Walther: get non-poisonous reading for youth! (Abendschule) (Der Lutheraner 1855)

      When I ran across the following blurb in an 1855 issue of Der Lutheraner, I was reminded of my blog of 4 years ago of Walther's 1881 comment on "godless newspapers."  We see again how adamant he was for proper reading materials for the youth, from Der Lutheraner, vol. 11 (1855), p 119 [EN]: 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  

Abendschule or Evening School
mastheads

Illustrated Evening School 

("Illustrirte Abendschule.") 

This paper, dedicated to the instruction and entertainment of the more mature youth, edited by Pastor C. Diehlmann and published by the engraver Mr. H. Tubesing in Buffalo, has already been recommended in the Der Lutheraner (Vol. 10. No. 10.) [sic, No. 13; p. 102-104] to all readers concerned at the time of its publication. It was warmly recommended to all readers concerned. Now, after the completion of the first year of that paper, we not only have no reason to regret our recommendation, but also feel compelled to repeat our warmest recommendation of it. Of course, we do not say this for those who have already received the journal, since there will certainly be few among them for whom the journal has not become indispensable. But we would like to remind those young people who have not yet been made aware of it. Whoever, whatever his profession who, whatever his occupation, desires to be encouraged in all kinds of useful knowledge, and seeks a fruitful entertainment for hours of recreation, will not find in the United States a journal equal to the "Evening School," much less one more suitable for the purpose. Parents, teachers, preachers, and instructors should be careful to bring the paper to their younger charges, and young people to their friends of youth. Through the overviews of the political and other important events of the present that have been included in the journal for some time, it has made every other political journal dispensable for most readers and thus, to a great blessing, has partly displaced many bad newspapers written in the spirit of irreligion and immorality, and partly blocked their entrance. It is true that the paper can no longer be delivered for fifty cents per issue, but from now on costs seventy-five cents; however, this is also such a low price that it can be considered by only very few. In addition, the journal has not only been embellished in that it now appears in four sheets each, of which one volume makes a beautiful book, but in its new form it also contains considerably more teaching material than before. As we have heard, the publisher has had to increase the number of subscribers considerably, since the pictures, as simple as they are, increase the costs of the journal not a little. Whoever is concerned that the dear youth, which is more willing to read here than elsewhere, is not deprived of a means to satisfy this desire not by poisoning the heart, but with true benefit, should also make it his business to distribute the Evening School.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      It was always the goal of the Old German Missouri Synod to have their children and youth brought up in congregational schools with religion included, with educational materials that are not soul-destroying as in the state-supported schools. Today the LCMS leaders and pastors rarely promote this, saying "I went to public high school, didn't hurt me." One prominent LCMS pastor shockingly even scoffs at homeschooling over public schools (CN Editor, July 5, 2021, p. 20).

      For those interested in a truly German American Lutheran perspective on education, one may read the earlier 1854 "Prospectus" and Walther's initial recommendation for this publication in the issue Walther mentioned above here (English).  The American general population, myself included, has lost sight of Germany's top position in education and learning in the 19th century (over England, etc.), so the "Prospectus" for this periodical gives an extensive narrative of the background for us today.

Jews5: Jesus's sacrifice does not count? Conclusion: “his name is Yeshua, Jesus”

      This concludes from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an exchange between Old Missouri Synod's missionary Daniel Landsmann and a learned Jewish Rabbi. — I made a note in this portion as I translated it: "Landsmann's great Bible lesson".  And here he offers the power of the Gospel to the New York City Jews.  From Der Lutheraner, vol. 42 (May 1, 1886), pages 65-67 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From our mission to the Jews.

[by Daniel Landsmann] (concluded from Part 4)

The Rabbi, skipping to another subject, said, “Mr. L., Jesus' sacrifice does not count under the Mosaic Law! According to the Law, one had to slaughter a sacrifice on Mount Moriah, and all the sacrifices have been slaughtered. But Jesus was murdered, and not on Mount Moriah, but outside the city of Jerusalem. And when God would have tried Abraham our father, he commanded him to slay Isaac on mount Moriah, but not to murder him. — 

Before I answered this pointed but also ignorant question, everyone shouted, as if from one throat: Rabbi, bravo! Bravo, Rabbi! At last we have caught him. They clapped their hands in triumph! My poor friends also looked at me pityingly and very suspiciously. — 

I let them triumph a little. When they had finally calmed down, I said: “I must now give you another blow, I cannot help you, you yourselves are forcing me to do it! But do not get angry; I must defend myself. Do you think, then, that this childish and foolish question is anything new? No! Before I give proof from the Bible, I refer you to your own Talmud. Your Talmud says that the Messiah, Ben Joseph the son of Joseph, must be murdered as Korban, sacrifice, for Israel, and not slaughtered, and that too not on Mount Moriah, but outside Jerusalem! Who is the Moshiach [or Mashiach] who is supposed to be a son of Joseph? Did God then promise us two Messiahs in the Bible? No, the Bible only speaks of one Messiah. The Talmud got it right on this point. Jesus was also thought or reckoned to be a son of Joseph. That is what the New Testament says. I referred to the passage Luke 3:23.: wajachschebuhu [Hebrew for “son of Joseph”]: they took him for it or counted him for it, namely for a son of Joseph, because Joseph was Jesus's foster father. I further cited a piece of Talmud on Zech. 12:10.: “and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced”: that is, says the Talmud, the Messiah, who is the son of Joseph, who shall be murdered as Korban for the sin of Israel. So says your own Talmud, what more do you want? Yea, your own machzor [prayer book] says, his name is Yeshua, Jesus, and He is the Sar hapanim i.e. the prince of God’s countenance. And verily Jesus was David's son according to human nature, and as a foster son was also thought to be a son of Joseph. I took my Bible and showed them how the Yeshua hamashiach must suffer and die: Isa. 50, Isa. 53, Ps. 22, Ps. 69. etc. — 

But as for the “out of the camp,” I showed them the Azazel [“scapegoat”], Lev. 16 [Lev. 16:8], who, as the Talmud relates, was bound, and hurled down from a high mountain far from Jerusalem, so that he lay dead. So also the red heifer, Num. 19 [Num. 19:2], had to be slaughtered outside the camp, and burned whole, not on Mount Moriah. — I explained to them what it meant, and especially what the red heifer represented, which made the clean unclean and the unclean clean. I showed the fulfillment in Christ. He that rejecteth Christ is unclean in the sight of God: but he that receiveth His blood for the remission of sins is clean in the sight of God, and shall be saved. I also mentioned the serpent in the wilderness [Numbers 21:4-9], and explained [col. 3] what it signified. Through all these examples the Messiah was portrayed, and all the prophets and believers in the old covenant had believed this, and they had become blessed through it.

At last I said to them: "The Talmud, which is the arch-enemy of Christ, and has blinded the whole people, has betrayed itself by its much gossiping. It admits that Jesus, who was thought to be the son of Joseph, must be murdered and not slaughtered on Moriah, as you think. Christ had to be put to death for our sins, that we might be justified and saved before God." — And now, my friends, yield yourselves to this Jesus by grace, confess your sins before Him, come to Him, as Joseph's brethren came to Joseph, and say unto Him, 'O forgive thy brethren their iniquity, and their sins that they have done evil in thee! O forgive now the iniquity of us, the servants of the God of your father' (Gen. 50:17), and Christ will accept you, as once Joseph did his murderous brothers, and forgive you from the heart, and you shall find rest and peace through the forgiveness of your sins in His blood. For He, and He alone, is He of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets have spoken, as the Talmud says, “All the prophets have not spoken otherwise than of the days of the Messiah.”

[Daniel Landsmann with Christian wife; map of "95 Ave. D., NYC"]==>>

This conversation lasted three hours. At 5 o'clock in the evening I took my leave and went home, tired but happy and joyful. — May the faithful Yeshua sar hapanim bless His Word in the hearts. Amen.

D. Landsmann, missionary to the Jews.

95 Avenue D. New York.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  End of essay  - - - - - - - - - - - -
What a Bible lesson by missionary Landsmann!  It certainly strengthened my faith.  As I concluded my translation work, I wondered that the remarkable Daniel Landsmann may be still honored by others today. An Internet search turned up much more information about him, giving details such as:

• he was a Rabbi himself in old Russia before his conversion, and a zealous Jew
• he endured much ridicule and torment for his Christian faith
• another Russian rabbi, Rabbi Nathaniel Friedmann, was sent to him from Russia to "win him back" but instead was converted to Christianity by Landsmann, and served until 1941 as a Missouri Synod pastor and  Landsmann's successor as missionary to the Jews.
• LCMS missionary to the Jews Alan Butterworth gave a very informative 1/2 hour presentation on Landsmann to the 2007 conference of the "Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism". 

One may learn more at: Butterworth.ppt  —  messianicjudaism.me  —  jewishroots.net (here and here). 

      How honored I am to add to the legacy of Pastor Daniel Landmann by this translation of his 1886 account of his witness to the Jews of New York City.  And I add my "Amen" to his, that God may bless His Word in the hearts of those who read Landsmann's story, especially the Jews. — More will come in later blog posts presenting the missionary efforts of the Old Missouri Synod for the Jews.

Jews4: Landmann’s great OT Bible lesson

      This continues from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an exchange between Old Missouri Synod's missionary Daniel Landsmann and a learned Jewish Rabbi. — Landsmann's wonderful knowledge of the Old Testament was a great encouragement for my Christian faith. From Der Lutheraner, vol. 42 (May 1, 1886), pages 65-67:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From our mission to the Jews.

[by Daniel Landsmann] (cont'd from Part 3)

Then the Rabbi said: “Mr. L., you said before that Jesus had done the miracles by his own power. That is not true! Our prophets, such as Moses, Elijah and Elisha, also performed miracles, but did they perform them by their own power? No, God helped them, as he did Jesus.” 

[Landmann’s great OT Bible lesson follows:]

I [Landmann]: “Very good, then Christ is a prophet. But why then do ye not believe His words? Why do you hate Him, and spit out when you hear His name? — By the way, Jesus was not only the great prophet of whom it is said in Deuteronomy 18:15—19, “unto him ye shall hearken,” etc., but He was Jehovah Himself. I took my Bible and read Isa. 45:17, where it says, ‘But Israel shall be saved in Jehovah [the Lord] with an everlasting salvation.’ etc. 

Now I ask you: ‘If you must advertise yourselves saved by Jehovah as Jehovah, why do you pray three times a day: O that the Tzemach [or tsemach: branch] of David would come and redeem us? But if a son of David must redeem you, and in this you are right, then He, the Messiah, must necessarily be Jehovah, as it is written in this text: ‘through Jehovah’. Truly, the Messiah of the Bible, for whom our patriarchs and prophets hoped, must, if He is to redeem us lost sinners, Himself be without sin; He must be, as it is said in Isa. 9:6, El Gibbor, the Mighty God, or as it is said in Jer. 23:6, Jehovah Tsidkenu [the Lord Our Righteousness]. But if He was, He could do all miracles by His own power [i.e. not by Schem Hamphoras]. He was greater than all the prophets, He was God-man! The Apostle was right in saying that Christ was the brightness of God's glory, and the image of His being; yea, He was the Maleach panaw the Angel of His countenance, or, as your Machsor saith, “Yeshua sar hapanim,” that is, “Jesus, who is the Prince of God’s countenance.”

I quoted to them passages from Micah 5:1, Jer. 23:5-6, Zech. 13:7, etc. — 

“What more do you want?” I asked. “Who is in the wrong: the Christians or the Jews? Who is twisting the Word of God: the Jews or the Christians? We Christians simply stick to the Word of God and believe it simply, whether we can understand it by reason or not. We do not practice sophistry; we trust God with everything and know that He will not deceive us. But you stand above the Bible, just like the Pope, and want to master God. You have made a hundred commentaries on the Bible, one disagreeing with the other. You have completely distorted God's Word” [col. 2], and so on. I read Isa. 5:20—21, and showed them how God complained about Israel even then, when they did not yet have the Talmud, and how much more now. They were silent, and made no answer. — 

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 5  - - - - - - - - - - - -

Silence, once again among these New York Jews. Here was the true God standing before their eyes, in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.  Shall I not call Daniel Landsmann the "Jewish Luther"? May Landsmann's great Bible lesson be an encouragement for the reader's faith as it was for mine. — The conclusion follows in Part 5…

Jews3: Talmud a lie, Schem Hamphoras powerless

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an exchange between Old Missouri Synod's missionary Daniel Landsmann and a learned Jewish Rabbi. — The Rabbi was notably peaceful during this debate, even calming down his own zealous Jewish people.  This afforded Landsmann more time to continue with his remarkable defense of the Christian faith. He shows the Jews by their own Jewish writings that the Talmud's "fairy tale"  of Schem Hamphoras could not be possible. From Der Lutheraner, vol. 42 (May 1, 1886), pages 65-67 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From our mission to the Jews.

[by Daniel Landsmann] (cont'd from Part 2)

1) Where did that name [Schem Hamphoras] stand?

All answered: “In the Ḳodesh ha-Ḳodashim [kodzhekodshim], that is, in the Holy of Holies!” 

I [Landsmann]: “Very good! Now I ask you: How could JEsus, who was not descended from Levi or Aaron, enter into the Holy of Holies and steal that wonderful name, to go out for God by His miracles, and go out from there still alive? I ask you: ‘If the high priest himself should have dared to enter into the Holy of Holies on any other day than the Day of Atonement, what would have been his end?’” 

All answered: “He would have been, like a Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 10:12, certainly put to death!” 

I: “Certainly, you are right! The high priest could only enter the Holy of Holies once a year at a certain time. For this he had to bathe himself beforehand, put on the special garments and enter with incense and sacrificial blood. Otherwise, as you said, like a Nadab and Abihu, he would certainly have fallen down dead. — How is it, then, that Jesus, who was not descended from Aaron at all, entered the Most Holy Place and yet did not die? God should have killed him right away because He desecrated the Holy of Holies. But if God did not do it, then Jesus must truly be greater than Aaron and the temple with all their sacrifices. Therefore He did all the miracles by His own power. [i. e. not by Schem Hamphoras]”

Jerusalem saved (top)
Jerusalem destroyed (bottom)

2) “If there really was such a name [Schem Hamphoras] that could be used to perform miracles, why didn't the chief priests and scribes at that time [of Jerusalem’s destruction] do something similar to what happened under King Hezekiah (Isa. 37:36) [Assyrian army struck dead.], namely that the whole Roman army was destroyed in an instant and Jerusalem, the Temple and the people were liberated? And truly, that would have been a small thing compared to the great miracles that Jesus is said to have done through that name. For, as your Talmud itself tells us, Jesus raised up a man who had been dead twenty-five years by a word. But if the Jews did not deliver themselves by that name [of Schem Hamphoras], they could not, because such a name did not exist; the whole story is a fairy tale. But if Jesus did such great miracles, He did them absolutely by His own power. And verily He could do it, for He was God Himself, or, as it is said in Isa. 63:9, the maleach panaw, the angel of God’s countenance, or, as the Apostle says, the reflection of the glory of God, and the image of His being.”

The Jews jumped up hastily and their faces were terrible. [As they were with Jesus and Stephen, now also with Luther.] I was frightened and wanted to leave; it had become scary for me. The Rabbi alone held me and calmed me down. — My few friends, as well as two Jewish teachers unknown to me, surrounded me and protected me from maltreatment. The [pg 67] Rabbi — I must give the testimony — calmed them, and they all sat down, snorting with anger. —

I did not speak a word. — The Rabbi said in a serious tone: “We must be ashamed of ourselves before Mr. L. We are a hot-tempered and impatient people, just like the Greeks and French, and that has always been our misfortune! To be zealous is good, and we ought to be zealous for God, but with understanding. But the way you are zealous now, it is not pretty.” 

Some zealots stood up and answered: “Rabbi, it burns! It hurts us very much! For if there was no Schem Hamphoras, we Jews are buried, and the Meshumad (apostate) is right. But by no means do we wish to become Christians, even if our heads should be cut off.” 

My compatriots and the two Jewish teachers said: “Mr. L. does not force us to become Christians. But it is certain that there was no such name. The Talmud made us believe something here.” That was a particularly hard blow for the others. A silence fell. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 4  - - - - - - - - - - -

Landsmann's defense against the Talmud's "Schem Hamphoras" echoes what Luther wrote about it. Of course trapping the Jews in their own writings would not convert them by itself.  He must present the Gospel in its full glory, for them.  We will see just that in the next Part 4.  

Jews2: Rabbi's first objection: prove "image of his (God's) person"; Schem Hamphoras

      This continues from Part 1 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting an exchange between Old Missouri Synod's missionary Daniel Landsmann and a learned Jewish Rabbi. — In this segment we see that Landsmann was himself learned on Jewish writings, including the Kabbalah. And we get a better picture of how the Jews of today hang on to the fable of the Schem Hamphoras. Martin Luther's polemic against this is shown to be justified… again. From Der Lutheraner, vol. 42 (May 1, 1886), pages 65-67 [EN]:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From our mission to the Jews.

[by Daniel Landsmann] (cont'd from Part 1)

A silence fell, for I did not hurry to answer. Everyone looked at the Rabbi. I asked them to bring me a machzor, prayer book, [col. 2]. I had the Rabbi himself read what all the people pray every New Year, kneeling three times, while they blow Shofar, i.e., the trumpets, thirty times. It reads as follows: “O Jehovah, merciful and gracious, we have sinned before thee, and done evil in thy sight! Have mercy on us, and forgive us our sins bisechuth Yeshua sar hapanim,” that is, for Jesus sake, who is the Prince of thy countenance; for the word Yeshua means Savior, Helper, Redeemer, or Saviour. What is this, I asked them, and who is this Yeshua, or Jesus, who is the Prince of the face of God? Behold, I said, the Messiah of the Bible should and must be like this, and only for the sake of such a Messiah can God forgive sin. But for the sake of such a Messiah, as you unfortunately expect him now, who is supposed to be only a man, God cannot forgive your sins, because he himself is a sinner. — I read to them Isa. 63:9, where it is said, “In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the Malach panaw”, i.e. angel of his countenance, “saved them” 2c. — Who is this angel who is the prince of God's countenance, and what is his name? Your Kabbalah says clearly enough that his name is Yeshua, in German [now English]: Jesus! Yes, my friends, I continued, Jesus is the reflection of the glory of God and the image of His being. The Apostle has not exaggerated at all when he calls the Messiah thus. The Apostle agrees not only with the Bible, but also with your Kabbalah. — Can you deny me that? Well, I want to see how you're going to do this. —

A long pause occurred, and the machzor passed from hand to hand, and each one read: bisechuth Yeshua sar hapanim, i.e., as it was said, “For Jesus sake, who is the Prince of the countenance of God.” They were smitten by their own prayer book. 

One of them began to curse and said, “Jimach schemo wesichro,” i. e., “may my name and memory be blotted out.” 

I stood up and said, “If you are going to be rough, I am going. I have come here at your invitation, not that we should curse one another, but that we should talk honestly with one another. For our salvation depends on it. For if I am wrong, I am lost; but if you are wrong, you are lost. There is only one truth, not two, and that is the Bible; it, and it alone, should and must decide everything, because it alone is God's Word.” — 

The Rabbi: “Mr. L., you are right; I also go away when insults are uttered. We are not to attack each other personally, but to refute, and perhaps we may yet win you.” — 

Me: “All right, I am heartily ready to answer all questions. But everything should be done honestly and properly.” — 

The Rabbi took up another subject, and said: “Mr. L., we Jews know who Jesus was, and by what power he did the great miracles; he did the miracles with the Schem Hamphoras” *). — All were very pleased with this interjection and their faces were transfigured. —

*) Schem Hamphoras is said to have been a special name of God that stood in the Holy of Holies and was used to perform miracles. The high priest is said to have pronounced it clearly on the Day of Atonement, while Israel was kneeling three times and confessing its sins, thus forcing God to forgive it.

 

Me: “How can you prove to me that there was such a name?” 

The Rabbi: “It is written in our Talmud!”

Me: “That [col. 3] is a falsehood, a fairy tale! I believed that thirty years ago, but I was a fool to believe it. Look, if there had been such a wonderful name of God by which miracles could be done, why is it not written in the Bible? What the Bible does not say, I do not accept, but must declare to be a lie.” — The Talmud could not deny the great miracles of Jesus. But in order to blind our eyes and to arouse hatred against Jesus, it invented all this. Unfortunately it has succeeded in leading the whole people away from Jesus to this day. — But in order to convince you that what the Talmud says is a lie, I will put a few questions to you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 3  - - - - - - - - - - -

We see now why Luther had to refute the Talmud’s writing on the Schem Hamphoras. And how Landsmann, a former Jew, vindicates Luther by his pronouncement of its lies! Landsmann reveals that he believed the lie of the Schem Hamphoras 30 years prior as a Jewish rabbi. — We learn what Landsmann's two questions for the Jewish Rabbi are, in the next Part 3.