Title: 13
Author: Joe G
Last saved by: P Davey
Company: GDC

© 2004 Joe Griffin		04-12-12-B.CC02-380 /

Bernard Lewis: “Semites & Anti-Semites”: Levels of Hostility toward Israel, Zionism, & Jews: 3 Definitions of Zionism; 3 Definitions of Anti-Semitism

		5.	Dr. Lewis draws two distinctions about hostility toward Jews and these must be understood.  The first is a disagreement about policy or ideology while the second is opposition to Israel, Zionism, or Jews based on prejudice.
		6.	Jews, and especially those who are Israelis, have learned to make little or no distinction between these two and regard them all as expressions of anti-Semitism.
		7.	This study and the concept of Zionophobia do not qualify as either of these hostilities.  The Christian should not care about Israel’s domestic or foreign policies nor should he be opposed in any prejudicial way to the state of Israel, the ideology of Zionism, or to Jews in general.
		8.	One may disagree with any nation’s policies and decisions and with the race of people that inhabit it and remain free of prejudice and racism.
		9.	By contrast, Zionophobia expresses a concern based on biblical analysis for the lives and safety of Jews who through Zionism have returned to the land ahead of the Lord’s timing and face a clear and present danger from true anti-Semitism consistently expressed by Islam.
		10.	The Christian’s disposition toward Israel as a nation should be positive and supportive.  His opinions of the Jew who wants to return to the land should be cautiously supportive by expressing concern about the hostile environment of the region.
		11.	But because of what the Scripture teaches he also has the responsibility to pray for this Jew knowing he would be placing himself in harm’s way.
		12.	Again, the definition of Zionophobia distinguishes it as a compassionate disposition not a hostile one: 
Zionophobia \zï‑ahn-ah-phō' bē‑ah\: a vigilant concern for the safety of the Jews of Israel due to the proximity of Islamic forces influenced by Lucifer’s anti-Semitic strategy to annihilate them.
		13.	Jews often rightly consider anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism to be one and the same.  Dr. Lewis now addresses these issues:
Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites, 17:
The difference between hostility to Jews and opposition to Israel or Zionism is not always easy to determine with any precision or certainty.  Even the terms are difficult to define, and are used with multiple and changing meanings.  What is Israel, what is Zionism, and who, for that matter, are the Jews?
Of the three, Israel is the easiest.  It is the name of a state which was established on May 14, 1948, and since then has conducted itself, as do other states, in the pursuit of its own interests and the application of policies designed to serve those interests.
To define Zionism is altogether a more difficult task.  Originally, the term denoted a certain analysis of the Jewish predicament and a prescription for its cure.  This was, briefly, that Jews were persecuted because they were strangers everywhere and had no home of their own.  The answer was to create a Jewish national home which would eventually develop into a Jewish state.  It would create a center where Jews, without fear of either persecution or suspicion, could develop their own Jewish culture and way of life.  Above all, it would be one place in the world where Jews could live as Jews, not dependent on the sufferance or tolerance or goodwill of others, but as masters in their own home.
		14.	Au contraire.  Here we see the failure of the Jews to correctly interpret their own Scripture.  The prophecy of Daniel 9:26 clearly points out that Gentiles will destroy both the city of Jerusalem and the Temple.
Daniel 9:26 -	“And after sixty–two weeks [ the 434 year period between the completion of Jerusalem and Palm Sunday ], Messiah [ j^yv!m* mashiach: the Anointed One ] shall be cut off [ crucifixion ], but not for Himself [ substitutionary sacrifice ].  And the people [ the Romans ] (of the prince [ dyg!n* nagith: masculine gender: the man at the top ] who is to come) [ prophetic of the Antichrist of the Tribulation ] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary [ the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in a.d. 70 ] and the end of it [ the nation Israel ] shall be like a flood.  Furthermore, to the end [ of the dispensation, i.e., the Tribulation ] wars and desolations are determined [ decreed ]. 
v. 27 -	Then he [ masculine gender of the verb rb^G* gabar: whose antecedent is the last preceding masculine gender in context: dyg!n* nagith: “prince” in verse 26: the Antichrist ] shall confirm a covenant with many [ Israel ] for one week [ u^Wbv* shavua‛: one heptad of years: 7 x 1 = the 7 year Tribulation ] but in the middle of the week [ 3½ years; or 42 months; or 1260 days ] He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering [ he breaks the contract 3½ years into the Tribulation ]. And on the wing [ cosmic systems of protection from global ecumenical religion ] of abominations [ a statue of the Antichrist ] shall be one who makes desolate [ the Temple ], even until the consummation [ Second Advent ], and that which is determined [ lake of fire: Revelation 19:20 ] is poured out on this dictator [ the Antichrist along with the False Prophet ].”
15.	The period between the destruction of the “city and the sanctuary” in verse 26 and the “consummation,” i.e., the Second Advent, in verse 27 is called the “times of the Gentiles by our Lord in:
Luke 21:20 -	“And when you shall see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that her desolation [ 5th cycle of discipline ] is at hand.
v. 21 -	“Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let those who are in the midst of the city [ Jerusalem ] depart.  And let not those who are in the country enter the city [ divine advice to those who live in Judea and Jerusalem in a.d. 70 ].
Luke 21:22 -	“For these are days of vengeance [ 5th Cycle of discipline administered ], that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

v. 23 -	“Woe unto them who are with child, and to them who nurse babes, in those days [ very difficult for a woman with small children to flee danger ]; for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath upon this people.

v. 24 -	“And they shall fall by the edge of the sword [ nearly 1.9 million Jews were killed in a.d. 70 ], and will be led away captive into the nations [ 97,000 Jews were taken into captivity (see visuals: Arch of Titus, CC02-369: http://www.gdcmedia.org/MediaMins/classinfo.asp?nm=CC02%2D369) ]; and Jerusalem shall be trampled under foot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled [ Second Advent ].” 
			This passage is a prophecy and a warning that Israel’s time as a nation will be ended by the administration of the fifth cycle of discipline and which will not be lifted until the Second Advent.
		16.	The period of time that transpires during the interim is referred to by the Lord as the “times of the Gentiles.”  This is a time when Israel will no longer function as a client nation but Gentile nations will beginning with the Roman Empire and continuing to the present-day United States of America and most likely beyond.
		17.	Gentile client nations allow their citizens the freedom to evangelize the lost, develop a Pivot through the free exercise of religion, they protect, defend, and disseminate of the Word of God, and support missionaries both foreign and domestic.
		18.	These freedoms are guaranteed as long as the client nation follows pro-Semitic domestic and foreign policies.  In the former, it must allow the Jewish Diaspora entry into the nation as refuge from foreign oppressors and protection from anti-Semitic elements from within.
		19.	Also, client nations must place diplomatic and if necessary military pressure on other nations or groups that exhibit anti-Semitic policies and, since 1948, maintain a pro-Semitic foreign policy with Israel.
		20.	During the Tribulation there will be a nation of Israel and the Jews will enter into a contract with the dictator of the Revived Roman Empire.  But Tribulational Israel will not be a client nation and the sacrifices made in the Temple will have no consequence since the Shekinah Glory will not indwell its Holy of Holies.
		21.	Therefore the reason given by Dr. Lewis as to why the Jews wanted to establish the State of Israel does not line up with the Bible:
… it would be one place in the world where Jews could live as Jews, not dependent on the sufferance or tolerance or goodwill of others, but as masters in their own home.
		22.	The Jews will never again be master of their own home until the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is Master over all.  Lewis continues with this in:
Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites, 17-19:
Some argued that this Jewish national home might be built anywhere in the world, where there was empty land and a willing government, and attempts were made in Uganda, Australia, Sinai, South America, and, under Soviet auspices, in the remote Siberian province of Birobidzhan \bē‑rō‑bē‑jan'\, on the border of Mongolia.  Most of these never got beyond the stage of discussion; none of them achieved any results.  There was only one place to which Jews felt they had an historic claim, and which had an emotional appeal powerful enough to evoke the necessary effort and endurance.  That was the ancient land of Israel.  (pp. 17-18)
There were many, including Jews, who rejected this diagnosis and prescription.  Some, especially among the religious Jews, saw in Zionism an impiety, an intrusion of alien secular nationalist notions into the Jewish religious community, and a blasphemous attempt to force the hand of God, from whom alone could come redemption.  (p. 18)
		23.	Please observe from this last sentence that there were Jews who were familiar with the prophetic texts of the Old Testament who recognized that to return to the land as a mere political entity was a “blasphemous attempt to force the hand of God.”
		24.	These Jews understood that they were divinely disbursed throughout the world in a.d. 70 and were to remain so until the Messiah called them back to the land.  Others recognized the danger as well:
Ibid., 18:
Other opponents saw in Zionism both a danger to the position of Jews in the countries of which they were or hoped to become citizens, and a source of conflict with the Arabs of Palestine and, beyond them, with the Arab and Islamic worlds.
		25.	These opponents to Zionism perceived a danger to Jews in two categories: (1) those who were citizens or potential citizens of Gentile nations would be accused of being unpatriotic, and (2) those who did move back to the land would become a source of conflict among their Palestinian, Arabic, and Islamic neighbors.
		26.	The latter is exactly the danger that Christians come to understand as they grow in grace and perceive history from a dispensational perspective.  This perception leads to a legitimate concern for the Jews of Israel and is expressed by Zionophobia.
		27.	But once the State of Israel was formed the reasons for opposition to Israel changed but so did its definition:
Ibid., 18:
Those who, for whatever reason, opposed the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine made every effort to prevent its establishment.  With the growth of the Jewish national home in Palestine … and again with the birth of the Jewish state in 1948, the terms of the debate changed.  To prevent the birth of such a state was one thing; to terminate it, after it was born, another.  The critics and opponents of Israel denounced its policies and sought ways of reducing its territories, but with one exception, they no longer spoke of dismantling the Jewish state or driving its inhabitants into the sea.
The one exception was the Arab world and its more faithful adherents.  It remained the clearly expressed aim of the Palestinian organizations and of the Arab governments behind them to eliminate the Jewish state and establish an Arab Palestinian state in its place.  In the political usage of the Arabs and of their committed supporters elsewhere, the word “Zionism” now acquired a second meaning.  As used by many Arab writers and spokesmen, a Zionist was one who did not share their belief that Israel must be destroyed in order to achieve justice in the Middle East.  By this definition, even as consistent a critic of Israeli policies as Charles de Gaulle could be called a Zionist.  (pp. 18-19)
And of course, by this definition, the term “Zionist” embraces almost all Jews, including most of those who had previously been indifferent or even hostile to Zionism.  Only those Jews actively opposed not merely to the politics, but even the existence of Israel are exempted.
In a third and still wider definition, there are no exemptions.  In some Soviet, Arab, and latterly also other Islamic polemical writings, “Zionist” simply means “Jew,” and therefore anti-Zionist means anti-Jew.  (p. 19)
		28.	In summary, Dr. Lewis gives us three possible definitions of a Zionist and Zionism: (1) a geographic and political answer to the problems faced by the Jewish Diaspora; (2) one who does not share the Arab belief that Israel must be destroyed; and (3) a synonym for a Jew.
		29.	Next Dr. Lewis takes up the problem of defining anti-Semitism and likewise finds that it too takes on varied definitions:
Ibid., 20-22:
As the definitions adopted for Israelis, Zionists, and Jews vary, so too does the nature of the hostility directed against them.  There is great confusion on this subject, whether among Jews, Jew haters, or the vast majority of mankind who belong to neither of these two categories.  Broadly speaking, this hostility is of three types. 
The first of these is opposition to Israel, possibly to the Zionist movement and ideology which created and in some measure maintain it.  Zionism is an ideology, Israel a state ruled by a government.  Men of good faith may reasonably oppose or reject that ideology or criticize the policies of that government without necessarily being inspired by prejudice.  It is unreasonable and unfair to assume that opposition to Zionism or criticism of Israeli policies and actions is, as such and in the absence of other evidence, an expression of anti-Semitic prejudice.
A second type, more difficult to define, is what one might call common, conventional, in a sense even “normal” prejudice, sometimes giving rise to “normal” persecution.  Parallels to it might be found in the suspicion and resentment which are often directed against neighbors of another tribe, another race, another faith, or from another place, or the attitudes which majorities sometimes adopt toward minorities.  (p. 20)
The third type is anti-Semitism.  Hatred for the Jews has many parallels, and yet it is unique—in its persistence and its extent, its potency and virulence, its terrible Final Solution.  Conventional prejudice and persecution can be very terrible, but they differ from anti-Semitism.  (p. 21)
Despite important resemblances, there is one crucial difference, and that is the desire of the anti-Semite to eliminate, to destroy, and in the final stage physically to exterminate his victim.  (p. 22)
		30.	In summary, Dr. Lewis describes three types of hostility that can be directed against Israelis, Zionists, and Jews: (1) Opposition to Israel and Zionism based on rejection of the ideology or the policies of the government; (2) “Normal” prejudice that is commonly directed against those of another culture, race, faith, or nationality based on suspicion and resentment; and (3) anti-Semitism based on a disposition of hatred of the Jews and expressed by the desire to eliminate, destroy, and exterminate them as a race. 
		31.	It is this latter problem that has besmirched the escutcheon of Christian theology.  It emerged in Europe with the help of the Catholic Church’s emphasis on Mariolatry and allegorical hermeneutics, in France and Russia through propaganda, and in Nazi Germany’s Final Solution.
		32.	It is this problem that Dr. Lewis next addresses and where he takes up several examples of the genesis of anti-Semitism in European Christianity.

Grace Doctrine Church Media Ministries:	     www.gracedoctrinechurch.com          www.joegriffin.org          www.gdcmedia.org