Martin Luther’s Antisemitism — What Lutherans Must Answer
Martin Luther wrote a pamphlet in 1543 advocating burning synagogues, confiscating Jewish books, and expelling Jews from Germany. His theology cannot be separated from the man who wrote it.
“On the Jews and Their Lies” (1543)
Martin Luther — “On the Jews and Their Lies,” 1543
“First, their synagogues or churches should be set on fire… Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed… Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayerbooks and Talmuds… Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury.”
This is not a youthful indiscretion. Luther was 60 years old when he wrote it. It was his final major work before his death three years later in 1546. He was not confused, nor was he speaking in metaphor. He was issuing a program.
The man who wrote “here I stand, I can do no other” also wrote burn their synagogues. Both statements came from the same man, operating from the same theological convictions, in the same century. Lutherans who selectively cite the first while suppressing the second are not engaging with Luther. They are constructing a more comfortable version of him.
The Historical Connection
Nazi propagandists explicitly cited Luther’s writings. Julius Streicher, editor of Der Stürmer — the virulently antisemitic Nazi newspaper — cited “On the Jews and Their Lies” at the Nuremberg trials as justification for his actions.
The German Lutheran church, under Nazi pressure, largely supported the regime. The Deutsche Christen movement, rooted in German Lutheranism, actively collaborated. This is documented history, not accusation.
The line from Luther’s 1543 pamphlet to Nazi policy is not a metaphorical line. It is a documented line of influence, acknowledged by historians across the ideological spectrum. It was acknowledged by Luther’s own theological heirs at Nuremberg.
The Theological Problem
Lutherans accept Luther’s Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and Sola Gratia as their doctrinal foundation. These doctrines were developed by the same man who wrote “On the Jews and Their Lies.”
The question for Lutherans is direct: on what basis do you accept his soteriology while dismissing his antisemitism? The two products of Luther’s mind were formed by the same interpretive framework, the same hermeneutic, the same claim to scripture-alone authority.
The Dilemma Luther Leaves for His Heirs
- Option A — Luther’s theology is reliable because Luther was reliable; then his antisemitism must also be accounted for, not dismissed
- Option B — Luther’s antisemitism was his human failing; then his theology is equally subject to human fallibility and requires independent verification
- Option C — Luther is irrelevant as a source of authority; then Lutheranism as a theological tradition must be rebuilt on something other than Luther
There is no Option D that accepts Luther’s soteriology as reliable while treating his antisemitism as a forgettable footnote. The same interpretive engine produced both. You cannot take the output you prefer and discard the rest without explaining why the engine is selectively trustworthy.
The LDS Position
The Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that all are alike unto God — Jew and Gentile alike.
“He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
Temple work is performed for Jewish people — including Holocaust victims. The LDS relationship with Jewish history is one of respect and covenant, not contempt. This is not a new position forced by political pressure. It is the doctrine, recorded in the Book of Mormon, published in 1830 — 113 years before Luther’s theological heirs were citing his pamphlet at Nuremberg.
Verdict
Lutherans cannot selectively accept Luther’s theology while dismissing his antisemitism as an unfortunate historical accident. The man is inseparable from the theology he produced.
If you build on Luther, you build on the man who wrote “On the Jews and Their Lies.” That requires an honest accounting — not a comfortable separation that accepts his soteriology while filing his antisemitism under “product of his times.”
His times were also Joseph Smith’s times. Critics who demand an accounting of every statement made by LDS prophets owe the same accounting to the founder of the tradition they defend. The standard has to apply in both directions, or it is not a standard — it is a rhetorical weapon.