The outlook of evangelical Christians toward
Jews is the most complex and ambivalent of all Christian, and non-Christian,
attitudes toward Jews in the modern era. Motivated by a literal reading of the
Bible, and adhering to a messianic faith, many evangelical Christians view
contemporary Jews as heirs to biblical Israel and the object of prophecies
about a restored Davidic kingdom in the messianic age. At the same time,
evangelical Christians insist that only those persons who are “born again in Christ”
can be saved and promised eternal life. As the Jews have not accepted Jesus,
they are spiritually and morally deprived. This dualistic view of the Jews
forms the basis for the complex and at times contradictory evangelical views on
the Jewish people.
Evangelical
opinions of Jews can be unflattering at times. Negative stereotypes have found
their way time and again into the writings and speeches of leading evangelists.
Convinced that the Jews are in urgent need of the ameliorating Gospel and
cannot be saved or reformed unless they accept Jesus as their Savior,
evangelicals have carried out extensive missionary work among the Jews.
At
the same time, evangelical Christians have been counted among Israel’s most
ardent friends. Following the Six Day War in 1967, evangelical Christians
became convinced that the State of Israel serves a crucial role in preparing
the ground for the arrival of the messianic age. They have been active
supporters of that country, taking a major part in the pro-Israel lobby in America.
Some evangelicals have tried to help Jews rebuild the Temple.
In
the final analysis, evangelical attitudes toward Jews cannot be defined as
either philosemitic or antisemitic. Rather, their attitudes represent the
evangelical theology, which is biblical, messianic, and evangelistic in its
nature.
The relationship between evangelical
Christians and Jews has often been an item in the news in recent years. The
most recent examples include the appearance of Israel’s prime minister, Ariel
Sharon, before a large gathering of evangelical supporters of Israel, the
deportation from Israel of a group of evangelical Christians who were expecting
the second coming of Jesus, the angry reaction of American rabbis to the
opening of a biblical theme park in Florida sponsored by a mission to the Jews,
and the revelations that Billy Graham, America's leading evangelist in the
second half of the twentieth century, expressed negative opinions about Jews in
taped conversations with then-president Richard Nixon.[1]
Such seemingly contradictory news items stir very different reactions. Some
have described the evangelical attitude towards Jews as antisemitic, while
others say it is philosemitic.[2]
Few have taken the time to explore the overall picture of evangelical attitudes
toward Jews, their theological reasoning, and their diverse expressions.
In
evaluating the attitude of evangelical Christians towards Jews, one must take
into account that evangelical Christianity is not a united or uniform camp, but
is composed of hundreds of different denominations as well as thousands of
independent churches. In some denominations, evangelicals are but one group
within a denomination that does not fully share their views. In addition,
various evangelical denominations carry differing historical heritages and
differ over liturgical or theological issues. There are noted divisions, for
example, over such matters as baptism or the Lord’s Supper. One of the more
decisive differences among evangelical Christians in the past generation has
been between charismatics and non-charismatics. There are, however, common
features that all evangelical Christians share and that evangelicals consider
essential features of their faith, making other divisions often seem less
important. Evangelicals share the belief that all human beings need to undergo
a personal conversion experience in which they establish a personal
relationship with Jesus Christ and adopt him as their Savior. In the
evangelical view, only those that undergo a conversion experience can be saved
and are promised eternal life. Evangelicals are therefore committed to
evangelism: spreading the Christian message and persuading the non-converted of
the need to accept Jesus as their personal Savior as the means to ensure their
salvation. They also view the Christian Bible as God’s message to humanity and
insist on the inerrancy of the sacred text. Many evangelicals adhere to a
messianic premillennialist faith and expect the second coming of Jesus to earth
to occur in the near future.
These
major evangelical components—the emphasis on the need to accept Jesus, the
commitment to evangelism, the more literal reading of the Bible, and the
messianic faith—have shaped the evangelical attitude towards Jews. Evangelical
relations to the Jews cannot therefore be described as either philosemitic or
antisemitic. They are complicated and ambivalent and reflect the evangelicals’
faith and worldview. An examination of the attitudes of evangelicals towards
Jews must therefore explore the creed, worldview, and agenda of this important
segment of contemporary Christianity.
The messianic hope, in which the Jews play
such an important part, draws on a long Christian messianic tradition.[3]
In its contemporary form it was crystallized in Britain in the early decades of
the nineteenth century. Two brands of Christian messianic faith have developed,
“historical” and “futurist,” and both influenced evangelical attitudes towards
Jews in the nineteenth century. While the two schools have differed as to when
the events of the End Times were to begin, for the most part, they have shared
the same ideas on the role of the Jews in God’s plans for humanity.[4]
Both messianic schools have inspired support for Zionism as well as extensive
missionary activity among the Jews.[5]
The premillennialist faith in its “futurist” dispensationalist form became
widely accepted in America in the latter decades of the nineteenth century and
influenced members of major Protestant denominations. It has become part and
parcel of the conservative evangelical creed, as it has meshed well with a
pessimistic outlook on contemporary culture. It has served as a philosophy of
history for conservative Christians, providing hope and reassurance in the
midst of despair over current developments, as well as over one of the greatest
fears of the day—the atomic bomb.[6]
In
the premillennialist dispensationalists’ understanding of the course of human
history, God has a different plan for the three different categories of human
beings: the Jews, the church, and the rest of humanity. Premillennialists
define the church as the body of the true believers, those who have undergone
an inner experience of conversion in which they have accepted Jesus as their
personal Savior, and have taken it upon themselves to live saintly Christian
lives. They alone will be saved and spared the turmoil and destruction that
will precede the arrival of the Messiah. Messianic times will begin with the
“rapture” of the Church, in which believers will be snatched from earth and
meet Jesus in the air. Those believers who died prior to the rapture will rise
from the dead and will also be taken from earth to meet Jesus in the air, where
they will remain with the other believers for seven years, and thus be spared
the natural disasters, wars, and murderous dictatorships of the End Times.
Before Jesus’ final return to Earth, about two thirds of humanity will perish.[7]
For
the Jews, this period will be known as the “Time of Jacob’s Trouble.” They will
return to their ancient homeland “in unbelief”—without accepting Jesus as their
Savior. They will establish a political commonwealth there, which will not be
the millennial Davidic kingdom, but a necessary development in the advancement
of the messianic timetable. Living in spiritual blindness, the Jews will let
themselves be ruled by Antichrist, an impostor posing as the Messiah who will
be worshiped as God. Antichrist will inflict a reign of terror and many true
believers—Jews who during this period will come to believe in Jesus—will be
martyred.
The arrival of Jesus
at the end of the Great Tribulation will end Antichrist’s rule. Jesus will
crush this Satanic ruler and his armies, and will establish the millennial
kingdom. Those Jews who survive the turmoil and terror of the Great Tribulation
will then accept Jesus as their Savior. There will follow a period marked by
the righteous rule of Christ on earth. All nations will live in their lands;
the Jews will inhabit David’s ancient kingdom, and Jerusalem will serve as the
capital of the entire world. The Jewish nation will become Jesus’ right-hand
people, assisting him in administering the earth. In addition, they will
function as evangelists of the millennial kingdom, strengthening the knowledge
of God among the nations of the earth.
The
special role Jews occupy in the evangelical millennial faith can well explain
the special interest evangelicals have had in the Jews and the prospect of
their national restoration.
The new interest evangelicals showed in the
Jewish people manifested itself in a series of initiatives directed toward the
national restoration of the Jews in Palestine. Such efforts predated the rise
of political Zionism. Christian evangelical initiatives to restore the Jews to Zion
can be traced to attempts by British evangelicals in the 1840s to persuade the
British government to propose to the Ottoman Turks the creation of a Jewish
state in Palestine. Lord Ashley Cooper, the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury and
leader of the evangelical party in Britain, sought ways to promote the return
of Palestine to the Jews. His proto-Zionism spread throughout the
English-speaking world. While the evangelical movement and the influence of
premillennialism weakened in Britain towards the end of the nineteenth century,
in America, the effect of the premillennialist faith on members of the
evangelical churches grew considerably. By the late nineteenth century,
American evangelicals were also advocating the return of the Jews to Zion, as
well as building a large network of missions to the Jews.
An
outstanding initiative for the restoration of Palestine to the Jews was that of
William Blackstone, an American evangelist and promoter of the
dispensationalist messianic faith. Blackstone visited Palestine in 1889 and was
deeply impressed by the developments brought about in the first wave of Zionist
immigration in a country he had considered to be desolate. He saw the
agricultural settlements and the new neighborhoods in Jerusalem as “signs of
the time,” indicating that an era was ending and the great events of the end of
the age were to occur very soon.[8]
Blackstone decided to take an active part to help bring about Jewish national
restoration. In 1891 he organized a petition urging the president of the United
States to convene an international conference of the world powers to give
Palestine back to the Jews. More than four hundred prominent Americans signed
Blackstone’s petition—congressmen, governors, mayors, publishers, and editors
of leading newspapers, notable clergymen, and leading businessmen. Although it
failed to bring the American government to take any meaningful action, the
petition reflected the warm support that the idea of the Jewish restoration to
Palestine received among American Protestants influenced by a biblical outlook
on the Jews and Palestine.[9]
Blackstone
devised a theory that has become a cornerstone of the American evangelical
attitude toward Zionism and Israel. He asserted that the United States had a
special role and mission in God’s plans for humanity: that of a modern Cyrus to
help restore the Jews to Zion. God chose America for that mission on account of
its moral superiority over other nations, and America would be judged according
to the way it carried out its mission.[10]
This theory enabled American evangelicals to combine their messianic belief and
understanding of the course of human history with their sense of American
patriotism. Although they have often criticized contemporary American culture,
they have remained loyal citizens of the American commonwealth. In this way
they have been significantly different from other American religious groups
that have held intense messianic beliefs—such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have
defined themselves in terms of opposition to the values and goals of the
American polity.
In
1916, Blackstone organized a second petition calling upon the president of the
United States to help restore Palestine to the Jews. This time his efforts were
coordinated with American Zionist leaders such as Louis Brandeis, Steven Wise,
and Jacob de Haas, who saw Blackstone’s efforts as beneficial to the Zionist
cause and maintained a warm relationship with him, encouraging him to pursue
his cause. Blackstone did not keep his premillennialist motivations secret from
his Jewish friends. He sent them his published works and expressed his opinions
in correspondence with them as well. They were not bothered by his prediction
that great turmoil was awaiting the Jews in the events of the end of the age or
his belief that the Jews would accept Jesus as their Messiah when Jesus would
arrive to establish his kingdom. These Zionist leaders dismissed the
premillennialist doctrine as eccentric, and focused on the support it might
provide for Zionist aspirations.[11]
Evangelical premillennialists, on their part, had mixed feelings about the
Zionist movement. They criticized the secular character of the movement, and
were disappointed that the Zionists were unaware of the real significance of
their restoration in Palestine. Nevertheless, their immediate reaction to the
Zionist endeavor was enthusiastic and warm. Some of their reports on the rise
of the Zionist movement and developments in Palestine read like those of Jewish
Zionists.
The
events of World War I, with its unprecedented killing and destruction, filled
many evangelicals with apocalyptic thoughts; they were convinced that the war
was part of the events of the end of the age. They interpreted the Balfour
Declaration and the British takeover of Palestine as further indications that
the ground was being prepared for the arrival of the Messiah. Their joy over
these developments dominated two “prophetic conferences” that took place in
Philadelphia and New York in 1918.[12]
Evangelicals
maintained a profound interest in the events that were taking place in the life
of the Jewish people, especially the Jewish community in Palestine. Leading
journals such as Our Hope, The King’s Business, the Moody
Monthly, and the Pentecostal Evangel, regularly published news on
developments that took place in the life of the Jewish people, the Zionist
movement, and the Jewish community in Palestine. Many evangelicals were
encouraged by the new wave of Zionist immigration to Palestine in the early
years of its British administration, and events such as the opening of the
Hebrew University in 1925 and the new seaport in Haifa in 1932 were publicized
in their periodicals. Evangelicals with premillennialist convictions
interpreted these developments as signs that the Jews were energetically
building a commonwealth in their ancient land and that the great events of the
end of the age were to occur very soon.[13]
Excited by hopes of the Second Coming, they lashed out at the British for
restricting Jewish immigration and settlement, and criticized the Arabs for
their hostility toward the Zionist endeavor and violence against the Jews.
Trying to block the building of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine was seen as
equivalent to putting obstacles in the way of God’s plans for the end of the
age. Such attempts, they asserted, were futile, and the Arabs would pay dearly
for their “rebelliousness.”[14]
But
despite all their resentment of British policy, few evangelical activists
pressed their protest beyond the pages of their own journals. They did not
mount any organized effort to combat the British policy regarding Palestine.
One explanation for this may be that during that period conservative
evangelicals were not very active politically as a group. Both in Britain and
America, their political activity weakened considerably. After the 1925 Scopes
trial, conservative evangelicals withdrew to a large degree from the American
public arena. Evangelical leaders did not see themselves as influential
national figures whose voices might be heard by the policymakers in Washington
or as people who could advance a political agenda on the national or
international levels.
Although they were politically passive, their
interest in the fate of the Jews remained firm. The interwar years saw a rise
in overt antisemitism and harassment of Jews. This atmosphere influenced
evangelical attitudes towards Jews. Some evangelical writers denounced
antisemitism, fighting to eradicate traditional blood libels and the accusation
that the Jews were conspiring to take over the entire world as suggested in the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Although no openly antisemitic movement
arose within the ranks of evangelicals, there were nonetheless a few activists
who openly adopted a socially and politically exclusivist white Protestant
“nativist” stand. Some, such as Gerald L. K. Smith, labored during the 1920s
and 1930s outside of the mainstream of the evangelical camp.[15]
Others, like Gerald Winrod, founder and head of Defenders of the Christian
Faith, received more widespread recognition in conservative evangelical
circles.[16]
Charles Fuller, one of the leading evangelists in America from the 1920s to the
1940s, participated in the activities of Winrod’s organization.[17]
Many
central leaders in the conservative evangelical camp had mixed and complicated
reactions to antisemitism. Activists and writers such as Arno Gaebelein,
William Riley, and James Gray reaffirmed in their writings the centrality of
the Jewish people in God’s plans for humanity and the glorified future that
awaited them in the messianic age. Gaebelein, for one, raised his voice against
such old-time accusations as the blood libel. At the same time, these men
accepted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as authentic.[18]
They saw secular, “modern” Jews as fallen people who had allowed themselves to
be seduced by all types of distorted teachings and ideologies. As these Jews
abandoned traditional Judaism—which at least had kept them prepared for their
heroic task in history—and did not in turn accept Christianity, they were left
with no moral guidelines. They had let themselves become instruments of Satan.
Gaebelein, Riley, and others in the conservative evangelical camp associated
secular Jews with social and political movements that aimed to undermine
Christian civilization.
This
did not deter such evangelicals from opposing the Nazis and expressing concern
over the fate of the Jews under the Nazi regime. The evangelical journal Our
Hope was among the first to condemn the Nazi attitude toward the Jews and
later on to alert its readers to the devastating scope of the destruction of
European Jewry.[19]
Gaebelein, the journal’s editor, viewed the Nazi position vis-à-vis Jews as a
rebellion against God and predicted the downfall of their regime. He took
particular offense at Nazi attempts to change basic Christian concepts, for
example, “Aryanizing” Jesus.[20]
Gaebelein and other biblical literalists saw the Nazis’ innovations in
Christianity as well as their secular “pagan” ideology in general as indicators
of the anti-Christian and diabolical nature of their regime. But for all their
anger at the Nazis and their sympathy for the persecuted Jews, they did little
to organize themselves to fight the Nazi anti-Jewish policy. Their reaction to
the plight of the Jews manifested itself mostly on the pages of their journals.
Evangelicals’
interest in learning about what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust and
their wish to make sense of it corresponded in some ways to that of American
society at large (including American Jews). During the late 1940s and 1950s,
most Americans were reluctant to confront the horrors of the Nazi harassment
and annihilation of the Jews.[21]
Interest grew, however, during the 1960s and 1970s, and the Holocaust became an
important issue in the United States by the 1980s.[22]
During the 1970s and 1980s, the Holocaust came to occupy an important place in
Christian evangelical literature. The central theme such books have
confronted is how Christian believers had behaved during that time of trial.
The question has especially preoccupied evangelicals who have a special
interest in the Jews and in Israel, have been engaged in evangelizing Jews, or
are themselves Jews who converted to evangelical Christianity. These books have
come to reassure evangelical Christians that true Christian believers, born
again in Christ, had nothing to do with the persecution and murder of the Jews.
A
major element in the evangelical understanding of the Holocaust has been the
claim that the evils and horrors of the Nazi regime were carried out by
non-Christians and anti-Christians, even if some were nominally members of
various Christian churches. True Christians—who had established a personal
relationship with Jesus Christ—could not, by definition, have taken part in the
Nazi regime and its atrocities. This outlook, however, is not based on any
historical examination of the involvement or noninvolvement of evangelical
groups with the Nazi regime.[23]
The fact that evangelical churches in Germany supported the regime when the
Nazis were in power has often been ignored by evangelical writers. They do not
present historical studies of Christian churches during the period. They have
concentrated instead on the heroism of individual members of pietist or
evangelical churches, conveying the message that true Christians behaved in a
manner that agreed with Christian ideals, not only refusing to cooperate with
the Nazi regime, but risking their own lives by making particular efforts to
hide and protect Jews.
Published
in the early 1970s, The Hiding Place is probably the most widely-read
Holocaust memoir in evangelical circles. The heroine, Corrie ten Boom, had
published an earlier version entitled Prisoner and Yet. The noted
evangelist Billy Graham was interested in ten Boom’s narrative and saw that it
had great potential as an evangelical tract. He invited her to tour the United
States and lecture on her wartime experiences, and sponsored both a new edition
of her book and a film based on it. Two professional writers in Billy Graham’s
network, John and Elizabeth Sherrill, produced the revised version of ten
Boom’s story, and the book became a bestseller. Translated into a number of
languages and reprinted in numerous editions, over two million copies have been
sold.
The
book tells the story of the ten Booms, a devout Dutch Reformed family, who
operated a watch shop in Haarlem, a city near Amsterdam. Corrie and her sister
Betsie, both unmarried, lived with their elderly father above the shop. When
the Nazi occupation and the persecution of Dutch Jews began, the ten Boom
family became involved in a clandestine organization that hid Jews, as well as
Dutch youth who were in danger of being taken to forced labor in Germany. They
helped find hiding places for Jews, and made a hiding place in their own house.
Ten Boom gives a vivid and realistic account of their rescue activity. Many of
the Dutch collaborated with the Nazis, and there were informers around, so
maintaining secrecy required great effort. While ten Boom gives an accurate
picture of Holland under Nazi occupation, and indicates that only a minority
among the Dutch were willing to risk themselves for the sake of saving Jewish
lives, her description implies that true Christian believers, brought up on
biblical literalism, were in the forefront of the rescue mission. Indeed,
according to one source, the percentage of conservative pietist Dutch
Protestants who rescued Jews during World War II was more than three times
their percentage in the total Dutch population, making up about 25% of those
who saved Jews.[24]
The
Lord guided and protected the rescuers, so ten Boom tells us. Corrie’s
sister-in-law, for example, insisted on speaking the truth in all
circumstances. On one occasion, the police had been informed of the presences
of hidden Jews. They searched the house, and inquired whether a blond,
blue-eyed, Aryan-looking girl working there was Jewish. “Yes,” came the answer
of the sister-in-law-who-wouldn’t-lie.[25]
The poor girl was arrested, but later was released, so the story goes, by the
Dutch underground.
In
actuality, the family paid dearly for disobeying the authorities. Their home,
“the hiding place,” was exposed. Corrie, her sister Betsie, her father,
brother, and nephew were arrested. Only Corrie survived. The story of her
imprisonment is told in great detail. It is a story of Christian martyrdom, in
which she and her family members kept their Christian faith and values
throughout that period. They were a source of inspiration and encouragement to
the prisoners around them. Corrie portrays her father as a saintly figure, and
describes her sister as an exemplary person, bringing order, tranquility,
peace, and hope to the prison cells or concentration camp barracks where she
was imprisoned. Corrie herself emerges from the pages of her reminiscences as a
very remarkable woman—strong-willed, highly motivated, conscientious, humorous,
and humane. Indeed, she arouses the reader’s deepest admiration. In keeping
with the values that the book intended to promote, it suggests that even Corrie
was faced with temptations; the Devil was trying to increase her selfishness
and make her take care of herself. But she fought back and took the upper hand,
with Jesus as her source of strength and guidance in the concentration camp. It
is he, she asserts, who provides human beings with the ability to overcome the
challenges and miseries of life.
In
line with the evangelical Protestant tradition, ten Boom emphasizes that only
through Jesus can human beings achieve salvation. It was Jesus’ sacrifice on
the Cross that offered humanity eternal life. The true believers who accept him
as their Lord and Savior are assured of their place in the world to come.
Against this background of faith, she relates the stories of the deaths of
those who were so dear to her.[26]
One
important feature of the book’s message is the Christian command of love for
one’s enemy. Corrie and her family felt sorry for the Germans who allowed
themselves to become engaged in evil and destruction. They, too, needed God’s
love, forgiveness, and guidance.[27]
After the war, Corrie ten Boom offered her spiritual assistance both in Germany
and Holland to former Nazis, spreading a message of forgiveness and
reconciliation. The book’s evangelization efforts are directed at Germans, too,
and it carries the messages of “love thy enemy” as well as that the truly
converted are utterly forgiven.
Corrie’s
experiences during the Holocaust, as narrated in her book, became a classic in
evangelical circles, providing proof that true Christian believers behaved
properly during the Holocaust period, risking their lives to save Jews; that
Jesus protected his flock morally and physically all along the way, and that
righteous Christians forgive their enemies.
Ten
Boom’s autobiography has not been the only one circulating among evangelicals.
Popular Holocaust literature includes memoirs written by Jewish survivors who
converted to Christianity, such as Rachmiel Frydland’s When Being Jewish Was
a Crime.[28]
Frydland grew up in a village near Chelm in eastern Poland, but left as a
teenager to study in a yeshiva (rabbinical academy) in Warsaw. There, he
encountered missionaries to the Jews and became convinced of the messiahship of
Jesus. During the war years, Frydland made special efforts and even risked his
life several times in order to meet other evangelical Christians with whom he
could pray or study the Bible. When all the Jews in the area were being either
killed or sent to concentration camps, Frydland tried to find refuge in the
homes of born-again Christians. The attitudes he encountered were varied. Some
were helpful, some hesitant, whereas other flatly refused to offer shelter.
Frydland puts much of the blame for such unbrotherly behavior on a wrong
perception many Christians had concerning their responsibilities as obedient
citizens.[29]
Christians considered it their duty to obey the laws of the state instead of
resisting them when they manifested cruelty and disregard for other human
beings.[30]
In other countries, such as Holland, where, he claims, Christianity was “more
developed,” Christians disobeyed the Nazis’ laws and sheltered Jews. Those
Christians who did shelter Jews, he asserts, did not regret it, for God
protected them. “When a Christian decided to disobey the law of extermination
and took in a Jewish child, man or woman, to give shelter, God honored that
willingness of obedience and sacrifice. As far as I know, none of the
Christians in Poland who sheltered Jewish people were ever caught or killed.”[31]
According
to Frydland’s account, God’s guiding and sheltering hand was also revealed in
various events that happened to Jewish Christians during the Holocaust years.
Frydland tells the story of Stasiek, a Jewish Christian who “was deeply aware
of God’s presence and ability to save to the uttermost, physically and
spiritually.”[32]
Stasiek was at one point condemned to death. While awaiting death, he wrote on
the wall of his cell, in Polish, the first verse of his favorite hymn, in which
he was praising and thanking the Lord. The German officer in charge came in and
demanded a translation of the text on the wall. To the amazement of everyone
who was there, Stasiek was released. Frydland is, however, well aware that many
Jews who became Christians were murdered by the Nazis. He nevertheless believes
that their death, the martyrdom of true believers, was a happy death, for they
were joined with the Lord.
In
Frydland’s view, if the Jews had accepted Jesus as their Savior their fate
would have been happier. “If my people had known the things that pertain to
their salvation, namely, to believe in the Lord Jesus and to proclaim Him to
the people in Poland and rest of Eastern Europe, this disaster would never have
happened.”[33]
In his understanding, the Holocaust preceded the rebirth of the nation of
Israel. “Yet there was fruit from the blood of the Jewish martyrs. There was
the national and physical revival of Israel.…”[34]
His interpretation is in line with the evangelical premillennialist
understanding of the establishment of the State of Israel as a fulfillment of
prophecy. He quotes prophecies that speak of Israel’s return to its borders and
concludes “perhaps God is now dealing with Israel...first by severity and
sufferings and now by His goodness.”
Written
by professional writers, often on behalf of various missionary organizations,
Holocaust survivor biographies such as that of ten Boom or Frydland appeal to
the values and needs of conservative Christians. In these memoirs the Holocaust
is not merely years of turmoil, suffering, and hiding, but embodies spiritual
meaning and moral triumph. It was a period of moral and spiritual trial, a test
passed triumphantly by believers, having maintained their moral integrity and
adherence to Christian principles. True believers were protected and saved
spiritually, if not physically, even in the harshest of circumstances. They
might have undergone physical harassment, suffering and even death, but such a
death was martyrdom, and their eternal reward guaranteed. As for those who
accepted Jesus during the Holocaust, the unconverted were saved because they
were predestined to accept their true Savior. Their survival is explained in
light of their eventual conversion and their need to bear witness to the
Christian and Jewish communities of the saving power of Christ.
These
Holocaust memoirs have a distinct educational evangelical mission, giving the
impression that evangelicals, both as individuals and as a community, faced the
years of terror with courage and dignity and survived morally and spiritually,
if not always physically. The Holocaust memoirs are also meant to promote the
Christian postulate of forgiveness, reconciliation, and unity. Victims must
forgive their persecutors and accept them as fellow Christians; Jesus has
already forgiven them and the believer should not hold grudges against enemies
of yesteryear. The destructiveness of the Holocaust should not work against the
higher value of Christian love.
The
suffering, misery, and mass murder that characterized European Jewish existence
during World War II did not derive, in the evangelical interpretation, from
brutal antisemitism instigated by various historical, sociological,
psychological, and theological factors. It is, rather, the outcome of a
rebellion against God, a reflection of a society gone astray by the short-lived
triumph of non-Christians, while true Christians carried forth with their
values intact.
Nazism,
as described in the biographies, manifested an alienation from the knowledge of
God, an alienation shared by many of the Jewish victims. The Holocaust in
evangelical eyes is not merely an unfortunate chapter in Jewish and European
history, nor a bloody chapter in the history of Christian-Jewish relations. It
is a chapter in the Jewish and non-Jewish encounter with Christ. The more Jews
and non-Jews come to accept evangelical Christian values, the less chance of
such brutalities repeating themselves. The answer to the horrors of the
Holocaust is the evangelization of both Jews and Gentiles. The Holocaust should
serve as a sign and proof to the Jews that they should accept their true
Messiah and embrace Christianity. Their physical and spiritual destiny would
then be secured. While the biographies convey awareness of and sensitivity
toward Jewish suffering and look upon the Jews amicably and appreciatively as
heirs to the Biblical covenant between God and Israel, the horrors they
underwent during the Holocaust are seen as footsteps in their collective
spiritual pilgrimage towards recognizing the true message of God.
The
memoirs also refer favorably to the State of Israel that came into being in 1948.
The birth of Israel is seen as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecies that speak
about the return of the Jews to their land. The national rebirth serves as
collective compensation to the Jews for their suffering and loss. It is proof
that God has not abandoned the Jewish people, that He has not forgotten his
ancient promises, and that they are still his “Chosen People.” When the Messiah
comes, the Jews will accept him as their own and their national restoration
will be completed. Until then, it is the duty of the evangelical community to
preach the Christian message of salvation to the Jews. Both the Holocaust and
the birth of the State of Israel are steps in the journey of the nation of
Israel towards its reconciliation and union with Christ. According to the
evangelical understanding they still have a long way to go.
While some evangelicals took notice of the
plight of the Jews in Europe, almost all evangelical activists and leaders
followed the developments in the Land of Israel with great interest.
A
few evangelicals visited Palestine during the 1930s and 1940s and thus had an
opportunity to watch closely the developments among the Jewish community there.
They sent home enthusiastic reports of the scenes they saw. The immigration of
tens of thousands of Jews to the country; the building of new neighborhoods,
towns, and villages; the cultivation of hundreds of thousands of acres of land;
the establishment of cultural and educational enterprises; and the rejuvenation
of the Hebrew language—all these things filled evangelicals with excitement.[35]
These, they believed, were “signs of the time,” indications that the current
era was ending and the arrival of the Messiah was imminent.
The
evangelical response to the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was
one of passive support. Evangelical journals had published sympathetic articles
about the Zionist struggle for a Jewish state, and American statesmen with
conservative evangelical leanings had supported the Zionist cause in the
political and diplomatic struggles that preceded the birth of Israel, but no
particular pro-Zionist evangelical lobby developed, and evangelicals as a group
did not raise their voice in favor of the Zionist political cause.[36]
In the late 1940s, conservative evangelicalism was beginning to recover its
prestige in the American public arena. But this segment of American
Protestantism was not yet actively organized on the national level around its
particular causes.
After
the birth of Israel, evangelical premillennialists observed the young Jewish
state with great interest in an attempt to interpret its significance for the
advancement of God’s plans for the ages. Although unenthusiastic about the
secular character of Israeli government and society, some of the things they
saw enhanced their messianic hopes.[37]
The mass emigration of Jews to Israel in the 1950s from Asian, African, and
East European countries was one cause for encouragement. In their view, this
was a significant development, prophesied in the Bible, and a clear indication
that the present era was terminating and the events of the end of the age
beginning to occur.
Contrary
to the widely-perceived view, evangelicals did take note and show concern over
the fate of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs who lost their homes in
1948 and became refugees. Although they criticized Arab hostility against
Israel and supported the Israeli state in its struggles with its Arab
neighbors, evangelicals also stressed the belief that the Land of Israel could
maintain an Arab population alongside its Jewish population and that Israel had
an obligation to respect human rights and treat the Arabs fairly. One noted
leader who spoke out on these matters was John Walvoord, president of the
Dallas Theological Seminary, an ardent premillennialist supporter of Israel.[38]
A few conservative evangelical churches, such as the Southern Baptists, the
Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Assemblies of God, and the Plymouth
Brethren, have provided relief and educational services to Palestinians. In
striving to reconcile premillennialist teachings with the hopes and fears of
Arab congregants and potential converts, they emphasized that the ingathering
of the Jews in the Land of Israel and the eventual reestablishment of the
Davidic kingdom would not necessitate the banishment of Arabs from that land.
The
Six-Day War had a dramatic effect on American evangelical attitudes toward
Israel. Since the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars in the last years
of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century, there
has probably not been a political-military event that has provided so much fuel
for the engine of prophecy as the short war between Israel and its neighbors in
June 1967 that led to the Jews taking over the historical sites of Jerusalem.
The dramatic and unexpected Israeli victory, and the territorial gains it
brought with it, strengthened the premillennialists’ conviction that Israel was
created for an important mission in history and was to play an important role
in the process that would precede the arrival of the Messiah.[39]
From
the 1970s to 1990s, conservative evangelicals were counted among Israel’s most
ardent supporters in the American public arena and often voiced their approval
of American political and economic support for Israel.[40]
The decades following the Six-Day War were marked by massive American support
for Israel in terms of money, arms, and diplomatic backing. Many conservative
Christians saw support for Israel as going hand in hand with American
interests. Their pro-Israeli stand was, from their point of view, an expression
of love and concern for the Jews and appreciation of the importance of the
State of Israel in the advancement of the ages. In their opinion, it was, at
the same time, a fulfillment of America’s historical role as well as interests.
In
the period following the Six-Day War, American evangelicals became more visible
and assertive, and began to take a growing part in political affairs. During
the stormy 1960s, many Americans looked on evangelical churches as
anachronistic, marginal, and irrelevant to general cultural trends. The 1976
election of Jimmy Carter as president, however, demonstrated that these
churches had grown in numbers and influence. Carter, however, proved
disappointing to conservative evangelicals. He was not a premillennialist, nor
did he promote specifically evangelical issues. He did take an interest in
Middle East affairs, and brought Israel and Egypt together to sign a peace
treaty. In this, his role was that of an American statesman, with little or no
concern for the advancement of the prophetic Davidic kingdom.
Was
Ronald Reagan, who became president in 1981, influenced in his Middle East
policy by the premillennialist understanding of the course of history? Reagan’s
policy toward Israel can be summarized on the whole as friendly and supportive,
and he made a few remarks that led people to speculate whether he held
evangelical messianic convictions.[41]
These remarks, however, might have been written for Reagan by advisers in an
attempt to woo conservative supporters, who may well have viewed the
president’s remarks as implying a premillennialist understanding of Israel’s
role in history and of America’s duty to assist that state. Reagan’s policy towards
Israel was on the whole adopted by his successor, George Bush, who also had
close ties to evangelicals and relied on their political support. While other
considerations, too, determined Reagan’s and Bush’s policy towards Israel, the
favorable attitude towards that country on the part of evangelicals and their
insistence that America should assist the Jewish state was also influential.[42]
Did
his evangelical background influence Bill Clinton’s attitude toward Jews and
his policy towards Israel? Clinton’s relationship with Jews has to be judged
very differently from that of Reagan or Bush. Although an evangelical Christian
himself, Clinton did not receive much support from evangelicals, who saw him as
a liberal representing values which they opposed. While in Arkansas, Clinton
had remained a member of a Southern Baptist church (his wife, Hilary, was a
member of a Methodist church). Upon his election as president, his pastor
delivered a sermon that included the message that the newly-elected president
should not neglect his obligation to protect Israel. This tells us perhaps more
about the effect of premillennialist thinking on Baptists in Little Rock,
Arkansas, than it does about Clinton’s personal faith. Yet it is important to
be aware of the fact that the roots and cultural background of the American
president who opened his administration to Jews more than any previous
president, in addition to showing deep concern for Israel and the Middle East,
was resident in the Bible Belt and strongly influenced by a messianic biblical
vision of Israel.
The
evangelical premillennialist understanding of Israel has, at times, more openly
influenced the attitudes of other prominent American public figures towards
Israel. One noted example is that of Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who
served during the 1980s and 1990s (he announced his retirement in August 2001).
A convinced premillennialist, Helms, as the powerful chair of the Senate’s
Foreign Affairs Committee labored to limit American financial support abroad, yet
at the same time approved extensive financial support for Israel.
Helms
supportive attitude toward Israel was not unique. From the 1970s, dozens of
pro-Israel evangelical organizations emerged in the United States. In addition
to mustering political support among American evangelicals, they have also
organized lectures, distributed informational material on Israel and its
historical role, and organized tours to the Holy Land. A number of such groups
have also been engaged in evangelization efforts among the Jews. One such group
was the Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry headed by Elwood McQuaid in Bellmaur,
New Jersey. McQuaid has written a good deal on Jewish topics.[43]
Another example was the Washington-based American Christian Trust.
Following
the Six-Day War there was an increase in the activity of evangelical Christians
in Israel. Evangelical tours became very popular, and there were a growing
number of field-study seminars and volunteers coming to kibbutzim through
organizations like Oral Roberts University’s “Project Kibbutz.” American
evangelicals even established institutions of higher education in Israel, such
as the Holy Land Institute set up by Douglas Young, a premillennialist with a
pro-Zionist orientation.
Throughout
the 1970s–1990s, thousands of evangelical Christians settled in Israel as their
permanent or temporary homes. Coming from all over the world, motivated by a
messianic faith, attracted to the land of the Bible, or engaged in missionary
activities, they have built congregations in Israel. Many have joined or helped
form congregations of Jewish believers in Jesus, often known as Messianic Jews.[44]
Others have established “gentile” churches such as the King of Kings
congregation in Jerusalem. Founded in the early 1980s by American and Canadian
Pentecostals, the King of Kings is a vibrant congregation of hundreds of
charismatic Christians from around the world. It is one of the largest and most
dynamic religious communities in the city.
The most visible and better-known evangelical
organization in Israel is the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem
(ICEJ). Its story tells us a great deal about evangelical interest in the Jews
and Israel, about evangelical activity in Israel, and the choices, struggles,
and alliances of evangelicals in the Holy Land, as well as about the
relationship that developed between the evangelical community and Israeli
society and government. In the 1970s, evangelical activists in Jerusalem
founded the Almond Tree Branch, one of the first local groups whose aim was to
muster support for Israel.
Its
members included some of the most outstanding evangelical leaders and
activitists in the country. Among the founders of both the Almond Tree Branch
and later, the Embassy, was Robert Lindsey, then pastor of the Baptist House in
Jerusalem. From the 1950s to the 1970s, Lindsey was the central figure in the
Baptist community in Israel and was well known to the Israeli public. Sponsored
by the Department of Missions of the Southern Baptist Convention, he served as
senior missionary in Israel and enjoyed the closest connections to the Israeli
government of any Protestant representative in the country. During Lindsey’s
tenure the Southern Baptists became the largest evangelical church in Israel,
with a dozen congregations, seven of which were in Arab communities. Under his
leadership, the Baptists of Jerusalem became charismatic, a transformation that
was quite rare among Baptist congregations worldwide.
Lindsey
wrote and published extensively, using an Israeli pen-name in his Hebrew
writings. His major scholarly effort was the translation of the New Testament
into modern Hebrew. He developed a theory that large parts of the original text
of the New Testament were written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek.
The primary manuscript, he claimed, was devoid of antisemitism. Some Jewish
scholars joined Lindsey and others to form the Jerusalem School of New
Testament Studies. The Jewish scholars concentrated mainly on tracing the
Jewish roots of Christianity.
Other
conservative evangelicals flocked to the ranks of the Almond Tree Branch. David
Bivin, a Southern Baptist associate of Lindsey, was also active in the Almond
Tree Branch and participated in the Jerusalem School. Bivin made his living in
those years by running a Hebrew school for interested Christians. Another noted
member of the group was Douglas Young, founder of the Holy Land Institute. In
1978 he founded Bridges for Peace, a noncharismatic pro-Israel organization
also headquartered in Jerusalem. He lent his support to the Almond Tree Branch
(and later to the International Christian Embassy) since he felt that there was
room for an organization more charismatic in style. An associate of Young,
George Giakumakis, who directed the Holy Land Institute from 1978, was also
among the active participants in this group of pro-Zionist Jerusalemite
evangelicals. Other activists were Marvin and Merla Watson, from Canada, who
lived in Jerusalem in the 1970s and early 1980s. Merla composed “Davidic music”
later performed at the Embassy’s gatherings, and advocated building a center in
Jerusalem where evangelical Christians could come to learn about Jews and
Israel. One of the more dynamic participants was Jan Willem van der Hoevan, a
Dutch minister who had served until 1975 as the warden of the Garden Tomb, a
site in Jerusalem held by evangelical Protestants to be the tomb of Jesus.
Participants
in the Almond Tree Branch met weekly at the Watsons’ home in Motza, a suburb of
Jerusalem, where they prayed, sang, and discussed various issues. Van der
Hoeven emerged as the outstanding activist, since Lindsey and Young were busy
with other activities. It was van der Hoeven’s idea to organize large annual
gatherings of Christian supporters of Israel on Sukkoth — the Jewish harvest
festival that also commemorated the tent sanctuaries, or tabernacles, used
during the Exodus. His theological rationale was twofold: first, according to
the Bible (Zechariah 14:15) gentiles were also commanded to gather in Jerusalem
during the festival. Second, he pointed out that whereas Christians celebrate
two offshoots of the biblical “pilgrimage festivals”—Easter (at the season of
Passover) and Pentecost—there was no general Christian celebration of Sukkoth.
In 1979 he led the Almond Tree Branch to launch the yearly Tabernacles
festival, a weeklong assembly of evangelical supporters of Israel, highlighted
by a march through the streets of Jerusalem.
In
1980, the Israeli Knesset passed the “Jerusalem Law,” which declared the whole
of the city to be the capital of the state of Israel. In protest, almost all
countries with embassies and consulates in Jerusalem moved their diplomatic
staffs to Tel Aviv. This evacuation provided a dramatic point at which the
Almond Tree activists announced the creation of the “International Christian
Embassy.” It was presented as a spontaneous act of sympathy and support for
Israel on the part of true Christians at a time when even friendly or neutral countries
had betrayed her.[45]
The Embassy chose as its logo two olive branches hovering over a globe with
Jerusalem at its center. “This symbolizes the great day when Zechariah’s
prophecy will be fulfilled, and all nations will come up to Jerusalem to keep
the Feast of Tabernacles during Messiah’s reign on earth,”[46]
the Embassy’s leaders announced.
Israeli
officials, including the prime minister’s liaison for the Christian evangelical
community, the director of the Department for Christian Churches and Organizations
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek all noted
the propaganda value of the Embassy’s creation, and welcomed the new
organization. It made the point they believed, that even though many countries
had removed their embassies and consulates from Jerusalem due to Arab pressure,
the Western Christian world backed Israel and endorsed the unification of
Jerusalem under Israeli rule.[47]
Johann
Luckhoff was appointed administrative director of the Embassy. Of Afrikaner
descent, Luckhoff had served for a few years as a pastor in the Dutch Reformed
Church in his native country. He had come to Jerusalem some time before the
establishment of the Embassy, been involved with the Almond Tree Branch and its
Tabernacles celebration, and, like van der Hoeven, had no secure job. He has
remained with the Embassy and proved to be an able organizer. Since its
inception, the Embassy has had close ties with white Dutch Reformed groups and
churches in South Africa, and has received substantial financial support from
them. Van der Hoeven, the group’s ideologue until the late 1990s, held the
seemingly modest post of ICEJ spokesman. Van der Hoeven and Luckhoff, as well
as other workers and participants in the activities of the ICEJ, pointed to the
geographical scope of evangelical interest in Israel. While in the United
States evangelicals have exercised a high degree of visibility and political
influence in the last generation, there have been large pockets of evangelicals
who take interest in Jews and Israel all over the Protestant globe.
The
Embassy’s major work has been to spark interest in Israel among evangelicals
worldwide and to promote a number of philanthropic programs in Israel. The two
tasks have been closely related: its promotional efforts also have served as
fund-raising opportunities. The Embassy wishes to represent Christianity
worldwide and has made a great effort to open branches and gain supporters in
as many countries as possible. In the United States, its branches are mainly
situated in the Bible Belt, that is, the southern states.[48]
In Europe, its representatives can be found in Finland, Denmark, Norway,
Sweden, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. There are also
volunteers for the Embassy in the predominantly Catholic countries—Spain,
Portugal, France, and Belgium. In recent years, representatives have also
worked for the Embassy’s interests in Eastern Europe—Russia, Poland, Hungary,
the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Romania. There are also representatives in
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Zaire, and Nigeria. Although the latter
two countries do not provide much financial support, they enhance the
international image of the Embassy, enabling it to claim that true Christians
everywhere support Israel. ICEJ has also received support from Latin American
countries, including Mexico, Guatemala, Columbia, Brazil, El Salvador, and
Costa Rica, and has made special efforts to garner support from the growing
number of Latin American premillennialists, thousands of whom participate in
the annual tours of the Holy Land sponsored or initiated by the Embassy. There
has also been an attempt to attract supporters in South Asia.
The
Embassy’s international work focuses on lecturing, mostly in churches, about
Israel’s role in history and the work of the Embassy on behalf of Jewish
immigration and settlement. These “embassies” distribute ICEJ journals,
brochures, leaflets, and cassettes of “Davidic music” and sermons. Embassy
representatives also recruit pilgrims for the annual Tabernacles gathering and
collect money for the Embassy’s philanthropic enterprises in Israel. The
day-to-day work of the Embassy in Israel is devoted to this international
mission; the Jerusalem headquarters supervises the work of the representatives
in various countries, administers the finances, maintains public relations and
publications departments, and oversees the production of video and
audiocassettes in a number of languages—chiefly German, Dutch, Finnish,
Spanish, and Russian in addition to English. A special department produces
material for Latin American countries in Spanish and Portuguese. The radio
department prepares a special program, A Word from Jerusalem, broadcast
to evangelical radio stations, mostly in North America. The Embassy’s website provides
basic information on its programs, and through it, readers can subscribe to the
ICEJ News Service delivered several times a week via email
(http://www.icej.org). The Embassy also provides welfare services in Jerusalem,
distributing money and goods to new immigrants, as well as other needy
Israelis. Aware that many Jews are suspicious of Christian charitable
enterprises, ICEJ often distributes its parcels through Israeli public
agencies.[49]
The
Embassy’s basic annual budget as a rule has not exceeded a million dollars,
which pays for day-to-day activities, maintenance of the office building in the
fashionable and central German Colony neighborhood, employees’ salaries, some
staff travel expenses, and the preparation of publications. The figure does not
include the budget for special operations, such as transportation of immigrants
from Russia, which runs much higher. The ICEJ also offered direct financial
support to the Israeli government for the absorption of Russian Jews. In the
early 1990s, the Embassy’s yearly budget for philanthropic operations in Israel
reached the sum of five million dollars and the overall yearly cost of the
Feast of Tabernacles gathering was over ten million dollars. Each of the six
thousand pilgrims who participated paid $1,300‑1,800 for airfare, hotel
accommodations, and the festivities in Jerusalem.[50]
Embassy leaders have spent much of their time fund-raising in evangelical
communities around the globe, with a considerable amount of funding coming from
Germany.[51]
Along with the Holyland Fellowship of Christians and Jews, the Embassy was the
first Christian evangelical institution that has systematically donated money
to Jewish enterprises. Most Christian Zionists, by contrast, have supported
missionary agencies that aim at converting Jews. The Embassy has thus set new
norms in the relationship between evangelical Christians and Israel.
The
Feast of Tabernacles gathering serves as the focal point of the year for the
International Christian Embassy. A major convocation of thousands of supporters
from around the world, it provides an opportunity to present the Embassy and
its message to the Israeli public. Activities include tours of the country, a
march through Jerusalem’s main streets, a “biblical meal” served and celebrated
on the shore of the Dead Sea, and assemblies in Jerusalem. Some of the
gatherings take place in the Binyanei Ha’Uma convention hall in Jerusalem;
booths exhibit publications and feature programs and enterprises promoted by
the Embassy. Of special interest in the early 1980s was Stanley Goldfoot’s
Temple Mount Foundation booth.
Whereas
in Europe the Embassy is often the only pro-Israel Christian organization, in
the United States there are other, better-established organizations of that
sort. To promote its cause the Embassy hired workers with expertise in public
relations and established a small office in Washington, D.C. Ted Pantaleo of
Bradenton, Florida, served in the 1990s as the Embassy’s coordinator in
America. The Embassy made a major attempt to gain ground in the United States
with the “Washington for Israel Summit,” a pro-Israel conference it organized
in September 1992 in Washington, D.C. In taking this initiative, the Embassy
leaders hoped to make the International Christian Embassy better known in pro-Israel
evangelical circles, to build a closer relationship with evangelical leaders
and organizations, and to create momentum for establishing a network of support
for the Embassy in America. ICEJ found willing support in the Israeli embassy
in Washington. The policy of Israel’s foreign ministry has long been to
encourage Christian evangelicals in pro-Israel activity. Official sponsors of
the event included such pro-Israel evangelical organizations as the Christians’
Israel Public Action Campaign (CIPAC), established in the 1980s as a Christian
counterpart to AIPAC (America Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel
lobby in Washington). One of the leaders of CIPAC has been Senator Jesse Helms
of North Carolina, with whom the Embassy’s activists established a cordial
relationship. One of the participants in the conference was the Reverend W.
Criswell of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas; the premillennialist
minister, then eighty-three years old, had long been an ardent supporter of
Israel. In addition to lectures, group discussions, and prayer meetings, the
conference included a “march for Israel” in Washington and the broadcasting of
video movies on Israel and the Embassy’s activities there. A special session
was devoted to the prophetic understanding of Israel’s role in history.[52]
During the 1980s–1990s Jan Willem van der
Hoeven, the Embassy’s ideologue, emerged as one of the better known evangelical
spokesmen on Israel and its role in history.[53]
His ideas are worth noting. Van der Hoeven shares the premillennialist vision
of Israel as a transitory but necessary vehicle on the messianic road, in which
the Jewish political entity will exist in rebellious unbelief until the arrival
of Jesus. At the same time, its existence and security are a positive, even
reassuring development in the unfolding of history, and it is therefore
important to protect Israel against forces that would undermine it. Many
conservative evangelicals view Arab hostility toward the Zionist enterprise as
an attempt to jeopardize the advancement of God’s plans. Van der Hoeven has
repeatedly insisted that there is no room in the country for Arabs who militate
against Israel’s existence. Arabs who are “true Christian believers” support
the Israeli cause, he claims.[54]
In his view, Yasir Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization are
instruments of Satan.
At
the same time, van der Hoeven’s attitude toward the Jews is also ambivalent. He
firmly believes that the Jews are the heirs of biblical Israel, God’s chosen
people, destined for a glorious future in the messianic age; yet he has also
expressed his own feelings of frustration and disappointment, toward the Jews.
He has expressed disapproval, for example, over the fact that so many Israelis
have been unwilling to support a firmer right-wing political agenda. In order
to be accepted by liberals, he complained, they were willing to compromise
their national aspirations, and in so doing, they have betrayed their historic
role.[55]
In a speech delivered during the 1989 Tabernacles celebration, he attacked
moderate and left-wing Israeli politicians, declaring that giving up the
territories Israel had occupied since 1967 would mark the second time the Jews
rejected God.[56]
For
him, “land for peace” is not simply a pragmatic political decision aimed at
enhancing the well-being of the state; such a decision has disastrous cosmic
implications and would impede the divine plan for human redemption. The Jews
are not just another people who can make choices according to their political
needs; they have a burden to carry, a duty and purpose in history. For the Jews
to refuse to play their role would constitute unforgivable treachery toward all
humankind. Van der Hoeven’s remarks reflect the deep frustration felt by many
evangelical Christians who can’t understand why the Jews failed to recognize
Jesus Christ as their messiah. Failing to prepare for his return, or worse,
failing to accept him at the time of his second coming, would be the ultimate
rejection of God’s offer of salvation to the Jewish people.
The
International Christian Embassy has been one of the most controversial of the
Christian groups and agencies that work in the Middle East or take an interest
in its fate. Middle Eastern churches, as a rule, have no contact with the
Embassy and reject its message and its activities.[57]
Eastern Christianity generally holds to “replacement theology,” the claim that
the Christian church is the continuation and heir of biblical historical Israel
and that Judaism has no further purpose in God’s plans for humanity. Most of
the churches in the region have large Arab constituencies and are sympathetic
to Arab nationalist feelings, including the Palestinian demand for national
liberation, and have expressed support for the Palestinian uprising. They see
the Embassy as an institution offering one-sided support for Israel in its
struggle against the Arabs and, as members of the Middle East Council of
Churches, have signed petitions condemning its activities.
Mainline
Protestant churches have made a commitment to social and political justice
worldwide, supporting movements of national liberation and expressing sympathy
for the Palestinians’ quest for independence from Israeli rule. In their
opinion Israel should be judged, like all other countries, on the basis of
political justice and morality.[58]
Since the International Christian Embassy has represented supporters of
right-wing Israeli politics, it arouses resentment among many liberal
Protestants, who have little patience for conservative Christianity and the
premillennialist messianic conviction.
The
Middle East Council of Churches (MECC, affiliated with the World Council of
Churches), represents both mainline Protestant and Middle Eastern churches. In
its May 1988 meeting in Cyprus it discussed ways to combat the Embassy.
Denouncing one-sided Christian support for Zionism, the MECC declared, “The
consultation was referring here especially to the western fundamentalist
Christian Zionist movement and its political activities conducted through the
self-declared International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem.”[59]
The very name “International Christian Embassy”—implying that the Embassy
represents all Christians—arouses anger among MECC members.[60]
Although
the International Christian Embassy claims to represent all “true Christians”
and is often regarded as the representative of evangelical premillennialist
supporters of Israel, not all evangelicals identify with the Embassy’s views
and methods. Some have objected to its willingness to refrain from missionizing
Jews—a condition it met in order to establish a close relationship with the
Israeli government. Mishkan, a Jerusalem-based English-language magazine
associated with Christian evangelizing groups in Israel, dedicated a special
issue to criticism of the Embassy’s nonmissionary policy.[61]
This policy obviously has touched a nerve among evangelicals who, while
supporting Israel, remain firmly committed to evangelizing the Jews. For the
pro-Israel evangelical premillennialist organizations engaged in missionary
work among the Jews, mustering political support for Israel does not take
precedence over spreading the Gospel.
Since the rise of the evangelical movement in
Britain in the early nineteenth century, missions to the Jews have occupied an
important place on the evangelical agenda and came to characterize the
evangelical interaction with the Jews even more than the pro-Zionist activity.
Its meaning for evangelicals has gone far beyond missionizing as such, for they
have seen it as taking part in the divine drama of salvation. Propagating
Christianity among the Jews meant teaching the people of God about their role
and purpose in history, as well as saving some of them from the Great
Tribulation.
When
in the early decades of the nineteenth century a strong premillennialist
evangelical movement came into being in Britain, it gave rise to an
unprecedented large and aggressive missionary movement operating throughout the
Jewish world.[62]
The largest of the institutions—the London Society for Promoting Christianity
Amongst the Jews—employed more than 100 field missionaries in dozens of
missionary stations by the end of the nineteenth century.
Attempts
at creating missions to the Jews in America started in the early nineteenth
century as well. By the end of the nineteenth century, the adoption of the
premillennialist dispensationalist faith by a growing number of American
evangelicals inspired a renewed interest in missionizing the Jews. At the turn
of the twentieth century, dozens of missions to the Jews opened in the United
States, targeting the recent Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. The largest
of the American missions was started by Leopold Cohn, a Jewish convert from
Hungary. Under his leadership and that of his son, the American Board of
Missions to the Jews became a national, and later international, organization.
Well
aware that Jews were suspicious of the missions and their intentions, a variety
of services—medical, educational, and relief—have been offered in order to
attract Jewish interest. Jewish community leaders saw a need to counter the
missionary appeal by establishing alternative Jewish charitable and communal
institutions.[63]
While poor Jews took advantage of the services missions were offering, the
Jewish elite resented the missions. Leaders of the Reform Movement in the
United States, for example, saw the missions as a threat. In their eyes, it
represented a continuation of the traditional Christian attitudes that had seen
Judaism as obsolete after the arrival of Christianity, refused to accept the
existence of Jews outside the church, and therefore undermined the Jewish
position as equal and thriving citizens. Evangelical Christians, on their side,
cared little for Reform Judaism. They did not see Judaism as a religious
tradition that could reform itself without accepting Christianity. Missions
have continued to stand at the center of the evangelical-Jewish relationship,
causing a great amount of suspicion and misunderstanding.
The
American Board of Missions to the Jews inspired the creation of a number of
other missions, the best known of which has been Jews for Jesus. Established by
Moishe Rosen in 1970, Jews for Jesus gave much attention to the Baby Boom
generation, its styles and fashions.[64]
Known for its innovative and confrontational style, Jews for Jesus replaced the
American Board of Missions to the Jews in the latter decades of the twentieth
century as the largest mission to the Jews, opening branches throughout the
world where there have been sizable Jewish communities. The rise of Jews for
Jesus took place in the same years that another innovative evangelical movement
associated with the missionary movement came into being: Messianic Judaism. A
movement of Jewish converts to evangelical Christianity, Messianic Jews believe
that they have overcome the historical differences between Judaism and
Christianity and amalgamated their Christian faith with Jewish tradition. They
have strongly influenced the missionary movement, transforming its ideology and
rhetoric. Since the 1970s, missions to the Jews have emphasized that becoming
Christian does not eradicate Jewish identity, but rather turns Jews into
“completed Jews,” true to the real goal and purpose of the Jewish people.
Missions have helped to establish Messianic Jewish congregations which serve as
centers of evangelism. In the 1970–2000 period, more than 300 messianic
congregations were established in Israel, Britain, the United States, Canada,
and later on in Russia, the Ukraine, Argentina, South Africa, and other Jewish
communities. Missions made special attempts during the 1980s and 1990s to
evangelize Jews of the former Soviet Union.
More
than simply promoting the Christian faith among Jews, another goal of the
missions has been to increase support in the evangelical community for the
premillennialist idea of the centrality of the Jews in God’s plans for
humanity, and the need to evangelize that nation. For institutions such as the
American Messianic Fellowship or Friends of Israel, these aims are inseparable.[65]
Their premillennialist convictions motivate both their Zionism and their zeal
to evangelize God’s chosen nation. An important part of their work is lecturing
in churches and distributing written or recorded material in which they
advocate their outlook on the Jewish people and Israel’s historical role and
the importance of sharing their faith with the Jews. For them, giving up
proselytizing would mean giving up their raison d’être. It would also
contradict their conviction that the Gospel was intended first and foremost for
the Jews.
Missions
to the Jews have stood high on the evangelical agenda and have been among the
largest and better-budgeted institutions of evangelism in the modern era. In
proportion to the actual number of the Jewish people, they were, in fact, the
largest of all evangelical missionary efforts.
In general, one might say that the Israeli
leadership did not fully comprehend the special attitudes of conservative
evangelicals toward the new state. Israeli officials were unable to distinguish
between its supporters among mainline churches and its conservative evangelical
supporters. They were unaware of the roots and motivation of “Christian
Zionists.”[66]
They were certainly unfamiliar with Christian eschatological hopes and
terms such as “the Great Tribulation” or the “Time of Jacob’s Trouble.”
David
Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, thought that Christian supporters
viewed the establishment of the state of Israel as the ultimate fulfillment of
biblical prophecies—the reestablishment of the Davidic kingdom—rather than only
a step toward the realization of that millennial kingdom. When addressing a
1961 international Pentecostal conference held in Israel, the government
officials present at the opening session were puzzled by the cool reception of
the prime minister’s speech by assembled participants.[67]
The Israeli officials certainly were unaware that the Christian’s messianic
hopes encouraged not only support for Zionism and for Israel, but also
aggressive missionary activity among the Jews. When Oral Roberts visited Israel
in 1959, he was received by David Ben-Gurion, who was familiar with Roberts’s
activities as an evangelist, but perhaps knew nothing about his missionary work
among the Jews. [68]
Secular Israeli leaders were not much bothered by Christian missionary
activity, believing these were doomed to failure anyway.[69]
The
Israeli government initially sought to build good relations with Christian
groups and considered it essential to assure them that the government would not
interfere with their work. Thus, evangelical missions continued their
operations in Israel without interruption.[70]
Orthodox Jewish activists, however, protested the missionaries’ work in Israel,
and there were occasional incidents of anti-missionary harassment, but the
government refused to change its policy, and police were given the task of
protecting missionary centers.[71]
In
the late 1970s, as evangelical influence on American political life became more
and more apparent, the Israeli government began to take more notice of this
segment of American society and took measures to establish contact with it.[72]
Among other things, Menachem Begin appointed Harry Horowitz as special liaison
to evangelical Christians. Israeli officials spoke at evangelical conferences
and evangelists met with Israeli leaders as part of their tour schedules in
Israel. Following the Israeli bombing of the Iraqi atomic plant in 1981, Begin
called Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority, and asked him to back
Israel on the issue. Begin was scheduled to speak at William Criswell’s First
Baptist Church in Dallas, one of the world’s largest evangelical churches, but
had to cancel because of the death of his wife. Despite efforts to establish a
friendly relationship with evangelical supporters of Israel, the Israeli
leadership has often remained ignorant of the real motivation and nature of the
evangelical friendship. When on one occasion Begin exclaimed that “the
Christians in America support Israel,” it was obvious that he did not realize
that premillennialist evangelicals were only one segment of American
Christianity.
During
the 1980s and 1990s, Israeli officials relied on the International Christian
Embassy as a vehicle to reach the Protestant Christian community, apparently
believing that it represents a large segment of Christianity.[73]
Israeli leaders met frequently with Embassy leaders and granted the ICEJ
permission to hold gatherings in the courtyard of the Knesset as part of its
Tabernacles celebrations.[74]
In April 1990, the speaker of the Knesset presented the Embassy with the
Quality of Life Award, for its positive role in Israeli life.
Many
of the Embassy’s friends are in the national-religious wing of Israeli society.
According to one source, van der Hoeven showed up in the Likud party
headquarters in Jerusalem on election night 1984.[75]
In July 1991, the liberal Jerusalem weekly, Kol HaIr, published an
article claiming that the International Christian Embassy was conducting
welfare activities and distributing money to needy new immigrants from the
offices of Likud and of Moledet (a small right-wing nationalist party that
advocates “transfer” of Arabs from Israeli-controlled territories to Arab
countries).[76]
In 1988, the magazine Nekuda (Settlement), an organ of the Jewish
settlements in Judea and Samaria, published a favorable article on the Embassy
entitled “Without Inhibitions: Christians Committed to Judea and Samaria.” It
described the Embassy as a pro-Israel Christian group that realizes that the
Bible authorizes the Jews to settle their land.[77]
Nekuda emphasized that the Embassy had no missionary intentions. Other
religious nationalists, such as Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren, have also accepted
the Embassy as a genuine friend and supporter of their cause.[78]
Only a few have voiced reservations.[79]
One
example of Israeli government ignorance of the nature and scope of evangelical
interest and involvement with Israel can be found in its reaction to attempts
by evangelical Christians to evangelize Jews in Israel. One of the Begin
government’s earliest acts of legislation was intended to restrict missionary
activity by outlawing the “buying” of converts through economic incentives. The
Begin coalition tried to halt the evangelization of Jews in Israel without
realizing that this activity was carried out by the same elements in
Christianity with whom it was trying to establish a friendly relationship. The
successful legislative initiative reflected the long-standing resentment felt
by Orthodox and other Jews toward these evangelistic incursions. As the issue
was being debated prior to the enactment of the law in 1978, many evangelicals
worried that their activity might come to an end. They were relieved to see
that the final wording of the law clearly did not place restrictions on the
sort of work they did—contrary to Jewish myths, missionaries were not “buying”
converts. In any event, the Israeli government was reluctant to enforce the
law.[80]
In
the 1990s, a number of Orthodox and non-Orthodox members of the Knesset
sponsored initiatives to outlaw missionary activity.[81]
In 1996, a counter-missionary bill passed a first reading in the Knesset.
Having realized that the 1978 law had no teeth, opponents of the missionary
presence in Israel sought this time to ban all missionary activity, hoping to
make illegal all attempts at persuading individuals to change their faith. But
then the complex and paradoxical nature of the relationship between the
evangelical community and Israeli society became unprecedentedly clear.
Missionaries operating in Israel called upon evangelical supporters in America
to raise their voices against the impending law. “We call upon the
international Christian community to join us in our opposition to this law,”
read one of the appeals. “As Christian believers in the God of Israel and in
Jesus the Messiah and Savior of the world, we have a special respect and
appreciation for the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. We seek and pray
for the welfare of all of God’s people in the land. We view with grave concern
the erosion of Israel’s democratic freedom by this proposed law.”[82]
The Israeli Embassy and consulates in America and other countries with
substantial evangelical populations were virtually flooded with letters of
protest against the law, and opponents circulated protest petitions on the
internet as well.[83]
Many wrote directly to the prime minister in Jerusalem. The standard letters
emphasized that they were written by friends of Israel who wished the country
well and were writing to warn the government against the consequences that the
passing of such a law might bring with it. Such legislation, they claimed,
would place Israel in the same category with third-world dictatorial regimes
and would turn its current supporters against it. Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, who had at first offhandedly supported the bill, changed his mind
and promised evangelical activists he would oppose it. Other non-Orthodox
supporters of the bill, such as Nisim Zwili, a Labour Party member of the Knesset,
also withdrew support for the proposed law. As a means of backing out of the
law while saving face, the government’s opposition to the proposed law came in
exchange for a promise by Christian groups not to evangelize. This agreement,
which allowed the government to present its abandonment of the law as a
triumph, or at least not as a defeat, had its catch. The Christian groups that
promised not to evangelize Jews were not engaged in such activity anyhow, and
those who made it their goal to missionize Jews made no promises to stop their
activity.
The
rise and fall of the anti-missionary laws was marked by a number of paradoxes.
There was an ironic element in anti-missionary laws being promoted by the
Orthodox segments of the Israeli population. Some Orthodox, namely the
settlers’ circles, had come to rely on evangelical support, and some of them
had established close ties with evangelical organizations. Similarly, the rise
and fall of the laws revealed as never before that evangelical support for Israel
and the special relationship that developed between Israel and evangelical
Protestant leaders and organizations stood as a block against any action Israel
might have taken against the missionary presence. It has highlighted the
paradoxical nature of the relation of evangelical Christians towards Jews: the
evangelization of a people they see as chosen and whose country they strongly
support. The paradox in evangelical-Jewish relations reached its peak in the
realm of missions. It has created a reality in which one’s enemy is one’s
friend. Historically, Jews have seen attempts at missionizing members of their
community as expressions of hostility, as they were convinced that such
activity aimed at their annihilation as a people. While many Jews still resent
missionary activity, missionaries have been counted among Israel’s most ardent
friends. The special friendship that developed between Israel as a country and
evangelical Christians has on the whole prevented an open confrontation between
Israel and evangelicals over the issue of missions. But the issue has remained
a sore spot in the relationship between the two communities. Missions are not
the only “explosive” issue in the relationship between evangelicals and Jews.
One other very passionate item is the rebuilding of the Temple.
After the Six-Day War, it seemed to
evangelical Christians awaiting the Second Coming of Jesus that Israel held the
territory on which the Temple should be rebuilt and the priestly sacrificial
rituals reinstated. The unexpected and dramatic developments in the war made it
seem that humanity was being led into the Messianic Age.[84]
The Temple, or rather the prospect of its rebuilding, received great attention
among premillennialist Christians as the one event standing between this era
and the next.
A
striking demonstration of the growing prominence of the Temple in Christian
messianic thought can be found in Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth, an evangelical bestseller of the
1970s, which sold about thirty million copies. Lindsey, like other
premillennialist evangelicals, was strongly impressed by the Six Day War and
its consequences, and placed Israel at the center of the eschatological drama.[85]
For him, the rebuilding of the Temple and the coming rise to power of
Antichrist were major components of the Great Tribulation, without which the
coming of the Messiah could not take place. However, a number of obstacles
remained in this next stage in the advancement of the prophetic timetable. The
most striking was an apparent lack of interest in rebuilding the Temple among
the Jews. Many Israelis understood the outcome of the Six-Day War in messianic
terms, but most had no desire to rebuild the temple.[86]
There was the unavoidable reality that the Temple Mount was a Moslem site,
complete with magnificent mosques and administered by the Moslem Waqf.
The
Israeli Minister of Defense at the time, Moshe Dayan, designed a policy, upheld
by the Government, which insisted on maintaining the status quo on the Temple
Mount as well as other Muslim and Christian sites. In addition, a number of
prestigious rabbis, including the Chief Rabbis Itzhak Nissim and Isser
Unterman, declared that Jews were forbidden to enter the Temple Mount. Most
rabbinical authorities have viewed the Temple Mount as being as sacred as it
was when the Temple was standing. The Mishnah, the post-biblical interpretation
and compilation of law, outlined the various degrees of sanctity of areas on
the Temple Mount and the rituals of purification people needed to perform in
order to enter these areas.[87]
All Jews were required to purify themselves with the ashes of the Red Heifer
before entering the Mount.[88]
And there was no Red Heifer to be found. Rabbis also feared that Jews might step
on restricted sacred ground, such as the Holy of Holies, onto which ordinary
Jews (and even ordinary priests) were not allowed to enter. Most observant Jews
at the time accepted the rabbinical ban and saw entrance to the Temple Mount as
taboo.[89]
Voices such as that of Rabbi Shlomo Goren, who wished to establish a synagogue
on the Temple Mount, were in the minority. In sum, as far as the majority of
Jews during the late 1960s were concerned, the rebuilding of the Temple was
either to be avoided altogether or postponed.
Dennis
Michael Rohan a premillenialist evangelical Christian, decided to change the
existing reality. After spending some time as a volunteer on an Israeli
kibbutz, Rohan visited Jerusalem in July 1969, convinced that God had
designated him for the task of burning of the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple
Mount in order to secure the necessary ground for the building of the Temple.[90]
The mosque was damaged and Arabs in Jerusalem rioted. Rohan was arrested, and
at his trial, judged insane. He was allowed to serve his sentence in an asylum
in his native Australia..[91]
A
number of Christian premillennialist organizations, groups, and individuals in
the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s have promoted the building of the holy Jewish
shrine through a variety of activities, most of them centered on helping the
Jews to prepare for the building of the Temple. During the late 1970s and early
1980s, premillennialist Christians discovered groups of Orthodox Jews
interested in the building of the Temple. Some of these groups were advocating
their agenda publicly, while others were preparing more quietly for the
reinstatement of the sacrificial system in a rebuilt Temple.[92]
Such Jews, who were studying the Temple rituals, manufacturing utensils to be
used for sacrificial purposes according to biblical or Talmudic measures, or
trying to breed a red heifer for ritual purification purposes, served to
sustain the Christian messianic imagination. Christian premillennialists viewed
such efforts as “signs of the time”—indications that the current era was ending
and the apocalyptic events of the End Times were coming near.[93]
The Temple Institute, a museum and workshop in the Old City of Jerusalem that
houses utensils and artifacts reconstructed since the 1970s by Jewish advocates
for rebuilding the Temple, has become a pilgrimage site for Christians
expecting the Second Coming of Jesus[94]
The
relationship between Christian evangelicals and Jewish groups over the prospect
of rebuilding the Temple has been one of the most bizarre developments in the
long history of Jewish-Christian relations. For both parties, it has been a
marriage of convenience. Christian supporters have perceived the Jewish groups
as instrumental to the realization of the messianic age. In their vision, the
rebuilt Temple is a necessary stage toward that goal. Similarly, Jewish groups
do not care for the Christian messianic faith any more than Christian
premillennialist groups appreciate the Jewish faith, but they see such details
as being beside the point. The important thing for them has been the Christian
willingness to support their work.
In
the late 1970s, a number of conservative evangelical individuals and
institutions interested in promoting the building of the Temple established a
close relationship with Stanley Goldfoot’s Jerusalem-based Temple Foundation.
Born in South Africa, Goldfoot immigrated to Palestine in the 1930s, making his
living as a journalist and businessman. During the 1940s, he was a member of
Lechi, or, as the British called it, the Stern Gang, an underground
organization that used terrorism as a means to force the British out of the
country.[95]
He served as the group’s speaker and liaison for the foreign press. A secular
Jew with artistic inclinations, Goldfoot advocated a right-wing outlook on Israeli
politics in an English-language satirical magazine that he published in Tel
Aviv in the 1960s and 1970s. After retiring, Goldfoot relocated to Jerusalem
and established the Temple Foundation, operated from his handsome Jerusalem
home, and became, in the 1980s and early 1990s, the Israeli contact for
Christians advocating the rebuilding of the Temple.[96]
Chuck Smith, a noted minister and evangelist whose Calvary Chapel in Costa
Mesa, California, has been one of the largest and most dynamic Charismatic churches
in America, invited Goldfoot to lecture in his church, and his followers helped
to finance Goldfoot’s activity.
Smith
secured financial support for exploration of the exact site of the Temple.[97]
An associate of Smith, Lambert Dolphin, a California physicist and archeologist
and leader of the “Science and Archeology Team,” took it upon himself to
explore the Temple Mount.[98]
An ardent premillennialist who believed that the building of the Temple was
essential to the realization of messianic hopes, Dolphin used sophisticated
technological devices and methods, such as wall-penetrating radar and seismic
sounding, in his search for the ruins of the previous Temples. In bringing his
sophisticated instruments into Israel and preparing to explore the Temple Mount,
Dolphin worked in cooperation with and received help from Goldfoot. His
attempts to research the Temple Mount were frustrated by the Israeli police,
who, confronted by Muslim protests, refused to allow the use of such devices on
or under the Mount.[99]
Many premillennialists, such as Texan Oz Hawkins, have not waited for
conclusive findings by Dolphin and have embraced the theory that the location
of the Temple was between the two major mosques, El-Aksa and the Dome of the
Rock. The Temple, they have concluded, could therefore be rebuilt without
destroying the existing mosques, thus providing a “peaceful solution” to the
problem of how to build the Temple at a site that is holy to the Muslims.[100]
Christian
proponents of rebuilding the Temple have not limited their efforts to
discovering the exact site of the Temple. Some have searched for the lost Ark
of the Covenant, adding a touch of adventure and mystery to a potentially
explosive topic. The search for the “lost ark” has inspired a number of novels
and a movie based in part on a real life figure.[101]
Some premillennialists have also searched for the ashes of the Red Heifer,
necessary in order to allow Jews to enter the Temple Mount, while others have
supported Jewish attempts at breeding red heifers.[102]
A renewed interest has arisen in Christian evangelical conservative circles in
the Temple building, its interior plan, and its sacrificial works, as well as
in the priestly garments and utensils. A number of books on these subjects have
enjoyed popularity in Christian premillennialist circles.[103]
The rebuilt Temple has also played an important role in evangelical novels and
fictions. The most popular of them has been the Left Behind series published from the late 1990s, which has sold
millions of copies. The novel takes place in the aftermath of the Rapture,
describing the struggles of those left behind and the rise to power of the
Antichrist.[104]
The series states the importance of the building of the Temple as part of the
events that were to precede the arrival of the Messiah[105]
and describes one of the Antichrist’s “achievements” in orchestrating the
removal of the mosques to New Babylon.[106]
Another
Jewish group that has established a working relationship with premillennialist
Christians is the Temple Mount Faithful. Led by Gershon Solomon, a Jerusalem
lawyer, the Temple Mount Faithful has been, since its inception in the 1970s,
the best known of all the Jewish groups aiming at rebuilding the Temple. Its
periodic attempts to organize prayers on the Temple Mount, not to mention its
plans to install a cornerstone for the rebuilt Temple, have enjoyed much media
coverage. The relationship between the group and Christian supporters has
advanced more slowly than in the case of Goldfoot’s Temple Foundation. Yet, by
the early 1990s, Solomon had carved a niche for himself and his group among
premillennialist Christians. Pat Robertson, the renowned leader of the 700
Club and a one-time presidential hopeful, offered his support and
hospitality to Solomon. In August 1991, the 700 Club aired an interview
with Solomon. Robertson described the group as struggling to gain the rightful
Jewish place on the Temple Mount. “We will never have peace,” Robertson
declared, “until the Mount of the House of the Lord is restored.”[107]
Solomon, for his part, described his mission as embodying the promise for a
universal redemption of humanity. “It’s not just a struggle for the Temple
Mount, it’s a struggle for the...redemption of the world,” he declared.[108]
The
close relationship between Christian and Jewish proponents of the Temple
building has brought some evangelical Christians to make changes in their
understanding of the role of the Temple in their vision of the End Times. As
Jewish activitists learned details of the Christian premillennialist scheme, they
began to wonder about their dubious role as laborers in the service of the
Antichrist. Christians writers and theologians, such as Randall Price, have
reassured them that premillennialist Christians expect the Temple to survive
the rule of Antichrist and to function gloriously in the millennial kingdom and
not only in the period that precedes it.[109]
While
Christian proponents of the rebuilding of the Temple have not, as a rule,
attempted to pray on the Temple Mount, they have sympathized with Jews who have
attempted to do so. When, in the mid-1980s, Israeli police arrested members of
the Temple Mount Faithful for trying to enter the Temple Mount and organize a
prayer meeting there, Christian supporters were enraged. In their view, the
State of Israel was acting against its true destiny, suppressing an activity
that could lead to the realization of the kingdom of God on earth. American
evangelicals formed a “Committee of Concerned Evangelicals for the Freedom of
Worship on the Temple Mount” and published their demand for freedom of worship
for Jews on the Temple Mount in leading American and Israeli newspapers as well
as approached members of Congress and asked them to intercede.[110]
A
number of incidents during the 1980s and 1990s demonstrated the potential dangers
that Christian or Jewish groups might bring to the region by trying to destroy
the Temple Mount mosques. In 1984, the Israeli police exposed and arrested a
group that had planned to bomb and destroy the mosques on the Temple Mount. The
group came to be known as the “Lifta Gang”—a name it received from its
residence in a semi-abandoned Arab village on the western outskirts of
Jerusalem. Israeli newspapers described a curious commune. Some of the members
had criminal records or a history of mental instability. According to one
source, the group was associated with, and received assistance from,
premillennialist Christians in America.[111]
The Lifta Gang was just as dangerous as the Jewish messianic settlers who had
planned at about the same time to blow up the mosques. Its weapons stockpile
included U.S.-made LAW shoulder-held missiles as well as a large amount of
explosives. In the case of the Lifta Gang, Christian messianic hopes came
together with little regard for accepted social or political restraints, either
because of psychopathology, criminal, or even quasi-revolutionary tendencies.
One could not help but wonder what would have happened if the group had not
been caught before carrying out its plans. The Lifta Group’s potential for
destruction notwithstanding, its existence was completely overshadowed by the
discovery of the Jewish underground groups that had similar plans. As far as
the public was concerned, it was a marginal group politically, socially, and
religiously and was soon forgotten.
The
possibility that Christian evangelical messianic hopes might bring about an
apocalypse gained momentum again in the late 1990s. As the year 2000
approached, journalists, scholars, and government officials alike became
preoccupied with the possible risks and dangers the turn of the millennium might
bring. The arrival of the year 2000 stirred the messianic imagination as a
potential catalyst of the End Times. But of special concern for those
interested in Middle East developments was the fate of the Temple Mount
mosques. Should the mosques be bombed or seriously damaged through other means,
all hell might break loose, causing the apocalypse to begin. While in the 1980s
and early 1990s Israeli authorities and the public had given much attention to
potential Jewish terrorists, this time the Israeli public and media targeted
Christian protagonists of the Second Coming as potential trouble-makers.
Israelis, as well as Americans showed interest in the details of the Christian
messianic scheme. Terms such as “the rapture,” or “the Great Tribulation,” that
had hardly been known outside evangelical circles, became almost household
terms in 1999. In April of that year, Israel’s security services rounded up
members of a messianic group called Concerned Christians that had come to
Jerusalem to take part in the expected events of the End Times and, according
to official Israeli reports, planned to commit mass suicide or perhaps damage
the mosques on the Temple Mount. Members of the group were subsequently
deported. By the end of 1999, Israeli fears that premillennialist Christians
might try to blow up the mosques bordered on hysteria. Israeli security forces
arrested and deported dozens of Christians who came to Jerusalem to witness the
second coming of Jesus, among them harmless persons.[112]
Likewise, the Israelis refused entrance to the country to “suspicious”
Christians. The possibility of premillennialists who wish to see the Temple
rebuilt bringing about a catastrophic event at the Temple Mount became very
real to Israelis, and their fears in this respect shifted and concentrated on
Christians instead of Jews.
Peace
negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Oslo agreement
have caused alarm among some premillennialist Christians,[113]
but for most Christians expecting the Second Coming of Jesus, their hopes for
the rebuilding of the Temple remained just as strong during the 1990s and the
beginning of the new millennium as before.[114]
One cannot tell what would happen if Israel gives up its official control of
the Temple Mount. Some fear that such a prospect might stir Jews and Christians
to take steps that would “secure” the Jewish control of the mountain. While
some evangelicals reacted in alarm to the peace agreements between Israelis and
Palestinians, others reacted negatively to the recent struggles between the two
peoples. Most evangelical Christians sympathize with Israel. Evangelical
leaders and activists have spoken out in favor is Israel during the recent
Palestinian-Israeli confrontation.[115]
Their opinions have stood in contrast to liberal and mainstream churches, which
have, for the most part, expressed sympathy toward the Palestinians. Some
evangelicals, however, have taken exception to the Israeli presence in the West
Bank and Gaza. Such voices often come from the minority of evangelicals who do
not accept the idea of the central role of the Jews in bringing about the
Second Coming of the Messiah. Accepting the Palestinian narrative of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, such persons take an anti-Israel line.[116]
It is quite obvious that evangelical attitudes divorced of messianic
expectations can be less than sympathetic toward Jews and Israel. Within Israel
itself, sympathies are often divided. Some evangelical ministers who have
resided among Palestinians have changed their views and adopted interpretations
of current events that have been less favorable toward Israel than those of
most evangelicals outside of the country, or those residing among Jews.
Pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel sentiments have occasionally found their way
into the pages of moderate evangelical journals such as Christianity Today,
a widely-circulated evangelical weekly, whose editorial line over the years has
been mostly pro-Israel. Ironically, the more conservative (and
messianic-oriented) evangelicals tend to be enthusiastic supporters of Israel,
while more moderate evangelicals tend to be more critical.
The attitude toward Jews developed by
evangelical Christians has been extraordinary in the history of the
relationships between religious communities. In no other case has one religious
community considered another religious group to hold a special role in God’s
plans for human redemption, and to be God’s first nation. At the same time,
evangelical Christians insist on the exclusivity of their faith as the only
true fulfillment of God’s commands and as the only means to assure salvation.
These two conflicting attitudes have marked the relationship between the two
communities with amazing paradoxes.
Evangelicals
took a great interest in the Jews and their history throughout the twentieth
century, enthusiastically supporting the Zionist movement and, in the later
decades of the twentieth century, became the State of Israel’s most loyal
friends. At the same time, evangelical Christians have viewed the Jews as a
people which failed to recognize and accept the true Messiah. In evangelical
eyes, Jews have thus deprived themselves of both eternal life and sound moral
guidelines. Evangelical Christians have held to many of the stereotypes of Jews
found in Western Christian culture at the same time that they have expected
Jews to regain their ancient position as the leading nation in the millennial
kingdom. Such mixed, dual opinions have characterized the attitudes of many
evangelical activists who, while claiming to show love and kindness towards the
Jews and while supporting Jewish causes politically, have also expressed, at
times, unfavorable opinions on Jews.
A
recent example is the revelations about Billy Graham’s opinions on Jews.[117]
Graham has been an ardent supporter of Israel throughout his long career as an
evangelist. In the early 1970s, his pro-Israel stand was particularly evident.
For example, in a movie he produced on the Holy Land during that period, he
presented Israel in the brightest terms. At the same time, Graham held the
opinion that the Jews were responsible for America’s problems; they were
controlling the media, and were the “ones putting out the pornographic stuff.”
A
survey conducted in the early 1960s discovered that conservative Protestants
were more likely to hold prejudices against Jews than mainline Protestants or
Roman Catholics.[118]
A similar survey the Anti-Defamation League conducted in the mid-1980s
discovered, however, a remarkable decline in evangelical negative opinions on
Jews.[119]
This has been due, in no small measure, to the dramatic growth in evangelical
Christian encounters with Israel and with real Jews. While previously
evangelicals read about Jews in the New Testament or heard about them in
sermons, from 1970 to 2000, millions of evangelicals have taken tours to
Israel, met with Israeli officials, and many have spent time in kibbutzim or in
evangelical educational programs in the country.
In
no other realm has the paradoxical nature of the relation of evangelicals to
Jews demonstrated itself as in the evangelical attempts to help Jews rebuild
the Temple. Evangelical Christians have formed historically unprecedented
friendships and alliances with Jews that would be difficult to imagine at other
times and places. There is, therefore, something surreal about the evangelical
Christian advocates for rebuilding of the Temple, as their actions transcend
the historical dynamics of Jewish-Christian interaction. The unique
relationship that has developed has brought about scenes that are almost
unbelievable, including Christians marveling at and receiving reassurance for
their messianic faith from Jews studying the priestly codex in preparation for
reinstating the sacrificial system. Something of a symbiosis has developed between
conservative evangelical Christians and Orthodox nationalist Jews on this
issue. Although each group has its own vision for the messianic times, they
have all shared the same agenda for the near future.
One
must conclude that the evangelical attitudes toward the Jewish people and their
activity on the Jews’ behalf derive first and foremost from their evangelical
messianic hope, which in its turn represents an entire worldview, conservative
and reactive in nature. The evangelicals’ pro-Israel attitude and their keen
concern for the physical well-being of Jews derive from their beliefs about the
function of the Jews in the advancement of history toward the arrival of the
Lord. Evangelicals involved with Jews see themselves as workers in a great
cause, perhaps the greatest of all—the advancement of the messianic age and the
establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. Evangelical Christians cannot,
therefore, be described as philosemites. Their support of Jewish causes
represent an attempt to promote their own agenda and their opinions on Jews
have not always been flattering. Similarly, the evangelical understanding that
Jews are in need of the Gospel and that without accepting Christianity they are
morally and spiritually deprived derives from basic evangelical theological
premises. Evangelicals, in the last analysis, are neither philosemites nor
antisemites, but merely loyal to their own faith and work to promote their own
cause.
Notes
[1] E.g., Chani Cohen, “Sharon
Dazzles Christian Zionists,” Jerusalem Post, 22 Oct. 2000; Gershon
Gorenberg, “Israel Pushes Out ‘Elijah’ for Promising to Bring the Redemption,” Jerusalem
Report, 27 Sept. 1999; Mark I. Pinsky, “Jewish Leaders Upset Over New Holy
Land Theme Park,” Orlando Sentinel, 12 Jan. 2001.
[2] See very different
understanding of evangelical attitudes towards Jews in Merrill Simon, Jerry
Falwell and the Jews (Middle Village, N.Y.: Jonathan David Publisher, 1987)
and Dov Aharoni Fisch, Jews for Nothing (Jerusalem and New York:
Feldheim, 1984). From the evangelical side, see Richard J. Mouw, “The Chosen
People Puzzle,” Christianity Today, 5 March 2001. www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/004.5.70.html
[3] Cf., Norman Cohn, The
Pursuit of the Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).
[4] Ernest Sandeen, The Roots
of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800–1930 (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1978).
[5] E.g., Barbara Tuchman, Bible
and Sword (London: Macmillan, 1983).
[6] A. G. Mojtabai, Blessed
Assurance: At Home with the Bomb in Amarillo, Texas (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1986).
[7] See, for example, Hal
Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan,
1971).
[8] See William Blackstone, Jesus
Is Coming, 3rd ed. (Los Angeles: Bible House, 1908), 211–13, 236–41.
[9] See Yaakov Ariel, “An
American Initiative for a Jewish State: William Blackstone and the Petition of
1891,” Studies in Zionism 10 (1989): 125–37.
[10] William Blackstone to Woodrow
Wilson, 4 Nov. 1914; William Blackstone to Warren G. Harding, telegram, 10 Dec.
1920; both in Blackstone Personal Papers, Billy Graham Center, Wheaton,
Illinois.
[11] See Yaakov Ariel, “William Blackstone
and the Petition of 1916: A Neglected Chapter in the History of Christian
Zionism in America,” Studies in Contemporary Jewry 7 (1991): 68–85.
[12] William L. Pettingill, J. R.
Schafler, and J. D. Adams, eds., Light on Prophecy: A Coordinated,
Constructive Teaching, Being the Proceedings and Addresses at the Philadelphia
Prophetic Conference, May 28–30, 1918 (New York: Christian Herald Bible
House, 1918); Arno C. Gaebelein, ed., Christ and Glory: Addresses Delivered
at the New York Prophetic Conference, Carnegie Hall, November 25–28, 1918
(New York: Publication Office, “Our Hope,” 1919).
[13] See, e.g., George T. B. Davis, Fulfilled
Prophecies That Prove the Bible (Philadelphia: Million Testaments Campaign,
1931); and Keith L Brooks, The Jews and the Passion for Palestine in Light
of Prophecy (Los Angeles: Brooks Publications, 1937).
[14] James Gray, “Editorial,” Moody
Bible Institute Monthly 31 (1931): 346.
[15] On Smith and his activity, see Glen
Jeansonne, Gerald L. K. Smith: Minister of Hate (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1988).
[16] See Ralph L. Roy, Apostles of
Discord (Boston: Beacon Press, 1953).
[17] See George L. Marsden, Reforming
Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans, 1987), 39.
[18] See Arno C. Gaebelein, “Jewish
Leadership in Russia,” Our Hope 27 (1921): 734–35; James M. Gray, “The
Jewish Protocols,” Moody Bible Institute Monthly 22 (1921): 589; and
William B. Riley, Wanted—A World Leader! (Self-published, n.d.), 41–51,
71–72.
[19] See David Rausch, “Our Hope:
An American Fundamentalist Journal and the Holocaust, 1937–1945,” Fides et
Historia 12 (1980): 89–103.
[20] See, e.g., Our Hope 44
(1938): 686.
[21] Cf., Peter Novick, The Holocaust
in American Life (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1999). Evangelical
books of the 1940s and 1950s on the Jews and Israel usually avoided the
subject. See, for example, George T. B. Davis, Sowing God’s Word in Israel
Today (Philadelphia: Million Testament Campaign, Inc., 1953).
[22] Novick, Holocaust in American
Life.
[23] Cf. Robert P. Ericksen and Susannah
Heschel, eds., Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust (Minneapolis:
Fortren Press, 1999).
[24] Joseph Michman, “Some Reflections
on the Dutch Churches and the Jews,” in Judaism and Christianity Under the
Impact of National Socialism, edited by Otto Dov Kulka and Paul
Mendès-Flohr (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1987) 349–52.
[25] Corrie ten Boom, The Hiding
Place (Minneapolis, Minn.: A Chosen Book, 1971), 123–24.
[26] Ibid., 163, 189, 223.
[27] Ibid., 86.
[28] Rachmiel Frydland, When Being
Jewish Was a Crime (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1978).
[29] Ibid., 148.
[30] Ibid., 147.
[31] Ibid., 151.
[32] Ibid., 134.
[33] Ibid., 155.
[34] Ibid., 156.
[35] E.g., Davis, Fulfilled
Prophecies; Brooks, Jews and the Passion for Palestine.
[36] See Dwight Wilson, Armageddon
Now! The Premillennarian Response to Russia and Israel since 1917 (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977).
[37] See Louis T. Talbot and William W.
Orr, The New Nation of Israel and the Word of God (Los Angeles: Bible Institute
of Los Angeles, 1948); M. R. DeHaan, The Jew and Palestine in Prophecy
(Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1954); Arthur Kac, The Rebirth of the State of
Israel: Is It of God or Men? (Chicago: Moody Press, 1958); and George T. B.
Davis, God’s Guiding Hand (Philadelphia: Million Testaments Campaign,
1962).
[38] John Walvoord, Israel in
Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zonderman, 1962), 19.
[39] E.g., L. Nelson Bell, “Unfolding
Destiny,” Christianity Today (1967), 1044–1045.
[40] See, e.g., Peter L. Williams and
Peter L. Benson, Religion on Capitol Hill: Myth and Realities (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1986); Allen D. Hertzke, Representing God in
Washington (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1988); Mark Silk, Spiritual
Politics (New York: Touchstone, 1989); and Michael Lienesch, Redeeming
America: Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right (Chapel Hill, N.C.:
University of North Carolina Press, 1993).
[41] See Martin Gardner, “Giving God a
Hand,” New York Review of Books, 13 August 1987, p. 22.
[42] Cf. Silk, Spiritual Politics; Liensch,
Redeeming America.
[43] See, e.g., Elwood McQuaid, It Is
No Dream (Bellmaur, N.J.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1978).
[44] Kai Kjaer-Hansen and Bochil F.
Skjott, Facts and Myths About the Messianic Congregations in Israel
(Jerusalem: United Christian Council in Israel in Cooperation with the Caspari
Center, 1999).
[45] James McWhirter, A World in a
Country (Jerusalem: B.S.B. International, 1983), 160–74; interviews with
Marvin and Merla Watson, Jerusalem, 16 October 1992, and Menahem Ben Hayim,
Jerusalem, 14 October 1992.
[46] Jan Willem van der Hoeven, “If I
Forget Thee O Jerusalem,” Sukkoth brochure (Jerusalem: International Christian
Embassy, 1984), 4.
[47] Haim Shapiro, religious affairs
correspondent, Jerusalem Post, interview by Yaakov Ariel, Jerusalem, 6
October 1992.
[48] A list of ICEJ international
representatives, February 1992, included representatives in Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Maryland, California, and Wyoming; see also
the ICEJ website: http://www.icej.org.il
[49] On the various activities of the
Embassy, see its brochure, “The Ministry of the International Christian Embassy
Jerusalem” (Jerusalem: International Christian Embassy, 1992), and their
website: http://www.icej.org.il
[50] Arlynn Nellhaus, “Go Tell It On the
Mountain,” Jerusalem Post Magazine, 9 October 1992, 6–7.
[51] In 1991, for example, Germans
offered more financial support for bringing Russian Jews to Israel than
supporters in any other country. “Wohnungsbau for Sowjetische Juden,” Ein Wort
aus Jerusalem, March–April 1992. As premillennialism and messianism are not
strong among German Protestants this may be attributed to guilt and a wish to
help the Jewish state, regardless of its role in the events that precede the
arrival of the Messiah.
[52] On the conference schedule and
participants, see Washington for Israel Summit (Jerusalem: International
Christian Embassy, Jerusalem, 1992).
[53] See Jan van der Hoeven, Babylon
or Jerusalem (Shippensburg, Penn.: Destiny Image, 1993).
[54] Anon., Le Maan Tzion Lo Echeshe
(Jerusalem: International Christian Embassy, 1990), 13.
[55] Jan Willem van der Hoeven,
interview by Yaakov Ariel, Jerusalem, 19 August 1991.
[56] Reverend Michael Krupp, interview
by Yaakov Ariel, Jerusalem, 18 December 1991. See also Michael Krupp, “Falsche
Propheten in Jerusalem,” 3 October 1988 sent to the Protestant religious press
in Germany.
[57] Cf. an email message from
Labibkobti@aol.com to subscribers to the Al-Bushra mailing list,
Al-bushra-holy-land@cin.org, subject: Patriarchs of the ME say No to Christian
Zionists. Fr. Labib Kobti, a Roman Catholic priest of Palestinian origin at St.
Anne of the Sunset Church in San Francisco, Calif., operates the Al-Bushra
website (http://www.al-bushra.org) for Arab American Roman Catholics. See the
website for other articles opposing “Christian Zionists.”
[58] Some liberal and mainline churches,
such as the Quakers and Lutherans, have worked in the West Bank and Gaza and,
in protests and actions, have expressed their commitment to the Palestinian cause.
In some cases, such as in Holland, mainline Protestant church members often
have more positive attitudes towards Israel than their leadership; consequently
the Embassy, which is regarded as representing pro-Israel sentiments, enjoys
support even when the church establishment is hostile towards its activities.
Reverend Simon Schoon and Reverend Geert Cohen-Stuart of the Dutch Reformed
Church, Interview by Yaakov Ariel, Southampton, U.K., 14 July, 1991.
[59] “Signs of Hope,” 1988 annual report
of the Middle East Council of Churches, Cyprus, July 1989.
[60] Anon., What is Western
Fundamentalist Christian Zionism? (Limosol, Cyprus; Middle East Council of
Churches, April 1988; rev. ed., August 1988). The second, revised edition is
somewhat more moderate than the first.
[61] Mishkan, no. 12 (1990).
[62] A. E. Thompson, A Century of
Jewish Missions (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, 1905).
[63] Cf. Jonathan Sarna, “The American
Jewish Response to Nineteenth Century Christian Missions,” Journal of
American History 68 (1981): 35–51.
[64] Cf. Yaakov Ariel, “Counterculture
and Missions: Jews for Jesus and the Vietnam Era Missionary Campaigns,” Religion
and American Culture, 9, no. 2 (Summer 1999): 233–57.
[65] Reverend William Currie, former
head of the American Messianic Fellowship, interview by Yaakov Ariel,
Jerusalem, September 1991. Currie had little appreciation for the Embassy.
[66] A striking example of this failure
to understand can be found in Michael Pragai’s book Faith and Fulfillment
(London: Valentine Mitchell, 1985). The author, who served as head of the
department for liaison with the Christian churches and organizations in the
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs for many years, demonstrated a complete
lack of knowledge of the nature of the evangelical support of Zionism and of
the differences between conservative and mainline/liberal churches.
[67] Yona Malachy, American
Fundamentalism and Israel (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Institute of Contemporary Jewry, 1978), 106–11.
[68] David E. Harrel, Oral Roberts:
An American Life (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1985), 137.
[69] For example, Yaakov Ariel,
“Evangelist in a Strange Land: American Missionaries in Israel, 1948–1967,” Studies
in Contemporary Jewry 14 (1998): 206–207.
[70] E.g., Robert L. Lindsey, Israel
in Christendom (Tel Aviv: Dugit, 1961).
[71] Per Osterlye, The Church in
Israel, (Lund: Gleerup, 1970).
[72] “Israel Looks on U.S. Evangelical
Christian as Potent Allies,” Washington Post, 23 March 1981, p. A11.
[73] “Israel’s Leaders Greet the
Embassy,” in Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord (Jerusalem: International
Christian Embassy, 1991).
[74] For a photograph of such a
gathering, see Tzipora Luria, “Lelo Tasbichim: Notztim Mechuiavim LeYesha”
(Without inhibitions: Christians committed to Judea and Samaria), Nekuda,
no. 128, 17 March 1989, 31.
[75] David Pileggi, interview by Yaakov
Ariel, Jerusalem, 14 Oct. 1991.
[76] Yael Eshkenazi, “HaKesher HaNotzri
Shel Moledet” (The Christian connection with Moledet), Kol HaIr, 1 Nov.
1991, 30.
[77] Luria, “LeLo Tasbichim,” 30–34.
[78] Le Maan zion Lo Echeshe, 14.
[79] See Halevi, “Balancing Act.”
[80] Cf., Yaakov Ariel, Evangelizing
the Chosen People: Missions to the Jews in America 1880-2000 (Chapel Hill,
N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 277–78.
[81] Daniel Ben Simon, “Doing Something
for Judaism,” Haaretz, 18 Dec. 1997, English edition, 1–2.
[82] For example, a letter circulated
through the internet by Noam Hendren, Baruch Maoz, and Marvin Dramer, March
1997.
[83] Ibid.
[84] Raymond L. Cox, “Time for the
Temple?” Eternity 19 (Jan. 1968):
17–18; Malcolm Couch, “When Will the Jews Rebuild the Temple?” Moody Monthly 74 (Dec. 1973): 34–35, 86.
[85] Lindsey, Late Great Planet Earth, 32–47.
[86] Cf. Gideon Aran, “From Religious
Zionism to Zionist Religion: The Roots of Gush Emunim,” Studies in
Contemporary Jewry, 2 (1986): 118.
[87] Mishna, Kelim 1, 8. Cf. “Har
Ha Bayit” (in Hebrew), HaEncyclopedia HaTalmudit, vol. 10, 575–92.
[88] Cf. Numbers 19.
[89] Cf. Ehud Sprinzak, The
Ascendance of Israel’s Radical Right (New York: Oxford University Press,
1991), 279–88.
[90] Avinoam Brog, interview by Yaakov
Ariel, Jerusalem, 1992. I am indebted to Brog for sharing with me information
and impressions on Rohan’s stay in the kibbutz and his motive for burning the
mosque.
[91] See Jerusalem District Court Archive,
Criminal File 69/173.
[92] On Jewish groups that intend to
rebuild the Temple, see Ehud Sprinzak, The
Ascendance of Israel’s Radical Right (New York: Oxford University Press,
1991), 264–69, 279–88.
[93] Cf. Grant R. Jeffrey, Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny
(New York: Bantam Books, 1990), especially 108–50.
[94] For example, Don Stewart and Chuck
Missler, The Coming Temple: Center Stage
for the Final Countdown (Orange,
Calif.: Dart Press, 1991), 157–70.
[95] On the Lechi, see Joseph Heller, Lechi,
Ideology and Politics, 1940–1949 (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar and Keter,
1989).
[96] See the brochure, Jerusalem Temple Foundation (Jerusalem:
Jerusalem Temple Foundation, n.d.).
[97] On Chuck Smith, see Donald E.
Miller, Reinventing American
Protestantism (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998).
[98] See Dolphin’s website
http://www.Ldolphin.org; see also a series of tracts the Californian physicist
has published, copies in Yaakov Ariel’s collection.
[99] Stewart and Missler, The Coming Temple, 157–70.
[100] See Yisrayl Hawkins, A Peaceful Solution to Building the Next Temple in Yerusalem
(Abilene, Tex.: House of Yahweh, 1989).
[101] On the premillennialist fascination with the
lost ark, see Doug Wead, David Lewis, and Hal Donaldson, Where Is the Lost Ark? (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House
Publishing, n.d.); Don Stewart and Chuck Missler, In Search of the Lost Ark (Orange, Calif.: Dart Press, 1991).
[102] Lawrence Wright, “Forcing the End,” New Yorker, 74, no. 20 (20 July 1998): 42–53; Jewish Telegraph
Agency, 2 Sept. 1999, http://www.jta.org/sep99/02-cows.htm.
[103] See, for example, C. W. Sleming, These Are the Garments (Fort Washington,
Penn.: Christian Literature Crusade, n.d.); Wead, Where is the Lost Ark?; Stewart, In Search of the Lost Ark; Thomas Ice and Randall Price, Ready to Rebuild (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest
House, 1992).
[104] Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Left Behind
(Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1995); Additional books in the series include Tribulation
Force; Nicolae; Soul Harvest; Apollyon; Assasins;
The Indwelling; and The Mark; all published by Tyndale. The series
has sold more than 20 million copies.
[105] For example, Left Behind, 415; Nicolae:
The Rise of Antichrist, 369; Tribulation Force, 208.
[106] Tribulation Force, 277.
[107] Quoted in Robert I. Friedman, Zealots for Zion (New York: Random
House, 1992), 144.
[108] Ibid., 144–45.
[109] Ice, Ready
to Rebuild; Cf. also the more
recent series Left Behind. Antichrist in the series is Romanian
Orthodox.
[110] See, for example, such an advertisement in the
Israeli Hebrew daily Haaretz, dated
Holiday of Freedom, Passover 1983.” A copy is in Yaakov Ariel’s possession.
[111] Barbara and Michael Ledeen, “The Temple Mount
Plot,” New Republic (190[24], 18 June
1984): 20–23.
[112] For example, Gershom Gorenberg, “Israel Pushes
Out ‘Elijah’ for Promising to Bring the Redemption,” Jerusalem Report, 27 Sept. 1999.
[113] Cf. articles in the Middle East Intelligence
Digest, a publication of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem
in the 1990s.
[114] Cf., for example, the series Left Behind.
[115] Ted Olsen,
“Evangelical Support of Israel Isn’t Just about Premillennialism,” Weblog, 23
April 2002, http://ChristianityToday.com
[116] See, for example,
Timothy P. Weber, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988).
[117] David Firestone, “More
Criticism and Another Apology for Billy Graham’s 1972 Remarks,” New York
Times, 17 March 2002, 24.
[118] Charles Y. Glock and Rodney Stark, Christian
Beliefs and Antisemitism (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966).
[119] L. Ianniello, press release by the Anti-Defamation League, New York, 8 Jan. 1986.