One word, “outstanding!”
Dr Howard Hendricks:
Training the Bible Teacher
Reply
Monthly Archives: March 2017
Luther & Anti-Semitism
In this excerpt from Ligonier’s 2017 National Conference, Stephen Nichols and W. Robert Godfrey discuss whether Martin Luther was guilty of anti-Semitism.
Transcript
Stephen Nichols: You know, this is a question you hear a lot, and I think we’ve got to look at the broad context of Luther and then we need to say, that we need to understand him in that context, but we also need to not give him a free pass. So, the first thing we see in Luther is his initial writings to the Jewish people are very favorable. He actually is countercultural in that, and he goes against the current consensus and actually favors a good treatment towards the Jews. As the Reformation went on and a few years on, Luther fully thought that that good treatment towards the Jews would result in their paying attention to the gospel and coming to Christ, and he was not seeing that happen. And he began to question, perhaps, he was too easy on them in his initial writings and should have pressed more, in order for them to be more aware and perhaps be challenged and then come after the gospel.
So, his early writings are very favorable. He begins to think through this, though, in his later writings and the writing that really trips Luther up is his, On the Jews and Their Detestable Lies. And it’s in that writing that Luther unleashes his rhetoric against the Jews and is very forceful in his rhetoric. Now we need to say that he was an equal opportunity offender. It wasn’t just—that rhetoric was not just reserved—for the Jews, he used the same rhetoric for the Papists, for the Anabaptists, for the nominal Christians, that he used for the Jews. But he was wrong. He spoke harshly, and I think he abused his influence that he had in speaking harshly. And so, we need to say that Luther was wrong in that. But this isn’t necessarily anti-Semitism, that’s really a 20th-century phenomenon. What Luther was interested in was really following the lead of the Apostle Paul and following the lead of the New Testament. He saw this as a betrayal of Christ, a betrayal of the gospel, as a failure to recognize Jesus’ coming as the Messiah. And so, it was not an ethnic motivation that prompted Luther to this, it was a theological one. So, the answer to this is we need to understand him in his context, but we should not give him a free pass. And we need to recognize that he has legs of iron but feet of clay. And this is one of those instances where his feet of clay do in fact come through.
W. Robert Godfrey: Just to add one more thing, that’s exactly right—but the one little that should be added is Luther, all his life, longed that Jews should be converted and join the church. Hitler never wanted Jews to join the Nazi party. That’s the difference between anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish. Luther wasn’t opposed to the Jews because of their blood. He was opposed to the Jews because of their religion. And he wanted them to join the Christian church. If you’re really anti-Semitic, you’re against Jews because of their blood and there’s nothing Jews can do about that. There’s not change they can make to make a difference. You’re absolutely right, Luther’s language should not be defended by us because it’s violent against the Jews. It was not against an ethnic people, as you said, but against a religion that he reacted so sharply.
Tongues??
by Daniel J. Phillips
(original source here)
[The following is summarized from my larger book, Sound Doctrine Concerning the Holy Spirit: His Person, Work, and Gifts (not yet published). It is intended as a brief summary of Biblical data concerning tongues, based on exegesis developed at greater length in my book.]
What Biblical Tongues Were:
The manifestation was supernatural (Acts 2:1-4).
The manifestation involved speaking. (We read in Acts 2:4, “and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in different tongues, just as the Spirit was giving them to declare” [emphases added]. In fact, we must notice that this activity of speaking in tongues began before any of the listeners heard the speakers. The stress is on what the believers say, not on what the listeners hear. They spoke in other languages. Also, in v. 6 we read, “each one was continually hearing them speaking in his own dialect”; and again, in v. 11, “we hear them speaking in our own tongues the mighty deeds of God” [emphases added]. There is a reason it is referred to as the gift of “tongues,” not “ears.”)
The manifestation involved languages that were intelligible. (Cf. Acts 2:9-11; 1 Corinthians 14:19), known (Greek glossa means language; cf. also Corinthians 12:10, 28; 14:21, 22), and not naturally learned (Acts 2:7).
Tongues were unsought (Acts 2; 1 Corinthians 12:11, 18).
Tongues were of low priority (1 Corinthians 12:28, etc.).
Tongues were designed to be temporary (1 Corinthians 13:8-10).
Tongues were a sign for specific unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:21, 22).
Tongues were subject both to self-regulation and to external regulation (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:26-27). (The suggestion that all claims to speaking in tongues must be accepted, and cannot be prohibited, has no basis in Scripture.)
What Biblical Tongues Were (and Are) Not:
Not ecstatic (i.e. gibberish, or “exalted non-language”; Greek glossa never once means gibberish, which the dictionary defines as “rapid and incoherent talk; unintelligible chatter”; it consistently has the well-attested and common meaning of language. Gibberish is not a language.)
Not intended for self-edification (1 Corinthians 14:4; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:24; 12:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:11).
Not a “prayer-language.” (There is no positive statement that this is tongues’ design, it does not fit the stated design, and the passages cited do not teach that this is tongues’ purpose.)
Not a merit badge signifying superior spiritual maturity or status. (Simply ask yourself: which assembly is the only church in the New Testament that was said to feature tongue-speaking on a regular basis? It was the church in Corinth. Then ask further: what was characteristic of the spirituality of that church? They were as men of flesh, infants in Christ [1 Corinthians 3:1]; it was a church featuring schisms, outrageous heresy, stunning immorality, and petulant stubbornness. None of this consitutes a glowing testimony as to the tongue-speaking Corinthians’ superior spirituality.)
Not contemporary. (Whatever is happening today, it is not Biblical tongues. The modern phenomena simply do not measure up to Biblical standards. While studies of thousands of modern “tongue-speakers” have been performed, not one instance fitting the Biblical criteria has been documented. Unbelievers rightly find the modern practice absurd and laughable — which contrasts rather starkly with Acts 2:6-12. On the day of Pentecost, no serious observer, saved or unsaved, doubted the supernatural nature of the occurrence. Today, by contrast, no impartial observer believes the genuineness of “tongues” as unlearned foreign languages!)
Not a large-group activity (1 Corinthians 14:27). (If five hundred people are speaking in tongues in church assembly, at least four hundred and ninety-seven are sinning against God’s declared will.)
Not to be altogether forbidden (1 Corinthians 13:39b). (However, note well: Paul does not say “do not forbid gibberish, do not forbid babbling, do not forbid so-called ‘tongues’ even if they bear no similarity to genuine tongues.” No pastor has had occasion to “forbid” speaking in tongues for the last 1900 years, because no documented case of Biblical tongue-speaking has occurred.)