had not written some hostile comments at the very end of his life his name would not be so prominent in discussions of the Holocaust.
Secondly, modern racial antisemitism was unknown in Luther's time. This is a strictly modern phenomenon, beginning with Gobineau, and amplified in the German context by Lagarde and Langbehn, with heavy doses of German modifications of Darwin (as shown by Daniel Gasman in The Scientific Origins of National Socialism). Luther had no interest in racial supremacy, a concept that is contrary to the bible's teaching that God "has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26). Hitler's basic approach had deep roots in 19th-century secularism going back to Hegel and even farther, with the addition of modern racial elements. The affinities between Hitler and Wagner, Ernst Haeckel, and Nietzsche (in The Antichrist) are unmistakable, and all of those men expressly rejected and attacked Christianity. The link from Shirer given in Sect. VI above shows a veneration by Hitler for Nietzsche that was never accorded to Luther.
Thirdly, in all of his life, even at the height of his influence, Luther never harmed anyone. His oft-quoted but little read tract "On the Jews and Their Lies" even refers to Jews coming to him to discuss the scriptures and being left to depart in peace. The Jews were basically well-treated in Germany before 1914, and in all other Protestant countries. It is significant that these sentiments were echoed by no other Protestant leader, and even caused some embarrassment in Luther's time. In countries where for centuries prior to 1914 Protestantism was dominant and Luther's basic teachings were deeply influential, these policies were never acted out or even seriously advocated.
Another point that should be made is that Luther was in part responding angrily to some insulting and hostile attacks on Christianity by some Jews ("Mary was a whore, Jesus was a highwayman who deserved to be hanged," and so on). Here Luther would have done well to pay more attention to I Timothy, which warns that "doting about questions and strifes of words" leads to "strife, railings, evil surmisings." This describes Luther's anti-Jewish tracts exactly. Luther also went against a passage in II Timothy, which says "shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." If Luther had been stronger in the faith, as he was earlier in life, he would have rejected the mocking of Christianity by some Jews without allowing himself to become obsessed by it.
Next, his constantly quoted remarks from "On the Jews and Their Lies" about forcing the Jews to work and burning their synagogues etc. were followed later in the same work by a statement that I have never seen quoted by anyone except myself. He said that those repressive measures would accomplish nothing, and that the Jews should be expelled instead. Here is the quote [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.
This was unchristian and wrong, but not as bad as what he is usually accused of.
As to whether or not Luther saw the Jews' evil as inherited, Luther contradicted himself in "On the Jews and their Lies" a number of times. Some comments refer to the possibility of Jews converting, others deny it. Luther's basic Reformation teachings were, in agreement with the bible, that the entire human race is sinful. The sin of unbelief in God as he revealed himself in Christ was confined not only to the Jews but to the Turks and to the Papists whom Luther also referred to as being lost and separated from God. As Paul says in Romans, "...we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin" (chapt. 3 v.9). This sin of the Jews is the sin of the human race. Since the New Testament obviously refers to Jews converting, any statement that Jews cannot convert must be regarded as unbiblical and contrary to scriptural Christianity. Luther's statements about the Jews being separated from God due to their unbelief in Christ are not antisemitic or racial, because this basic biblical teaching of salvation through Christ alone applies equally to the entire human race. Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, Christians who are Christians in name only but reject the essential doctrines of Christ's person and work and have not received the Spirit of Christ by faith, they also are separated from God by the sin of unbelief.
It is too easy to read these things looking backward from the Holocaust. The horrors of Hitler were undreamed of in Luther's time, and Luther's comments were dismissed by all serious Christians as a bad mistake of Luther and a personal lapse from a lifetime of much better things. The dust was blown off his forgotten and minor tracts in an evil age centuries later by someone approaching the Jewish question from an entirely different angle. Luther's quotes were useful to Hitler and gave him a free propaganda bonus, particularly as there were numerous Christians who agreed with Hitler's main political goals (end the instability of Weimar, regain lost territory, defeat the threat of Communism, and so on) but felt uncomfortable with his more extreme statements.
Luther was praised and admired by the Nazis and by Hitler, not for his basic doctrines about God, Jesus, the bible, salvation, and the afterlife, which were anathema to them, but rather (in addition to his anger at Jews) as a hero of German nationalism, who supposedly helped to liberate the Nordics from the undue Mediterranean influence of Catholic Rome. Karl Marx also spoke well of Luther, not because he cared for Luther's teachings, but because Luther helped to liberate Europe from medieval dogmas.
It was not the old order but the destruction of the old order - politically, economically, philosophically, and spiritually - that opened the door for new things Luther never dreamed of. Luther's influence on modern German history is vastly overrated. Lutheranism had ceased to be a culturally dominant force long before 1900. Mosse's Crisis of German Ideology, a detailed analysis of 19th-century German culture, refers to Luther 5 times - once in passing, and once because someone objected to Luther's emphasis on the bible. What did Luther have to do with WWI, the Weimar Republic, the Great Depression, the rise of Communism, imperialism, technology? The Germans were not lemmings without will, helplessly subject to Luther's all-pervading influence.
It has been said that Luther established the German tradition of obedience to authority - but this obedience to authority was not in evidence during the Napoleonic era, nor was it in evidence in the revolutions of 1848. Germans in the Weimar era did not hesitate to express their hostility to the government and seek to overthrow it. They obeyed Hitler not because of Luther's magical influence extending hypnotically over the centuries, but for two reasons: genuine support for Hitler, or fear of the Gestapo. How did Stalin and Mao exalt themselves to the status of demi-gods and rule entire nations by force without the benefit of a Lutheran tradition?
Those who approach Luther's most important works with the proper attitude will find a deep spirituality and many profound biblical truths. His influence for the good in delivering the body of Christ from Roman superstitions far outweighs the abuse of his worst and long-forgotten blunders by a modern ideology derived from sources unknown in Luther's day. He was far above the limitations of his age, and if he had not lapsed so badly into bitterness and hostility at the very close of his life, his name would not figure in these discussions.
IX. The Nazi Party Platform's support of "positive" Christianity was a carefully calculated political tactic devoid of any biblical principle. Other parts of the Platform were merely propaganda and Hitler made no attempt to carry them out after coming to power.
Point 24 of the NSDAP platform reads:
We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.
The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
[www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/25Points.html]
This has been used to prove the Nazi-Christian connection - however, Point 2 stresses the equality of Germans with other nations, and we all know how sincerely Hitler was committed to that principle; Point 6 affirms the Nazi belief in democracy ("The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens") - it also objects to giving people posts on the basis of party affiliation. Someone who based their understanding of Hitler and the Third Reich on this platform would, frankly, be an idiot.
Some points refer to the socialist emphasis of National Socialism and were abandoned before Hitler came to power (he needed the support of wealthy undustrialists). Point 11 demanded the abolition of unearned income; Points 12 and 13 call for the abolition of war profits (which would have been bad news for the Krupps and other industrialists, if it had ever been sincerely applied) and the nationalization of trusts.
Point 22 demands the abolition of the regular army, which of course Hitler never even attempted to carry out; Point 23 demonstrates Hitler's love of honesty and journalistic integrity - it forbids political lies in the press (no doubt Goebbels and Hitler got a chuckle out of that one); Point 25 calls for "the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations."
Anyone who has a real understanding of the Third Reich, not to mention politics in general, understands that this party platform was meant to appeal to the electorate and did not fully express Hitler's deepest inner thoughts. When this was drawn up, Hitler was still a minor figure trying to appeal to as many people as possible, and he put together a pleasant mixture of lies, truths, and half truths to deceive the gullible electorate.
As to Point 24, it calls for "freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race." This meant freedom for all religions that did not contradict Naziism. The following reference to "positive Christianity" meant, as anyone with any knowledge of the subject is aware, Christianity purged of its "Jewish elements" and totally submissive to Naziism on all key points.
Peter Viereck's book Metapolitics: The Roots of the Nazi Mind has some comments about German or Positive Christianity that reflect real knowledge of the subject and merit repetition:
Already in the 1880's Professor Paul de Lagarde was rejecting much of Christianity as Jewish. He replaced it by a compromise between Christianity and a new racist religion of the German Volk. From these ideas of Lagarde and Houston Stewart Chamberlain sprang Hitler's "positive Christianity," which is instilled into German youth today. [p. 168][Viereck's book was first published in 1941].
Speaking about Lagarde, Viereck goes on to say:
...his Oriental scholarship led him to a new interpretation of the bible by which the Jews are the arch-fiends of history and by which the Christian churches, save where purged of their Jewish origins by a German "awakening," are the curse of the Nordic super race [p. 169].
A few more illuminating comments from the same source are sufficient to explain this unique (and now fortunately extinct) attempt to conform Christianity to a false philosophy of the world. Referring to Alfred Rosenberg, appointed by Hitler in 1934 to be the Director of Party Education in Weltanschauung, Viereck says Rosenberg sought to make Christianity conform to the new revelation of Naziism. Rosenberg
...regards Christ as one of a long line of Aryan heroes, ranging from Wotan and Siegfried to Wagner and Hitler. Rosenberg "proves" Christ an anti-Semitic descendant of Atlantis....Lagarde, Chamberlain, and Rosenberg are all anti-Old-Testament and anti-church and dub Saint Paul the villain of the drama.
Saint Paul, according to these three writers, betrayed Jesus by founding his church on that obnoxious Judaism which He died to destroy. Thereby the Christian churches became just one more mask of the Jews, allied with Freemasons, Marxists, Tibetan lamas, and international bankers. The most villainous church of all is the Catholic because it is the most international [pp. 282-3].
Also referred to is the admiration of the aforementioned "theologians" - Lagarde, Chamberlain, and Rosenberg - for Martin Luther - "not Luther the great Christian, but Luther the German nationalist rebelling against the Mediterranean world and against Renaissance humanism" [p. 283]. Chamberlain saw Luther as a political hero, not a religious one, who "founded 'the future of German nationalism' by 'emancipating' the nordic from international Rome" [p. 283]. One last quote is instructive: "Luther is sharply distinguished from the Lutheran church; the latter must be exterminated in so far as it uses "the Jewish Bible" (the Old Testament) and rejects racism" [p. 283].
This new creed was compatible with National Socialism and hence useful for propaganda purposes. Someone who gave the following sermon after Hitler came to power would have suffered swift retribution for his Negative Christianity:
"Germany's defeat was God's judgement and we should accept his will. The Versailles Treaty is unquestionably unjust, but hatred and revenge will only make a bad situation worse. What is most important is, where will you spend eternity? What will it profit you if Germany is a great and mighty nation, but you die and stand before God only to be rejected and sent to hell? What will it harm you if Germany loses territory, but you die and stand before God and are accepted into paradise, where all of the trials and sufferings of the world will seem like nothing? We have all sinned, and are guilty of sin before a righteous and holy God, but in Jesus Christ God has revealed to us the sure and only way to find forgiveness and eternal life. In fact, we can rejoice in Germany's defeat and humiliation if, stripped of our vain and evil pride, we are left with nothing, and forced to realize the worthlessness of human power and glory, and left with nowhere to turn but Christ. Also, there are some who are asserting that the Germans are a superior race. This is not what the bible teaches. It says in the book of Acts that God 'has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.' Jew and Gentile, we are all under the same condemnation for sin..."
X. Was Hitler a good Catholic?
Hitler committed suicide, a mortal sin in the Catholic Church. He did not call for a priest in his last hours, make confession, or seek absolution or ask for last rites. He never went to confession once the entire time he was Chancellor, and numerous laws restricting Catholics and seeking to remove them from every sphere of public life were a notable feature of his regime. He never went to mass once during the entire war, but did attend a Requiem for Marshal Pilsudski of Poland in 1935, a good photo-op, useful for deceiving people. He never said one single reverential word about the Virgin Mary.
Moreover, in March of 1937 a papal encyclical (Mit Brennender Sorge) was read in Catholic churches throughout Germany. It objected to the Nazi cult of race, and called for resistance to perversions of Christian doctrine and morality. The primary loyalty of German Catholics to Rome, to the Church, and to Christ was reaffirmed - and what was Hitler's response? Did he say "The Holy Father has spoken" or "The Pope has the power of the keys from Peter and as a Catholic I call on all Germans to submit to the claims of Rome"?
John Conway relates Hitler's response - it was not that of a devout Catholic. (Conway, p. 166) Copies of the encyclical were seized whenever possible, and those caught distributing it were to be arrested. Publication by German church newspapers was forbidden. The Nazi Minister of Church Affairs accused the Roman Church of "treachery," and Hitler refused to pay a courtesy call on the Vatican when he visited Rome in 1938.
Why did Hitler faithfully keep the agreement he signed with the Vatican?
The Concordat with the Vatican was repeatedly broken. J.S. Conway's "The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-1945" gives ample documentation. Pages 278-279 alone contain the following: confiscation of two Jesuit monasteries in Munster...confiscations of monasteries, an abbey, the House of the Mission Sisters of the Immaculate Conception, and other church properties. "The Papal Nuncio himself made representations to the Foreign Ministry about the confiscations of monasteries in Aachen, Dresden, and Vienna" (p.279). "In November (1933), Cardinal Pacelli, deeply shocked by the many cases of persecution reported to Rome, threatened to issue an official protest from the Vatican...In a note despatched to the German Foreign Ministry, Pacelli complained bitterly of 'difficulties and persecutions, carried to a virtually intolerable degree, which the Catholic Church in Germany is now enduring in open violation of the Concordat'. An official from the Ministry of the Interior was hastily sent to Rome to smooth the matter over...." (p. 64). Conway doesn't say whether this "smoothing over" was accomplished with promises that things would improve, or veiled threats that protests would make things worse, or by complaints that violations by the German government were justified by the failure of the German Catholics to keep completely silent on all political issues.
Why wasn't Hitler excommunicated
Why, then, didn't the Vatican excommunicate Hitler and place Mein Kampf on the index of forbidden books? Such a question shows a lack of familiarity both with the Roman Church and with realities of life in the Third Reich. If the Pope had excommunicated Hitler and banned his book, this would have placed German Catholics in an anguishing dilemma. They would either have had to openly reject and repudiate Hitler, in which case they would have suffered the severest persecution with devastating damage to the institution of the Church in Germany, or they would have had to break with the Pope and ignore his excommunication. In either case the Roman Church in Germany would have suffered great damage - and so the Pope, rightly or wrongly, felt that his only course was to continue to lodge numerous but completely ineffectual protests through official channels.
Hitler never left the church officially, and required Goering and Goebbels to retain their church memberships
If Goebbels and Goering were in fact prevented from leaving the church, not cancelling church membership was good propaganda and contributed to keeping the Christians docile and obedient. There was nothing to gain by cancelling membership and something to be gained by keeping it.
XI. Contrary to popular belief, Wilhelmine, Weimar, and National Socialist Germany was not a deeply Christian country.
Statistics are sometimes cited to show that Hitler's Germany was a strongly Christian country. Yet, when we look at the lifeblood of German culture in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and consider the poets, philosophers, novelists, scientists, and painters that made German culture renowned throughout the world, do we find that even one of them was a serious bible-believing Christian? Beethoven, Schiller, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Christians? Goethe laughed at Christianity. Schiller's "Ode to Joy" is nothing but nonsensical romantic paganism devoid of any Christian influence. Hegel considered himself a "Protestant" yet had no regard for the fundamentals of the faith, which he felt were a distraction and a hindrance from Christ's real teaching, which was only ethics. And what shall we say of Stefan George, Bert Brecht, Fritz Lang, Lotte Lenya, and Marlene Dietrich - Christians? Then of course there are Mann, Spengler, the German expressionist painters, Wagner, Nietzsche, Haeckel, physicists like Heisenberg and Planck - Christians? Is there one major cultural figure in 130 years of German cultural history from 1800 to 1933 that was a dedicated biblical Christian? Popular German culture of the 1920's was certainly not preoccupied with biblical themes.
Any general secular history of Weimar or Wilhelmine Germany does not give the impression of a deeply Christian culture with large numbers of people speaking out from a biblical perspective against Darwinism, Freudianism, positivism, or other modern forms of secularism. One could read a number of histories of the Weimar Republic and find Christianity not even mentioned at all as a vital cultural force. The Lutheranism of the Reformation was a spent force before 1800, which is why the German Protestant church capitulated almost completely before the onslaught of modernism. "Protestant" churches and seminaries throughout Germany abandoned the historic doctrines in order to make Christianity more acceptable to the forces of modernism, and destroyed German protestantism in doing so. The Catholics, bound more rigidly by the Roman hierarchy, maintained an outward orthodoxy according to their understanding of it, but were by no means a vital force in German culture, and all too often looked to the fascists to protect them and preserve their role in the state and society.
Modern Germany was in fact a darkly pagan country in which Christian influence had been steadily declining since the so-called Enlightenment. The forces of secularism triumphed over the church, and traditional ecclesiastics like Hengstenberg who fought in vain to stem the tide are now only a minor footnote, mentioned in passing if at all. Darwinism, "Enlightenment" and scientific rationalism, Marxism, racism, militarism, imperialism, the Volkish movement (that considered the Germans a new Chosen People destined to lead mankind), theological liberalism that considered the bible to be full of mistakes, myths, and folk tales - these were the dominant forces in modern Germany, not biblical Christianity, and many of the "pastors" and "theologians" and "Christians" who embraced Hitler had long since abandoned the historic Christian faith.
Much of the problem is caused by the Lutheran and Catholic practice of baptizing people into the church as infants. Some water is sprinkled on the head of witless babes, and they are now Christians for life, no matter what they believe and how they live. They are brought up thinking that Christianity is a cultural matter that has nothing to do with what they actually believe.
However, one reputable source, without giving any documentation, said that 95% of all Germans in the Nazi era were loyal to their Catholic or Protestant churches. An online encyclopedia confirms this, stating that "Before World War II, about two-thirds of the German population was Protestant and one-third was Roman Catholic" [encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Germany]. Yet, this same website, giving statistics on church membership in postwar Germany, casts some doubt on the significance of broad generalizations about church membership.
Writing after the unification of Germany in 1990, but describing the former West Germany in contrast to a significantly different situation in former East Germany, the encyclopedia entry asserts that "Christianity is the major religion, with Protestants (particularly in the north and east) comprising 33% of the population and Catholics (particularly in the south and west) also 33%. In total more than 55 million people, officially belong to a Christian denomination, although most of them take no part in church life except at such events as weddings and funerals." A study cited by this same source indicates that according to a 1995-1997 survey, 14% of the population in West Germany attended church once a week. Thus, out of a seemingly large Christian population, the majority think the church is useful for weddings and funerals only. Of those who do attend, there is no doubt a significant percentage of people who attend for social reasons only, as is so often the case in America, do not believe in basic doctrines at all, and make no real effort to live the Christian life.
I have not been able to find a survey that asked people in Nazi Germany "Do you believe that Jesus Christ was God come to earth in human form to die on the cross as a sacrifice for the sins of the world; that he rose from the dead; that those who believe in him can be saved from sin; that the bible is the divinely inspired word of God?" and so on. What if there were also great numbers of "Protestants" and "Catholics" in Nazi Germany that used those terms as a cultural lable, with no great regard for specific doctrines?
There are some who will claim that all of this is merely a clever evasive tactic on my part. It will seem to them that I am defining the terms "Christian" and "Christianity" so narrowly as to escape from the problem of Christian support for Hitler altogether. They will insist that those who call themselves "Christians" are so by definition, no matter what they believe or how they live. Here, the basic question is, "What is a Christian?" According to the bible's definition, according to the teachings of Christ and the apostles, "Christianity" is much more than a cultural label that is indiscriminately applied to anyone whether they really believe in Christ or not. That this is in fact the case will be seen when Christ returns. Then it will be clear, who loved, served, obeyed, and believed in him - and who did not.
XII Assertions that Christianity is inherently antisemitic reveal an ignorance of scripture
To hear some people tell it, you would think that all of Christian history consisted of angry mobs shouting "The Jews killed Christ! Death to the Jews!" You would never know there were many centuries of combined experience in many countries in which Jews were not persecuted, and often well-treated. One would think there were countless theologians busily churning out tracts attacking the Jews, and never know that many leading Christian writers never had harsh words for the Jews.
Yet, while myriads of Christians have never harmed a Jew or wanted to, there have been (prior to the 20th century) such crimes as the Inquisition, the Crusades, and pogroms (chiefly in the Middle Ages, and more recently in Czarist Russia). These were limited in time and place, not occurring until a thousand years or more after the resurrection of Christ. They are in no sense inherent in Christianity - if they were, they would have occurred regularly at all times and in all places where Christianity was the dominant cultural force.
Moreover, there are ample bible verses to show that those who practice hatred and cruelty against Jews, or against anyone else, are disobeying the bible's teachings and acting contrary to the gospel of Christ. Some verses out of many are these in James, Titus, and I & II Timothy:
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy...
And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth...
But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
Some have wondered at the sad contradiction between the teachings of the bible and the cruelties that have been perpetrated in the name of Christ. Yet, it is no mystery that many fallen and ignorant people should fall short of wonderful spiritual truths, distort them, and corrupt them. Human nature being what it is, it would have been more surprising if all of these good teachings had been consistently followed. At any rate, those who have corrupted the teachings of Christianity will receive their just reward on the day of judgement, when they have to explain to Christ why they disobeyed his most basic teachings and caused people to hate and fear his name.
Here a simple but important point must be raised; failure to understand it has caused a great deal of confusion. That is, there is more to being a Christian than just saying "I am a Christian." There is more to the Christian life than being baptized as an infant, going to church regularly, and unthinkingly drinking in the evils of a world that the bible teaches is inherently dark and sinful.
Being a Christian requires receiving the Spirit of Christ: as it says in Romans:
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his...But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Receiving this Spirit leaves room for natural human error even as we strive to be more like Christ, but there are fruits of the Spirit that should be evident to some degree. As Jesus said, "A tree is known by its fruit." Paul describes the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Those who lack the Spirit and walk according to the natural man (described in the bible as "the flesh") are characterized thus in the same letter:
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Thus, those who appear to the world as Christians, and even sincerely believe themselves to be such, but practice hatred and murder, and do not repent of their wickedness, are alienated from Christ, and false Christians. As it says in I Corinthians ("charity" being an archaic word meaning "love"):
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
It also says in I John, "... no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him," and "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."
The idea that there are false Christians, incidentally, is not an escape mechanism that I have cleverly devised to avoid the whole problem of evil done in the name of Christ. Jesus referred to false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing. He also spoke of those who will come before him on the day of judgement, having done many things in Christ's name, only to be cast out:
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
These are like the foolish man who heard Jesus' sayings but did not do them. He built his house not upon the rock, but upon the sand - when the storms came his house collapsed. This is an apt metaphor for the church in Nazi Germany.
John also refers to false Christians: "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth" and "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
James and Paul describe people who deceive themselves with an outward appearance of religion:
For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away...
Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
On the other hand, there are some aspects of biblical teaching that give credence to the assertion that Christianity is inherently antisemitic. One is the teaching is that Judaism is outmoded and has been superceded by the new revelation and the new covenant in Christ. Another has to do with the fact that the Jews had Christ crucified. Thirdly, Christ himself made severe denunciations of the Jewish leaders, which have been mistakenly applied to the Jewish people as a whole. Finally, the New Testament does contain some negative statements about Jews.
Salvation by grace through faith alone
The first of these, that the Jews cannot earn God's favor by keeping the law to the best of their ability, is in no sense antisemitic because it applies to the whole world without exception. Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists, theists of whatever sort, practitioners of numerous other world religions, even Christians who feel that being baptized into the church and following its rules entitle them to forgiveness and eternal life - none of them can earn their way into heaven by their good deeds. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, all require forgiveness for sin, and this forgiveness is obtained only through Christ. Jews may object to this message as untrue if they like, but it is not antisemitic.
The crucifixion of Christ
More complex is the problem of the death of Christ. The Jews have suffered because of this, but to respond to Christ's crucifixion by disobeying his commandments, by showing hatred to others, shows a complete misunderstanding of essential teachings.
First, Christ laid down his life voluntarily. He did not have to die, and could have delivered himself. He was a willing sacrifice.
Second, this death was part of God's plan - as it says in Acts:
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Third, the Gentiles also had a hand it this event. Although Pilate washed his hands, this futile gesture does not alter the fact that for the sake of political expediency he knowingly handed an innocent man over to a cruel death. Pilate's guilt, and the guilt of the Gentiles, is described by Matthew Henry in his Commentary on the Whole Bible [www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC00000.HTM]:
They delivered him to Pontius Pilate; according to that which Christ had often said, that he should be delivered to the Gentiles. Both Jews and Gentiles were obnoxious to the judgment of God, and concluded under sin, and Christ was to be the Saviour both of Jews and Gentiles; and therefore Christ was brought into the judgment both of Jews and Gentiles, and both had a hand in his death...
(2.)This puts him into a great strait, betwixt the peace of his own mind, and the peace of the city; he is loth to condemn an innocent man, and yet loth to disoblige the people, and raise a devil that would not be soon laid. Had he steadily and resolutely adhered to the sacred laws of justice, as a judge ought to do, he had not been in any perplexity; the matter was plain and past dispute, that a man in whom was found no fault, ought not to be crucified, upon any pretence whatsoever, nor must an unjust thing be done, to gratify any man or company of men in the world; the cause is soon decided; Let justice be done, though heaven and earth come together--Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum...
(3.) Pilate thinks to trim the matter, and to pacify both the people and his own conscience too, by doing it, and yet disowning it, acting the thing, and yet acquitting himself from it at the same time. Such absurdities and self-contradictions do they run upon, whose convictions are strong, but their corruptions stronger. Happy is he (saith the apostle, Rom. xiv. 22) that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth; or, which is all one, that allows not himself in that thing which he condemns.
Now Pilate endeavours to clear himself from the guilt,
[1.] By a sign; He took water, and washed his hands before the multitude; not as if he thought thereby to cleanse himself from any guilt contracted before God, but to acquit himself before the people, from so much as contracting any guilt in this matter; as if he had said, "If it be done, bear witness that it is none of my doing." He borrowed the ceremony from that law which appointed it to be used for the clearing of the country from the guilt of an undiscovered murder (Deut. xxi. 6, 7); and he used it the more to affect the people with the conviction he was under of the prisoner's innocency; and, probably, such was the noise of the rabble, that, if he had not used some such surprising sign, in the view of them all, he could not have been heard.
[2.] By a saying; in which, First, He clears himself; I am innocent of the blood of this just person. What nonsense was this, to condemn him, and yet protest that he was innocent of his blood! For men to protest against a thing, and yet to practise it, is only to proclaim that they sin against their consciences. Though Pilate professed his innocency, God charges him with guilt, Acts iv. 27. Some think to justify themselves, by pleading that their hands were not in the sin; but David kills by the sword of the children of Ammon, and Ahab by the elders of Jezreel. Pilate here thinks to justify himself, by pleading that his heart was not in the action; but here is an averment which will never be admitted. Protestatio non valet contra factum--In vain does he protest against the deed which at the same time he perpetrates. Secondly, He casts it upon the priests and people; "See ye to it; if it must be done, I cannot help it, do you answer it before God and the world." Note, Sin is a brat that nobody is willing to own; and many deceive themselves with this, that they shall bear no blame if they can but find any to lay the blame upon; but it is not so easy a thing to transfer the guilt of sin as many think it is. The condition of him that is infected with the plague is not the less dangerous, either for his catching the infection from others, or his communicating the infection to others; we may be tempted to sin, but cannot be forced...
...Observe, 1. Where this was done--in the common hall. The governor's house, which should have been a shelter to the wronged and abused, is made the theatre of this barbarity. I wonder that the governor, who was so desirous to acquit himself from the blood of this just person, would suffer this to be done in his house. Perhaps he did not order it to be done, but he connived at it; and those in authority will be accountable, not only for the wickedness which they do, or appoint, but for that which they do not restrain, when it is in the power of their hands...
Next, speaking to the Jews who were directly involved, Peter did not say in the first sermon at Pentecost, "Your actions have bound you and the entire Jewish nation under a curse, you are doomed and there is no hope for you." His approach was to confront them with their guilt, but then to offer them forgiveness through repentance and faith in Christ. This was the consistent approach of all of the apostles throughout the entire New Testament subsequent to the crucifixion. Even after Paul was attacked by a Jewish mob that tried to kill him, and had to be rescued by Roman soldiers, he still tried to reach out to his attackers. The idea that the Jews are cursed, doomed, and beyond the gospel is a false notion that has no biblical basis.
Finally, it could not have been a huge mob of millions of Jews that appeared before Pilate and demanded the death of Christ. What shall we say of the Jews who did not approve of this deed, and sorrowed at the death of Christ? What of those who were scattered throughout the world and were wholly ignorant of what occurred? Are their remote descendants to be exempted from the commandments of Christ obligatory on all Christians, to show the love of God to man? Nowhere in the New Testament does it suggest that the Jews are less than human, or that they have been removed from the bounds of ordinary human decency and Christian charity.
Christians are not called to be agents of God's wrath. We are called to be ministers of reconciliation, our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, offering the love of God to all, Jew or Gentile. If they respond or not is in the hands of God.
Christ's denunciations of the Pharisees
Christ's denunciations of the Pharisees are well-known. Suffice it to say, he was not speaking of the common people, but of a corrupt leadership. These comments were not a blanket condemnation of the Jews as a whole. The statement about Jews being children of the devil in John is plainly referring to those who were plotting to kill him (8:37), not to all Jews. That murderers are children of the devil is a general truth that applies to the entire human race, not only to Jews. Also, Jesus said "Inasumuch as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me." Thus, Communists or medieval inquisitors who killed true Christians for their faith are guilty of the same crime and share the same evil as the Jews who plotted to kill Christ.
Other criticisms of the Jews
Stephen in the book of Acts refers to the Jews as "stiffnecked" and says that they "resist the Holy Ghost." He points out that they killed their own prophets and betrayed and murdered Christ. Is this antisemitism? The Old Testament prophets also had a great deal to say about the wickedness of the Jewish people. Isaiah refers to the Jews as "a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers: they have forsaken the Lord." Is this antisemitism, or a statement of fact?
It is a fact that the Jews are sinful and wicked people; however, as Paul makes very clear in Romans, the sin of the Jews is the sin of the entire human race. "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (3:9-10). Thus, when Paul criticizes the Jews in I Thessalonians, he not only indicts the Jews, but says to the Thessalonians in the same sentence: "for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen."
In conclusion, an objective reading of the New Testament should leave no doubt that Christians who hate and persecute Jews or anyone else are acting in disobedience to the teachings of Christ and the apostles.
A lengthier discussion of these and other points can be found at www.bedfordgaol.com.
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
