The Jewish Question: Christian and German Problem

Author(s): Paul Tillich

Source: Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 33, No. 4, Conference on Anti-Semitism (Oct., 1971), pp. 253271
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4466666
Accessed: 04-06-2015 07:37 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Jewish Social Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The JewishQuestion: Christianand GermanProblem

by Paul Tillich

I find it difficultto speakabout this subjectbecauseI am used to workingwith

comparativelyclearconcepts.The threedecisiveconceptsof theselecturesare vague.
The concept"JewishQuestion"is an indefiniteone. Whatis the "JewishQuestion"?
Does it referto the sociologicalfunctionof the Jewsas a minority,a functionwhich
Jewryhas fulfilledfor thousandsof years-which other groups,however,have also
fulfilled-or does the "JewishQuestion"referto the religiousfunctionof the Jews
as a sacramentalcommunity?If this is the case, what is the relationshipbetweenthe
sociologicaland the sacramentalelementsinvolved?The ambiguityof the concept
"Jew" producesfurtherdifficulties.What is the meaningof this concept? Does it
referto Jewswho live as guests,as oppressedpeople,or as exilesin foreigncountries?
Ordoes it referto the membersof the Stateof Israel?Whatis the relationshipbetween
these two groups?Is the Jew he who activelyparticipatesin the Jewishsacramental
community?Is he the one whoseancestorsonce belongedto Jewryandthendivorced
themselvesfrom the Jewish community?Or is the Jew he who was baptizedand
acknowledgesa humanismbeyond confessional religion? Are we talking about
Jewishidentityas a religiousreality,or are we talkingabout it as a race?I do not
believethat thereis a Jewishrace,as I do not believethereis an Aryan race.But if
therewere,my questionwouldbe: is our subjectthe raceproblem,or does the Jewish
question involve somethingspecial, a race which is yet other than a race? Is the
Jew a representativeof one of the elevengreatreligionswhichhave universalcharacter, or do we speak-if we speakas Christians-about the Jew as the forerunner
of Christianity?
These are some of the problemswhich the word "Jew"brings to mind. The
otherwordsin the titleof theselecturesarealso ambiguous.Thereis theword"Christian." It can mean the Christianprinciplewhich transcendshistoricalChristianity,
be it in the form of the Catholic or the form of the Protestantexpressionof this
principle.Or "Christian"can mean the Christianchurchesin the past and present,
the realityof churchhistory,and the relationof the churchesto Christianprinciples.
"Christian"can mean the countriesin which a so-called Christianculturethrives.
I say "so-called"becauseit is a very derivativeand completelyimperfectform of
Christiandevelopment.The word "Christian"can mean all these things.The word
"German"is also ambiguous.It can mean that thereis somethingin the natureof
the German characterwhich makes Judaism positively or negativelya German
253
This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

254

JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES

problem.It is immaterial,in that case, whetherone relatesthe Germancharacter

to somesortof biologicalfactor,or whetherone looks uponit as a productof German
history.In any case, it is the Germancharacter,then, which poses the problem.Or
is it somethingcompletelydifferent?Is it a unique situation,is it a catastrophein
Germanhistorywhich createdthe problem"Judaismand GermanPolitics"?
In what sense, therefore,should the concepts "JewishQuestion,""German,"
and "Christian"be used? I believewe cannot excludeany of the meaningsI have
mentioned.They belong together and depend on one another. The semanticdifficulties,however,are not decisive,since they can be overcometo a certainextent,
by meansof a cleardefinitionof theproblembeforeus. Whatis decisivearethehuman
and personaldifficultieswhich one encountersin dealingwith this subject.One is
not equally involved in everythingabout which one lectures.The distance of the
speakerfromhis subjectcan be smalleror greater.In my case,it is as smallas possible
for I have been involvedin the questionswhicharisein my lecture.They areexistential questions for me. As a Christiantheologian I have participatedin JewishChristiandiscussions for decades. I have experiencedthe entire burden of these
problemswhich today, as at the beginningof the Christianera, excite theological
thought.I am not talkingabout the nonsensewhichis often utteredin thesedebates,
but ratheraboutthe questionswhichultimatelyconcernmanas man,and withwhich
I have struggledwith my Jewish friends in discussingthese problems. Another
reasonfor my existentialinvolvementin theseproblemsis thatI am German-born.As
an emigrein the catastrophicyearof 1933,I sidedwiththosewho opposedeverything
whichhappenedthatyearin Germany,especiallyeverythingwhichGermanyinflicted
on EuropeanJewry.A thirdreasonfor my existentialinvolvementis that for many
yearsJewshavebeenamongmy mostintimatefriends.Undersuchcircumstances,discussion of such a subjectis difficult.However,it is even more difficultbecausemy
listenersare also existentiallyinvolved.Thereare Jews and Germansin this room.
At the very outset, therefore,one who undertakesto speak to Germansabout
Germanyand Judaismwill be broughtface to face with the Germanproblemin all
its radicalness.For it leadsup to the question,whichI shallnot tryto avoid,although
the temptationto do so is very great,of collectiveguilt. I owe you an honest word
about this problem.Withoutsucha word, somethingunexpressedwould remainin
the backgroundof my lectureto disquietyou. Hence,I shallspeakfranklyaboutit.
What is the meaningof collectiveand individualguilt?Guilt can meanthat one
is the directand immediatecauseof an act that rendersone guilty.I know that only
specificgroupsof the Germannation are guiltyin this sense. Resistanceto the conif guilt in this senseis usedas the immediate
cept of collectiveguilt is understandable
cause for what happened.I shouldsay thereforethat guilt in the senseof immediate
cause can not be laid upon the Germannation as a whole. It is the guilt of limited
groups and individuals.
Thereexistsa secondconceptof guilt,namely,guiltin the senseof failureto live
to
responsibility.Every German is guilty in this sense, includingthose who
up
becamevictimsand those who emigrated.I neverfailedto makeclearto my friends

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christianand GermanProblem

255

in Americathat I consideredmyselfguiltyin the senseof being responsiblefor what

happened.Why?Becauseduringthe yearswhen those who committedthese crimes
preparedfor the assumptionof politicalpower,we werenot strongenoughto hinder
them. Nor were we sufficientlyself-sacrificing,even when we utteredprotestsand
therebybecameemigrantsor victims.Since the middleof the 1920'swe had sensed
whatwas about to happen.OftenI told my friendshow as in a vision I saw German
cities in ruins, exactly as I see Berlin in ruins today, twenty-fiveyears later. The
feelingof whatwas about to happenbecamethe strongerto the degreeby whichthe
powers that would bring about destructionappearedirresistible.But what does
"irresistible"in history mean? It means that we were not strong enough to resist
what was to come, althoughwe sensedwhat would come. Thatis guilt in the second
sense of the word, and that is the guilt of all Germansbefore 1933,no matterwhat
became of them.
In the third sense, guilt meansthe guilt of suppressionof knowledge.This is a
deep psychologicalproblembecause it does not involve conscious acts, nor fully
unconscious ones, but rather, acts which are suspended between consciousness
and unconsciousness.We knew what was happening,and yet we did not know. I
believeeveryonewho tells me he did not know, and yet I do not believeanyone.For
I am convincedthat if one did not want to know, one neverthelessknew enoughso
that one was compelled to suppresswhat one knew. This kind of guilt produces
serious psychologicaland ethical problems.If someone says, "I do not want to
know.I washmy handsof it," thenthatsimplyis guilt.Somepeoplecertainlydid this,
but theyarenot significant.Butmanywho wantedto knowandyet wereunableto accept the knowledgewhichpressedin upon themaresignificant.Thatis the thirdkind
of guiltwhichappearedafter 1933,and those who werenot in Germanywerenot involved in it. We do not condemnthem, for we all suppressthingswhich we cannot
bear to know. What man of even the slightestsensitivity,can look at himselfin a
mirror?One looks awayfrom one's own reflection.That is the psychologicalmechanism about which I am talking. One should not deny this mechanismeither in
himself or in others.
I now come to a fourth concept of guilt, similarto the third, namely, guilt in
the sense of forgetting.That is the same psychologicalmechanismturned toward
the future.One does not want to know, that is, one does not want to remember;one
wants to forget. So powerfulhas this kind of guilt become since 1945, that it can
lead to disaster.Forgettingdoes not meanthat one actuallyforgets,or that one does
not think about what happenedin one's daily life. Who thinksof past guilt in daily
life? Forgettingmeans not allowing what has happened to influencethe future.
It means erasingwhat has happenedas a factor for the future.This is decisivefor
the guilt of forgetting.Max Schelerhas writtenan essay on contrition;it is one of
his best and in it he clearly shows that contrition is not a sentimentalfeeling of
pain about the past, but rather the expulsion of somethingfalse from the inner
life. To what extent can this expulsiontake place; to what extentdoes it ever take
place?Everythingdependson this: that those elementswhichhave inducedthe anti-

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

256

JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES

Semitic madnessbe driven from the soul, that they not be forgotten,not be suppressed,not be hidden,but that they be acknowledgedand banished,accompanied
by the pain of repentance.
The last two forms of guilt have partiallyunconsciouscauses. Therefore,they
are tragic,and yet they are "guilt,"for one can know about them.
Finally, I would like to mentiona fifth kind of guilt which is completelyconscious, namely,calculatedweighingon the basis of whichone says, "We have done
evil but we have sufferedaccordingly.Othershave sufferedthroughus, but now we
have sufferedthroughthem. And now we are even." I should like to make a theological remarkabout this. Thereare two forms of justice. One is the justiceof proportionwhichcalculatesas follows: "I havedone suchand such.Therefore,I deserve
such and such and, for what I have done I have gotten what I deserve."Thereis a
levelon whichsuchproportionalthinkingis unavoidableboth in dailylife and in the
administrationof the law. We all weighwhatwe and othersdeserve.The lawyerdoes
so systematicallywhen he seeks to find the right proportion between guilt and
punishment.No justiceis possiblewithoutthe elementof proportionwhichAristotle
definedas the "natureof justice."But thereis anotherdefinitionof the concept of
justice. It does not deny the proportionalelementbut transcendsit: I am thinkingof
the Old and New Testamentconceptsof justice.It gives recognitionto the violation
of rightand the consequencesthat follow therefrom.But that is not the final word.
The goal of justiceis the reunionof that whichhas been separatedthroughinjustice,
God and man, man and man, group and group. The point of this idea of justice is
the justificationof the unjustman. But suchjustice and the reunioneffectedby it
are possible only if the violation of the right has been acknowledgedand neither
forgottennor regardedas settledin the balanceof guilt and punishment.Reuniting
justice presupposesthe acknowledgmentand expulsionof its causes.The calculated
weighing-"We have sufferedequally; now everythingis in order"-contradicts
the basic law of life as it is expressedin the biblicalidea of justice.The questionis:
is reunionpossible and what is necessaryto make reuniona reality?
Of greatestsignificancefor the understandingof our problemis the distinction
betweenanti-Judaismand anti-Semitism.Therefore,I wish to presenta brief historical surveyof the relationshipbetweenthem. Anti-Judaismis a word I first encounteredwhen I was asked in connectionwith a study of anti-Semitismto express
the attitude of the Catholic and Protestantchurch toward the Jewish problem.
Anyone-be he a theologian,a churchhistorian,or a secularhistorian-who studies
this problemwill experiencesurprises.He will be forced to make the distinction
between anti-Semitismand anti-Judaism.The word "anti-Semitism"originated
in the 1880's,duringthe periodof philosophicalnaturalism.It is a transformation
of the more basic conceptof anti-Judaism.It did not exist earlier,becausetheories
of race arose at this time in England and France, but not to begin with in
Germany.
It is possible to distinguishbetweentwo conceptsof race: the verticaland the
whenone wantsto pointto characteristics
horizontal.Onespeaksof "thoroughbred"

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christianand GermanProblem

257

whichhave developedfor generationsin certainfamilies.The word "thoroughbred"

which is always used in the positive sense, can be used when referringto animals
as well as people,or individualsas wellas groups.In the lattercase, it can be equated
with the aristocraticprinciple,and it includes biologically developed as well as
culturallyacquiredqualities.One can hardlyobject to such a race concept either
from a humanisticor religiousstandpoint.It must remainclear,however,that such
conceptinvolvesneitherethicalnorreligiousvalues.A morallymatureor a religiously
charismaticpersonis not identicalwith one we call a "thoroughbred."
Anotherconcept of race is the descriptive,biologicalconcept of racesof men
who are distinguishedby specificphysicalcharacteristics.It is not possibleto object
on a humanisticor Christianbasisto thisconcepteither,so long as it is not identified
with the verticalconcept of race, or so long as it is not connectedwith ethical or
religious values. This, however, is exactly what was done by the proponentsof
naturalisticracetheoriesin the secondhalf of the nineteenthcenturyand led to the
anti-Semitichorrorsof the twentiethcentury.Christiananti-Judaismis completely
differentfrom the horizontalconcept of race and from the anti-Semitismwhich
resultedtherefrom.Anti-Judaismis spreadthroughoutchurchhistoryand exhibits
a tragic guilt of the church.
When we look at the earliestpartsof the gospels,we find that Jesusfelt he was
sent to the Jews.He was pushedbeyondthis limitonly by specialevents.The calling
of the twelveapostlesand the restorationof the twelveafterthe departureof Judas,
is not an incidentalbut an intentionallysymbolicaction. It means that according
to the judgmentof the primitivechurch,Jesusintendedto continuethe Jewishtradition.Thechurchis symbolizedby the twelvetribesof Israel.It is not the suspension
but the completionof the Old Testamentcongregation,naturallynot on a national
buton a universalbasis.Thistrainof thoughtcontainsno anti-Judaism.
There is also no anti-Judaismin Paul despite his radicalbreak with Judaism
and his strugglewith "Judaisers"in the Christiancongregations.Judaismwas and
remainedthe problemof his life, the problemof his own existenceas a JewishChristian. The theoryhe advancesin the ninth and eleventhchaptersof Romansis a profound contributionto the interpretationof history.Judaismhas a continuingfunction also in the newaeon. TheJewswillnot ceaseto existso long as thereareheathens
on earth.It is my convictionthat this is the Christiananswerto the Jewishquestion
as such. In any case, this answerdoes not contain anythinganti-Judaistic.It is the
"no" and "yes"of Christianityto that whichis Jewishin the Christianworld.Paul
himself would have been (as he himself writes) ready to sacrificethe salvationof
his soul for the salvationof the Jewishpeople. On these and other groundshe is
consideredby many anti-Jewishand anti-SemiticChristiansas too Jewish, while
on the part of the Jews no one has been or is still as fiercelyopposed as he. AntiJudaismis born at the momentwhen Christianitycomes into the pagan world and
must interpretitself to paganism.This occurs in the fourth Gospel which, as is
well-known,puts words into Jesus' mouth in which early Christianityattempts
to answerthe questionsand problemswhichwerepresentedto it by the paganworld.

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

258

JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES

The author of John attemptsto show that the leadersof Judaism,and not Pilate,
the Roman procurator,were responsiblefor the sentencingof Jesus. No Jewish
authorityhad power over life and death. In John, Pilate appearsas a skepticwho
is as little convincedof the messageof Jesus as of the accusationof the Jews, and
thereforetries everythingto save Jesus. Pilate is pictured as a weak character,
incapableof withstandingthe pressureof the Jews,but not as in fact guiltyhimself.
The Jews, and the Jews alone are guilty. The meaningof this conceptionis made
clear in a later developmentof the Pilate legend.We are told of the conversionof
Pilateto Christianity,and of his repentance,whichin the end causeshim to become
a saint. In the EgyptianPilatelegend,he does appearas a real saint.Althoughthis
legendhas no historicalvalue,it does revealthe attitudeof mindwhichincreasingly
asserteditself, and for which we can have no other name than anti-Judaism.
I pass over the ensuingcenturiesto the year 1215in whichthe Fourth Lateran
Council took place underInnocentIII, the most powerfulof the popes. This year
representsthe high point in the developmentof the Middle Ages. At this council,
the Pope proclaimedlaws regardingthe Jews which had two aspects. On the one
hand, they stressedthat the popes were protectorsof the Jews and felt obligated
to shield them from the brutalexploitationof the aristocracy.This corresponded
to an old tradition.On the other hand, InnocentIII began the struggleagainstthe
emergingheresiesof the Albigensesand Waldensesand againstolder Manichaean
undercurrentsas they were representedby the Cathari.The Roman Churchfelt
itself threatened;it fearedthat the unity of traditionwas being lost, that other traditions than its own would enterinto the consciousnessof occidentalmankind.All
authoritativesystems are filled with this fear. They feel secure so long as those
who acknowledgetheir authorityare cut off from every other tradition.As soon
as other possibilitiesappear, however, the unity of consciousnessand therefore
the security of authority are threatened.The Jews representanother tradition,
andnot only Christianitybutalso Islamdependedon it. Thisis the backgroundof the
separationlaws which were proclaimedby InnocentIII and his successors.It was
not anti-Semitismbut anti-Judaismwhich dictatedthese laws, or to put the matter
still more precisely:it was the church'sfear of Jewish influenceon its members
which producedthese laws. When one comparesthese laws with Hitler'sso-called
Nuremberglaws againstthe Jewishpeople, one finds that they are at many points
an imitationof the papaldecrees.The Jewwas forcedto weara sash whichmarked
him as a Jew. He was not allowed to have Christianhouseholdhelp. The Ghetto
was more tightlyclosed. Theseand similarlaws are to be found in the papalBull of
the thirteenthcentury.The basisof theselaws was alwaysthe cursewhichaccording
to biblical concepts, the Jews brought upon themselves and their descendants
throughthe crucifixionof Jesus.This is anti-Judaismplain and simple,but it is not
anti-Semitism.
I shall again pass over severalcenturies,and come to Lutherand the Reformation. At the beginningof the Reformation,Lutherwasconvincedthatthe purification
of Christianityfrom heathen elements which he proposed would enable the Jews

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christianand GermanProblem

259

to join the Christianchurch.In the eyesof the Jews,the Catholicsacramentalsystem,

includingits christologicalpresuppositions,was idolatryand demonicabomination.
It was especiallythe Mass whichwas judged in this way. Nothing could contradict
the Jewishpropheticconsciousnessas much as the objectificationof God through
the priestlytransubstantiationof bread and wine into the body and blood of the
incarnateGod. Luther'scriticismof the Mass and its theologicalpresuppositions
was similar to this and had the same prophetic background.Therefore,Luther
believedthat the Jewswould be readyto join Christianityafter the removalof this
fundamentaloffence.In one of his earlywritingshe expressedhimselfverypositively
about the Jews of his time. But his hope was disappointed.There were elements
in Christianity,commonto Catholicsand Protestants,whichmadeit impossiblefor
the Jews to become Christians.It was, however,more than disappointmentwhich
moved Lutherto speakout againstthe Jewslateron. Lutherbelievedwith Paul that
once the Jews were convertedthe end of history would be reached.He hoped for
the Last Day. He didn't want historyto continue, since he understoodclearlythe
destructiveconsequencesof the powerpolitics of his time, and continuallysuffered
fromthemhimself.He spokeof the "dearJudgmentDay" and waitedfor signsof its
appearance.But one decisivesign, namelythe conversionof the Jews,did not come
to pass.Thisled him to his angryattackon the stubbornnessof the Jewishpeople.As
a result, Christiananti-Judaismtook hold in the churches of the Reformation.
In all Christianchurchesthe Jews of every generationare burdenedwith guilt for
their condemnation of Jesus.
It is worth looking at this reproachin the light of our analysisof the concept
of guilt. One, then, immediatelysees the absurdityof this accusation.None of the
conceptsof guilt which I have mentionedcan be appliedto this phenomenon.One
can hardly say that the entire Jewish people at the time of Jesus was responsible
for the crucifixion.The accountsdo not showat all thatthe samepeoplewho greeted
him with hallelujahsas he enteredJerusalemwere those who called "crucifyhim."
Those who called for his crucifixionwereprobablygroupsstirredup by the leaders
of the people, the mob that always lets itself be used for such actions. Whatever
the historicalfact may be, the most we can say is that the people as a whole did not
support Jesus, and were thereforeindirectlyresponsiblefor what happened.But
one must ask what this very indirectresponsibilityhas to do with those who were
childrenat that time, or not yet born, and what it has to do with all the Jews who
were born since then. Yet this absurdthoughtis raisedagainand again in the catechismand in the teachingsof both churches.We had in Americaat one time a commission which was appointedto examineSundayschool textbookswith respectto
Judaism.Everywhere,anti-Judaisticand in some cases even anti-Semiticstatements
were found. That is a constant tragic guilt of the Christianchurch. It would be
desirablefor the Germanchurchesto makesuch an investigationalso. If, as I hear,
it is alreadybeing done in certainplaces, it should be done very thoroughly.From
my own youth, I vividlyrememberthe impressionthat anti-Jewishteachingmakes
on Christianyoung people. We sensed the ways of the Jews as ominous and were

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

260

JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES

inclinedto see in everyJew someonewho helped to crucifyJesus. ConsciousantiSemitismhas drawnnourishmentin the last hundredyears from this often unconscious anti-Judaismof the Christianchurches.
In Americathe situationseemsto be much more favorable.LiberalProtestantism and liberalJudaismwork togetheron manylevels. It is possiblewithoutmuch
hesitationto invite a rabbito speakin a Christianchurch.I myselfhave spokenin
synagogues, and occasionally even in a liturgical setting. This is astonishingly
mature from the standpoint of human partnershipand mutual understanding.
But it is no solution to the Christian-Jewish
problem.It must be presupposedthat
both religionsmust leave aside so much of their concreteteachingsand forms of
worship that there remainsmerelya moralismthat is relativelyunsubstantialand
unsatisfactory.The problemof religionsand their relationshipto one anothercannot be solved in any way by subtraction.
Onecriterionfor the attitudeof Christianstowardanti-Judaismis theirattitude
towardthe missionsto the Jews.A groupof leadingAmericantheologianswho meet
for severaldaystwicea yearonce discussedat one of thesemeetings,in an interesting
and for me very importantway, this questionof the missionto the Jews. We were
very doubtfulthat such a missionwas possible,but if so, we ponderedunderwhat
circumstances.There was a tendencyto confine the mission to those who had inwardlybrokenwith Judaismand shouldthereforefinda way to Christianity.In any
case, there was no clear answerto the questionof the meaningof the mission to
the Jews.I myselfagreedwith those theologianswho said that an activemissionary
drive from the Christianside directedto believingJews, is in most cases psychologically and sociologicallyimpossible.What is possible, however, is a readiness
on the part of Christiansto receiveJewsin such cases wherethe Jewishpersonhas
recognizedhis existentialboundariesand then has raisedthe questionabout what
lies beyond.In suchcases, the Christiancan try to show that Christiansymbolscan
providean answerto the innerconflictof Judaism.This is not active but receptive
missionto the Jews,and beyondthis I shouldnot be willingto go. The experiencesof
the Bible and church history show that only in the rarest cases is it meaningful
to do so.
I shouldliketo endthissurveyof the relationshipbetweenthe Christianchurches
and the Jewishquestionwith a referenceto the experiencewhichthe churcheshad
under Hitler. In National Socialism,religiousanti-Judaismhad been turned into
a racial anti-Semitism.The Christianswho were at first confused and could not
pluck up enough courageto take a clear stand against the early anti-Semiticacts
of Hitler,soon discoveredthat the attackagainstJudaismas Judaismwas an attack
against Christianity.One graspednot only in Germanybut also everywherein the
Christianchurch, that a fundamentalattack on Christianitymust begin with a
fundamentalattack on Judaism. Historically,this was a renewal of an ancient
experienceof the churches.The most dangerousattackon earlyChristianitywas not
the persecutionof the Christiansbut rather the Gnostic-syncretisticreligion of
later antiquity.It tried to unite elementsof many religionswithin itself and also

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christianand GermanProblem

261

absorbedChristas a centralfigure.But it excludedthe Old Testamentand thereby

cut off Christianityfrom its historicalroots. The churchwas forcedto fighta battle
of life and death in those days. It came to the decision that the New Testament
cannot exist without the Old. It realizedthat the Christwho is separatedfrom the
spirit of Old Testamentprophecybecomesone among many pagan mysterygods.
This was at stake in the Gnostic movementand this was at stake in National Socialism, and this is at stake in every type of religiousnationalism,which is in no
case limitedto Germanyalone. In orderto transformJesusinto a cultic God next
to others, or a nationalleaderor prophet, one must lift him out of the context of
Old Testament prophecy. For this prophecy was engaged in continual struggle
with the religiousnationaiismof its time. The New Testamentstands in the continuityof this fight.If the continuityis interrupted,the New Testamentbecomesinvalid.Thisis whatthe Christianchurchknewwhenit decidedthat the OldTestament
is the foundationuponwhichthe New Testamentstands.In its standagainstNational
Socialism,the churchexperiencedonce again what it had experiencedin its stand
againstGnosticismin the thirdcentury:the spiritof propheticJudaismis the only
spirit which can protect the church from sinking back into a national religionand this meansheathenism.

I wish now to talk about the Jewishquestion as a Germanproblem.I recall

an episodewhichoccurredin 1933,shortlybeforeHitlercame to power.The rector
of the Universityof Frankfort,where I was Professorof Philosophy,asked me to
deliverthe lecturefor the university'sFounders'Day. In this lecture,I dealt with
the developmentin intellectualhistory from the Jew Spinoza, through classical
Germanpoetryand philosophy,to the Jew Marx.I showedhow the rationalJewish
mystic Spinoza influenced the greatest period of German poetry and philosophy, and how the rationalJewishethicistMarxfunctionedas a criticat the end
of this period.People did not hear such facts gladly in 1933.As I left the assembly
hall, I heard some colleaguessay to one another,"Now they even want to make
Jews out of us." This foolish comment contains a serious problem,namely, the
question:Are there structuralanalogiesbetweenthe Jewishand the Germancharacter?I am convincedthat such analogiesexist, and I have been confirmedin this
conviction by experiencesI had as an emigrant.It was astoundinghow many of
my Jewishfriendsand how manyJewsin generalidentifiedthemselveswith German
culture even after the catastrophe.In them all, one could feel a yearningfor the
Germanywherethey had grownup, and whichhad moldedthem. Evenunderneath
the hatredof woundedlove, this yearningwas kept alive. By contrast,many nonJewish emigres includingmyself felt emigrationto be an objectivepolitical fact
with whichthey had to come to terms.One would have expectedthe opposite.And
yet the fact about which I speak is understandable.Since the period of the emancipation, a close connectionhad been achievedbetween Germancultureand Judaism. Mendelssohnwas the philosopherof the Enlightenment;Spinoza was the

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

262

JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES

saint of Romanticism;while Rachel Varnhagenwas the source of its inspiration.

Young Germanyfound her poetic expressionin HeinrichHeine. The philosophy
of the 19thcenturyin its neo-Kantianformfelt the impactof the philosopherCohen;
the social Revolutionbecamehistoricallyarticulatein Marx. Many other examples
could be mentioned.It is amazinghow quicklythe Jews suppliedcreativeforces to
German culture after their emancipation,and how because of a deep affinity,a
fruitful interpenetrationoccurred. It is difficult to find an explanationfor this
withoutpointingto similaritiesin the spiritualstructureof both cultures.
The first fact I would like to mentionis that in their historyboth groups,the
Germansas well as the Jews, experienceda propheticmovementof reform: the
Jews in Prophecy,the Germansin the Reformation.Both movementsrepresent
a breakin the immediatenationalself-realizationof those concerned.In both cases,
in Prophetismas well as in the Reformation,somethingunconditionedbroke into
the relativitiesand ambiguitiesof the national process of self-realization;the unconditionedrepresentedboth judgmentand demand. In both cases, national selfrealizationwas neveragainachieved;and the breakwas neverhealed.It determined
the historyof both peoples. The Jewsceasedto be a people of space and becamea
people of time. The breakwhichthe Reformationbroughtabout in Germanyproduced the spatial insecurityand the world historicaltardinessof the spacial selfrealizationof the Germannation. Therefore,we find in both people a surprisingly
unique emphasison space as a metaphysicalproblem.We are not concernedwith
the fact that space as the basis of national self-realizationis an actual problemof
politics everywhere;our concernis ratherwith the fact that in both cases the space
problemwas experiencedas a metaphysicalproblem,namely,as a problemof the
final meaningof nationalexistence.A second structuralanalogy,closely relatedto
the first,is the spiritualinnerstrifeone findsin both people.It is frequentlyexpressed
in a mixtureof self-hatredand self-over-estimation.
I believethatas I makethis statement it will be understoodby both Germansand Jews.Naturally,we try as hardas
possibleto hide this fact fromourselves.Yet everyGermanwho has spentmuchtime
with Jews,especiallyliberalJews,and everyforeignerwho is in a positionto regard
the Germansobjectively,will find this strangeand contradictorymixture.In both
cases it representsdestiny as well as character."A man's characteris his fate,"
says Heraclitus,and we can add, "His fate gives man his character."It is a wellknown fact that with few exceptionsall greatGermanshave devastatinglycriticized
the Germans.This criticismis somethingdifferentfrom the naturalself-criticism
whichwe find in all peoples,and whichis a necessaryand healthycorrectiveto their
self-acceptance.The greatGermanswho makethis criticismdo not do so in the hope
that they can changethe Germancharacter,but as an act of despair.On the other
hand,one findsin contemporaryJudaisma certainanti-Semitismwhichis exhibited
again and again even by the most intelligentand critically-mindedJews. This is
very clearlyexpressedin Marx'swritingsabout the Jews. It is the backgroundof
that which lends Jewish wit its distinctivecharacter.
A counterweightto this negative feeling has developed in both peoples. In

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christianand GermanProblem

263

certainrespects,all nationsare consciousof beingchosen, but this is more strongly

developedin the Jewsandin the Germansthananyoneelse, and has assumedanyone
amongthemits specialforms.Allow me, in orderto show you what I mean,to point
to the consciousnessof election among the most importantwestern nations. In
Aristotle'sPolitics,we find an explanationin spatial-climatictermsof the fact that
the Greeksare the only peoplewho possessculture,while all other nationsare barbaric.The Greekslive neitherin the East nor in the West, neitherin the North nor
in the South; they are the people of the Middle.Whenwe talk of the people of the
Middle,we are remindedof the Chineseconsciousnessof being called.The Roman
consciousnessof beingcalledis well-known.Theydid not say, "Wehaveconquered
a country." They said, "We have brought this land back under the jurisdiction
of the Roman people." The Romans felt that they representedthe right and this
consciousnessmade them certain that their imperialismwas justified by fate. In
the Italiansof the Renaissance,we find the feelingthat an entiregenerationis born
again, as it were, on the foundationof the old Roman empire. "Renascimento"
does not mean rebirthof a few individualsor rebirthof the arts and sciences,but
the rebirthof the humanityof a certainage. The Frenchconceptof electionis something else, again. They felt themselvesto be the bearersof the civilizationof the
moder era and therebyjustifiedthe imperialismof their Revolutionand of the
Napoleonic age. The Englishconsciousnessof being called can be describedas the
consciousnessof a nation which thought itself destinedto bring a purifiedChristianity, namely Protestantism,and Christianhumanismto the backwardpeoples
of the earth. The Americansense of calling involves a new beginning,made in
America, after the demons and conflicts of ancient Europe had been forgotten.
In the MiddleAges, the Germans,too had a senseof calling,namelythe consciousness of being the nationalcenterof unifiedChristianity.For the medievalGerman
emperorsthis was no ideology but a reality.But when we come to moder times,
we find no genuinesense of being called in the Germanpeople. As a result,it was
possiblefor Hitlerto proclaimthe absurditiesof a racialsenseof vocation,and since
he was fillinga vacuum,he was successful.The other possibility,realizedin the socalled Realpolitikof the nineteenthcentury,was the power-politicalnationalism
of the Wilhelminianperiod. The uglinessand brutalityof this period can only be
understoodwhenone is awarethatit was not unitedwitha consciousnessof election.
It is not my purposeto maintainthat other peoples are betterthan the Germans.
I am much more concernedwith historicaldestiny.Whenpowerand consciousness
of being elect are united,powerceasesto be brutalpower. For a unity is produced
which returnsto the deepest roots of Being in the unity of Being and value in the
ground of Being itself. Wherethis unity is lost, self-contemptis producedon the
one side, and brutal,unideologicalwill-to-poweron the other.
With the Jews, things are somewhatdifferent.We have mentionedthe religiously-basedconsciousnessof election as it is expressedin the Old Testament
whereit appliedfirst to the nation as a whole, and then "to the Remnant,which
was to be saved." Propheticcriticismunderstod the consciousnessof being elect

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

264

JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES

in this way. The Jewishconsciousnessof beingcalledbecomesdangerousonly when

it loses its religiouscorrective.As a result,it is transformedinto nationalismwithout
self-criticism.Among Germansas well as among the Jews, the false consciousness
of being elect producesinner schismand despair.Despair is the expressionof an
insurmountableschism.The wish to flee the self follows from despair.One of the
least harmfuland importantforms of this wish is the yearningfor the unknown,
which is to be found to a greaterdegreein Germanythan in any other nation I
know. We all know about the yearningof the Germansfor Greeceduringthe classical period,the eternallyalive yearningfor Italy, the wish to imitatethe Frenchor
the English, the hope for Russia and Asia. As soon as this yearningis fulfilled,
and the Germansettles in one of these nations, he disappearsamong them as a
Germanmore rapidlythan do the membersof any other nation. This can only be
understoodas the secret wish of the Germansto deny themselvesas Germans.
An analogyto this is the Jewishabilityto adjustto any given situation.It is wrong
to explain this ability to adjustas purelypragmatic.Other minorities,who were
in much greaterneed, have refrainedfrom doing so. Behind the adjustmentlies
the deepest root of a lack of self-affirmation.An interestingproof of this is the
emergenceof a Jew, like Stahl, who becamethe greattheoreticianof the German
conservativeparty.The conservativesfoundtheirintellectualdefenderin a Jewwho
had givenup the naturallyliberalcriticalattitudeof the Jews.In his politicaltheory
he fought for the very ordersof societywhichhad alwayssuppressedhim as a Jew
and by whichhe couldat any momentexpectto be attackedin his own emancipated
status. In this connection, Christiantheologians of the Jewish heritageare also
interesting.After their conversionto Christianity,they are more radicalin their
criticismof Judaismthanany otherChristiantheologians,denyingthat fromwhich
theycome.Theyareoftenof the greatestvalueto Christiantheologybecausetheysee
thingswhichthe nativeChristiantheologiandoes not see.Theythemselves,however,
are divided: they must suppresssomethingin themselvesand thereforebecome
fanatic. Here also, we find analogies between Jewish and German existence; in
both cases the denial of self is seekingways in which to expressitself.
The propheticbreakwhichboth people experiencedin theireffortsto achieve
national self-realizationhas not only psychological but also sociological consequences.I meanthat thereis a gulf betweenthe few who risefar abovethe average
not only of theirown but also of otherpeoples,and the masswhichis often inferior
to the averageof otherpeoples.In a nationwhichhas experiencedno breakthrough,
the representativepersonalityemergesfrom the substanceof the nation. Certainly,
it is not merelya reflectionof this substance.It transcendsit in the directionof the
unprecedentedwhich makes history,but only so far as its transcendenceremains
understandableto the averageperson.One can still observethis today in England.
The greatleadersare not separatedin theirsubstancefromthe masses.In Germany
the great leaderswere alwayssolitary.The massesnever understoodthese leaders
as an expressionof theirown consciousness.Thisis how the despairof so manygreat
Germans becomes understandableand why the greatest bearers of culture in

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christianand GermanProblem

265

Germanytended to close themselvesoff and to oppose the mass. I have in mind,

for instance,the Germanclassics, above all Goethe; or the revolutionarygroups
of the mid-nineteenthcentury;or the despairof the propheticspiritsof the nineteenthcentury,such as Nietzsche.If, however,the leadersare not symbolicof what
happensin the masses,if they do not representthe unconsciousgoal of the average
man, then the nations themselvesremainunformed.If we look at other western
nations, we observe in Englandthe effect of the gentlemanideal on every individualEnglishman,of the citoyenidealon everyindividualFrenchman,of the rights
of man ideal on every individualAmerican.These ideals were createdby a small
group of leadingindividualsbut since they wereexpressionsof that towardswhich
the nation as a whole struggled,they had extraordinaryformingpower.
When, as a young man I encounteredFrenchworkersin the streetsof Paris
for the firsttime, I was astonishedat the degreeto whichthese people appearedto
be civilized. In Germanythere existed the ideal of the civil servant,and above it
as the highest but for most the unattainableideal of the officer.But the ideal of
the civil servantis not able to form human connectionsinsofar as these do not
concern the official trafficbetween civil servantsand citizens. The civil servant
idealcreatesobjectiverelations,but directhumancontacts,the encounterof person
with person,are excluded.In this respect,therefore,a vacuumwas formed.Human
contacts remainedundeveloped,and they are still undevelopedtoday if one comparesthemwithwhathas beenattainedin othercountries.NationalSocialismarose
in this decisive vacuum,for it found no resistancein a fully-developedrealityof
human relations.This is not changedby the fact that individualrelationshipsin
Germanyachievea depthwhichis often madeimpossibleby the generalstandardization of such relationsin other nations.In the Jewishsituation,the analogyis as
follows: thereare on the one hand individualswho are the bearersof the prophetic
spirit, and of the highest culturaldevelopment.On the other hand, there is the
averageman who neveradjustshimselfcompletelyto the forms which are created
by the rest of the world in whichthe greaternumberof Jews must live. The entire
historyof the Jewishnation showsthat it is impossibleto makea whole nationsubject to the absoluteideal of the propheticmessage.Hencetheredevelopsa cleavage
of the order of the schism to be found among the Germansbetweenthe bearers
of the unconditionaldemandand the masses who have in no way grown toward
this demand.The structuralsimilaritiesbetweenthe Germanand the Jewishcharacterto whichI have pointed,lead to both strongattractionand extremerepulsion.
It will be difficultfor some of you to makevaluejudgmentsabout yourselvesbased
on this analysis,and yet such analysesmust be attempted.I know that my analysis
is not complete,but I believenonethelessthat it clarifiesthe relationshipbetween
the two peoples betterthan the factorsto which I would now like to turn, factors
which were certainlyoperative,but perhapsnot finally decisive.
Thereis an extensiveliteraturein the political,economicand social originsof
recenteventsin Germany.So faras domesticeconomyis concerned,I am dependent
on the analysesof experts.It seemsto me correcthoweverthat in capitalisticsociety,

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

266

JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES

the Jews receivedprotection from the ruling class because the Jews were indispensableas brokersof capital.The more this free brokerageof capitaldeclinedin
importanceas a result of the developmentof monopolisticand state capitalism,
the more the role of the Jewsdecreasedand the morethey lost the protectionof the
rulingclasses.But the questionis, why do the Jewsneed such protection?And why
do the attacks and persecutionsset in when the protectinggroups are no longer
interestedin exercisingtheir function? I have already describedthe origin and
developmentof religious anti-Judaism.With respect to the present situation, it
is importantto understandwhy religiousanti-Judaismdevelopedinto politicalantiJudaism and why political anti-Judaismdeveloped into political anti-Semitism.
It is well-knownthat Germanydid not initiatethis development.In the realm of
theory,the Frenchand the Englishwerein the lead. The social (but neverpolitical)
segregationof the Jewswas muchmoreeffectivein Americathan in pre-HitlerGermany. On the other hand, in AmericaJews segregatethemselvesvoluntarilyto a
much largerextentthan anywherein westernEuropesince the time of the Emancipation. The city of New York contains the greatestand most influentialJewish
populationin the world. It is the largestJewishcity anywhere.But the Jews are
concentratedin special sections of the city, and this segregationis voluntary,not
enforced.A problemarisesonly when individualsbreakaway from these isolated
groups and seek to find a place in the rest of society. They have greaterdifficulty
findingsuch a place than they would have had in Germanyaroundthe year 1900.
All of this naturallycan in no way be comparedto what happenedin Germany
under Hitler.
Since the thirteenthcentury,religiousanti-Semitismin all Europeancountries
was used to divertcriticismfromthe rulingclassesto a minority.The despairof the
massesin economiccriseswas successfullyallowedto vent itself in this way. At the
same time, the rulingclasses were enabledto enrichthemselvesat the cost of the
Jews. This diversionaryanti-Judaismhas producedhorriblebut always only occasional persecutionof the Jews. Systematicanti-Semitismis an inventionof naturalistic anthropologyof the late nineteenthcentury. The biological theory of
race which was based on certain observationswas misused in a diletantismand
distortedway for political purposes.This developmentplayed into the hands of
totalitariandictatorshipwhich requiresan absolute enemy, and would have to
createone if he did not exist. Thereis nothingmoreabsurd,nothingmoreirrational
than politicalanti-Semitism.The reasonsgiven to rationalizeanti-Semitismcancel
each other out. Whenone criticizessomeone,one normallyintendsto changethat
which one criticizes.But nothing would be more disagreeableto an anti-Semitic
personthan the idea that the "Jew"would undergoa changeunderthe impactof
his criticism.Normally, individualsare held responsiblefor misconductor for a
criminalact. The anti-Semiteholds no individualresponsible.He establishesthe
pictureof a group of people who are guilty by being who they are. Mere personal
responsibilityand thereforethe demandto treata personas a person,disappears.
In the case of a criminalact, the criminalis declaredguilty,if a non-Jewis involved.

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christianand GermanProblem

267

Butwhena Jewis involved,he is declaredguiltybecausehe is a Jew.Whenone brings

these absurditiesto mind, one is temptedto doubt the Stoic teachingthat every
mannaturallypartakesof universalreason.Orone mustassumethatmasspsychoses
can put apparentlyreasonablepeople into a state of mind in which they cease to
take part in universalplaced above history, a human being is no longer taken as
a human being.
Anti-Semitismclaims that from the viewpoint of other nations, the Jewish
natureis sensedas somethingstrange.Withouta doubt, we are dealingwith somethingstrange.But whenI hearthe word"strange"and especiallyin a negativesense,
I think of the answerwhich Hamletgives the soldierwho says, "O day and night,
but this is wondrous strange:..."

namely, "And therefore as a stranger give it

welcome."There are welcome and unwelcomestrangethings. The strangeis unwelcomewhen it is a part of an individualcharacterwhichcannot be incorporated
within the whole. It is like a foreignbody which entersa biologicalorganism,and
which the organismmust either encapsulateor reject;if neitherof these steps is
successful, the organism perishes. Every social minority breaks up the integral
natureof the social group. That is the differencebetweenthe strangerwithin and
the strangeroutsidethe group.WehaveseenthatGermanslove thatwhichis foreign,
partly because they want to be rid of themselvesby losing themselvesin what is
strange. But they cannot tolerate the foreign element alive among them because
it wrenches them from their unquestioningself-affirmation,and because their
self-realizationis so weak that it cannot admit anythingforeign.Thus therearises
a feelingof anxiety.Anythingalien amongthe Germansproducesanxietyconcerning their own self-realization.Perhapsone can put it this way: for the German
subconscious,the Jewis too nearto be welcomedas a stranger,and not nearenough
to be experiencedas an integralpart of the nation. This therefore,has a reverse
effect:the Jew is put into a situationin whichwhat is describedin termsof type is
accentuatedin reality.Completelydisregardingthe grim caricatureof a perverted
typologysuchas appearedin "Der Stiirmer"therestill remainspecialcharacteristic
traitswhich are accentuatedbecausetheir ownersare treatedas strangers.
Therefore,one can say: ideally as well as really, anti-Semitismcreates that
againstwhich it fights.And it must createit, since it cannot find it in reality.The
anti-Semite-this is a furthercontributionto his analysis-is frightenedby the mirror which the Jew holds up to him. Thereare momentsin which we dislike, even
detestourselveswhen we see ourselvesin a mirror.The mirrortells us what we are
for the otherswho look at us. In many utterancesof culturedJews, thereis somethingwhichthe Germansregardas a "mirror."The Germanknowsthat the mirror
tells the truthbut he cannotbearthe reflection,and thereforehe reactsagainsthim
who holds it up to him. This does not mean that he who createsthe mirrordoes
not needa mirrorhimselfand wouldprobablyreactsimilarlyto one. I speakneither
philo-Semiticallynor anti-Semiticallybut analytically.
Is there a solution which can transformthe basic relationshipbetween the
Germansand the Jews?This questionleads us back to the five-foldconsideration

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

268

JEWISH SOCIALSTUDIES

of GermanguiltwhichI mentionedearlier.Thefirstsolutionof the "JewishQuestion

as a GermanProblem"is that the past be purified.The past can be purifiednot by
confessionsof guilt but ratherby an inwardassumptionof responsibilityfor that
which happened,without coveringit up by the quantitativebalancingof accounts
of guilt and punishment.If this does not happen,if this "cleansingsacrifice"which
is a genuinesacrifice,does not takeplace,I see no solutionof the Jewishquestionas
a Germanproblem.I do not have publicdeclarationsin mind. I do not think men
will take guilt upon themselveswhen this guilt is not theirs accordingto the first
concept we defined.Rather,I have in mind the responsibilityfor what happened
which must necessarilybe acknowledgedby every German.If one were able to
applyconceptsof depthpsychologyto groupsone wouldsaythatthe Germanpeople
mustundergoa collectiveanalysisin relationto the Jewishproblem.As in a genuine
analysis,this analysiswould raisethe past up into consciousness,and would have
to comecloseto the unconsciousin orderto understandthe unconsciousbackground
of the tendencyto typify the Jew as Jew. Such a collectiveanalysiswould uncover
the irrationaland pervertedstructureswhich lie at the base of the anti-Semitism
of recentGermanhistory.I believethat the problemof the Jewsand Germanscannot be resolvedwithout such a collectiveanalysis. It is obvious that a collective
analysiscan not be broughtabout by having every single individualanalyzedbut
ratherby having those who mold public consciousnesssubjectthemselvesto this
painful process.
Let me talk, as an analystwould, about a symptomwhich in and of itself is
unimportant,but which is meaningfulas symptom.When I returnedto Germany,
after a fifteen year absence, it occurredto me that the Germans always spoke
of nationsin the singular.Theysaid,as theystilldo today,"theJew,""theRussian,"
"the Englishman,""the German."Before Hitler's time, this expressiondid not
exist. I often asked myself, "Whathas happened?"In my time, one spoke of "the
Jews," "the Germans,""the Russians."Today people of whom one cannot say
that they consciouslywish to stereotypeuse the singular.I believethat the general
tendency to stereotypelies behind this expression.The individualhuman being
who belongs to a nation or to a race is no longer regardedas an individual.One
sees the individualonly throughthe imageof the type. Whenone says, "the American," one abstractsfrom everythingthat distinguishesthe individualAmerican
personand one refusesto see that this is refutedby everysingleAmericanperson.
Such stereotypingis disastrouswhen it occurs betweennations and races. It was
disastrousfor the relationshipof the Germansto the Jews.And it was and is all the
more disastroussince it occurredin the unconsciousand embodieditself in the
language.
A thirdpossiblesolutionof the Jewishquestionas a Germanproblemis somethingwhichthe Germanscan learnfromthe Anglo-Saxons,namely,soberjudgment
of an actualsituation.It is not soberto see the Jewsor any othergroupin the image
of an abstracttype, above all when this type has been formedby hostility. Nor is
it soberto see the Jewsin termsof an idealtype. It wouldbe sensibleto say that they

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christianand GermanProblem

269

are neitherworsenor betterthan averagehumanbeings;it would be sensibleto say

that they have specifichistoricallydeterminedcharacteristicsfor which Christian
anti-Judaismis in part responsible.
A fourth possible solution is the need for the Germanto overcomehis inferiority complex and the attempt to compensatefor it by arrogance.Arrogance
which transcendsthe sober recognitionof the integralvalue of everyliving being,
is alwaysthe resultof an inferioritycomplex.He who is certainof himself,he who
boldly takes upon himselfhis guilt and responsibility,does not think of himselfas
an inferior,nor is he arrogant.It seems to me decisivefor the Germanpeople to
become sober about itself by collectiveanalysisin orderthus to be enabledto be
sober in relation to the Jews, and to other nations.
A fifth possible solution of the problemis the integrationof the Germansin
westerncivilization.This is necessarynot becauseof any presentmilitaryrequirements but becausethe unity of Christianhumanisticcultureis being threatenedat
its deepestlevel, perhapsmore so than we know. I do not have in mind primarily
the presentpoliticalconstellationbut rathertwo eventsin the Germanpast which
preventedGermanyfrom opening itself completelyto Christianhumanism.The
first event was the defeat of the Romans in their attemptto conquermiddle and
north Germanyand to bringto it, with the conquest,the valuesof Graeco-Roman
antiquity.The secondeventI havein mindis the way in whichnorth-westGermany
resisted Christianityand was forcibly convertedby Charlemagne,and therefore
neveropened itself up from within to Christianvalues as much as west and south
Germany did. Therefore,north-westGermanybecame the best ground for the
paganelementsof NationalSocialism.TheGermannationcanwinan understanding
for the prophetic-humanistic
characterof Judaismonly if it finds its properplace
in the Christian-humanismof the west.
This suggestsa final problem:what is the religioussolution of the ChristianJewish problem?I have alreadypointed out the need for Christendomto accept
the Old Testamentas an integralpart of the ChristianBible, and the religion of
the Old Testamentas an integralelementof Christianexistence.I have pointedout
that in the very first centuries, religious syncretisminvaded Christianityand
turnedagainstthe Old Testament.The Old Testamentrepresentsthe God of time,
of creation,of justice, of redemption,the God of propheticjudgmentand promise.
Wherethis concept is missing,the Christiancongregationis changedback into a
pagan sect of an occult-mysticalkind. The church has resistedthis temptation,
but the Old Testamenthas yet anotherfunction which has become visible in the
last centurieswith the awakeningof the "socialconscience"in Christianchurches.
The Old Testament,particularlythroughthe propheticmessage,speaksof nations,
social classes,and politicalformsin relationto the religiousmessage.We find very
little about that in the New Testament.The New Testamentwas writtenat a time
when national groups were dissolved, when the Roman Empire had absorbed
everything,andwhenRomanrulerscontrolledthedestinyof individualsandnations,
a destiny which was formed by no single individual.Therefore,New Testament

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

270

JEWISH SOCIAL STUDIES

piety is first of all the piety of individuals.New Testamentpiety producesa new

community,namely the communityof the church. However, the church had no
inner connectionwith national communitiesand destinies.It was the function of
the Old Testament,especiallyfor religious-socialmovementsof the last century,
to help othersto see nationaldestiniesin the light of the propheticteaching.
The second challengewhich Christianitymust face is the struggleagainst its
own anti-Judaism.Anti-Judaisticutterancesgo back to the laterbooks of the New
Testament.From that time forward,anti-Judaismexistedin all periodsof church
history. In order to fight this tendency,religiousinstructionshould point to the
fact that in the FourthGospel everythingindividualhas at the sametime a typicalsymbolicmeaning.In the FourthGospel, the Jewswith whom Jesusstrugglesrepresenta kind of piety which can be found in all religions,also in Christianity.It
is the piety of the law which claims to possess absolute truth, and on this basis
rejectsthe Christever again. If the churcheshad said this moreclearly,they would
have appliedanti-Judaisticcriticismsnot only to the Jews but also to themselves.
When the churchapplies anti-Judaisticcriticismto itself, its anti-Judaismcannot
degenerateinto anti-Semitism.
This leads me to the third thing which the churchmust do in relationto the
Jews. It must understandJewry as representinga propheticcritique of itself. I
have previouslypointed to the Paulineidea that all pagans must have embraced
Christianitybefore Israel too, can join this universalunity. This idea is a profound anticipationof all laterhistoricaldevelopment,for it impliesthat Judaismis
needed so long as there is paganismin and outside Christendom.As early as the
Middle Ages the existenceof the Jews was regardedas a warningagainstthe paganizingof the church.Modem nationalismmakes this warningstill more necessary. It is one function of Judaismto hold up before the churchthe mirrorof its
own relapse into paganism.
There is a point where Christianityand Judaismseparatefrom one another
and as far as I can see areunableto come togetheragain.This point is the Christian
faiththat Jesusis the Christ,counterposedto the questionof Jewry-how can some
one be the Christ when he has not fulfilledthe function of the Christ-namely,
to transformrealityand bringabouta new reality?Is not Jesuswho died despairing
on the cross, the oppositeof that whichthe Christmeans?This is the deepestpoint
of division between Judaismand Christianity.The question is: has the Messiah
come or will the Messiahcome? The contrastseems absolute.And yet there is in
it a convergingline, for Judaismalso containssomethingwhich has alreadycome,
namely the covenant which God has made with it in the past. In the same way,
Christianitycontainssomethingwhichis not in the past, but in the future,namely
the symbol of the second coming of Christ.In this symbol, Christianityexpresses
the feelingthat the work of Christis not finished.These are converginglines, and
yet there remainsthe fundamentaldifference,namely: in Christianity,the turning
towardthe Christwho has come, and in Judaism,the turningtowardthe Messiah
who is expected.

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Christianand GermanProblem

271

This is the point where analysis stops, and where one can only preach.The
contentof sucha sermonwouldbe to say to the Christians:the only argumentwhich
you have againstthe Jewishargumentis to show that throughthe comingof Christ,
a new realityhas actuallyappeared.Althoughthis realityis fragmentaryand ambiguous yet it is able to overcome the conflicts of human existence.The Christian
answeris not argumentative.It is an indicativeanswer.It is an answerof being.
Perhapsit is not unjustifiedto hope that there will emergefrom Christianbeing
that power which will destroy the demonismof anti-Semitism,and create a new
community between Christianityand Judaism not only in the German nation
but in all nations.

This content downloaded from 129.78.139.28 on Thu, 04 Jun 2015 07:37:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions