|
|
16th February 2002
COVER STORY
Christians who hate the
Jews
Melanie Phillips says the Archbishop of Wales is among
Churchmen worried that opposition to Israel is motivated
by anti-Semitism rooted deep in Christian theology
www.spectator.co.uk
Mr Boris Johnson
The
Spectator
WC1N
2LL
Dear
Mr Johnson,
Christians who hate
the Jews
I
am writing in response to the lead article in last week’s Spectator by Melanie
Phillips. She alleges that I am anti-Semitic because of my theological views
and specifically because I have been critical of the policies of the Israeli
government.
I
disagree most strongly with this conclusion. When Melanie telephoned me, it
was ostensibly to gather information about Christian Zionism. I attempted
to provide a basic explanation of the movement and its beliefs. At no time
did I appreciate that her article would actually be addressing the issue of
anti-Semitism.
I abhor anti-Semitism and repudiate all forms of racism. I am deeply committed
to finding a just and lasting peace agreement between Jews and Palestinians
based on United Nations resolutions in which the rights of both peoples are
respected and protected. My books and published articles emphasize this, and
I am therefore distressed that the opposite impression has been given in her
article.
Please
allow me to clarify my actual views in response to those I am alleged to believe
as suggested in Melanie Phillips article. I shall deal in the main with the
statements quoted as mine and not with the conclusions which Melanie has seen
fit to draw there from.
Sizer is a leading crusader against Christian Zionism. He believes
that God’s promises to the Jews have been inherited by Christianity, including
the
The term ‘crusader’
is most unfortunate given its connotations in the
The quotation
which Melanie attributes to me is indeed found in several of my published
articles. However, she neglects to point out that it is actually a quotation
from a sermon delivered by the Revd John Stott, one of the Queens Chaplains.[1]
Melanie has therefore misquoted the source and wrongly attributed it
to me. The context of Stott’s argument is that a
contemporary secular State of Israel cannot legitimately lay claim to spiritual
promises made 4,000 years earlier. A Christian interpretation is also formed
by the way Jesus re-interpreted those promises.
1. The Old Testament
promises about the Jews’ return to the land are comforted by promises of the
Jews’ return to the Lord. It is hard to see how that secular, unbelieving
State of Israel can possibly be a fulfillment of those prophecies.
2. The Old Testament
promises about the land are nowhere repeated in the New Testament. The prophecy
of Romans 11 is a prophecy that many Jews will turn to Christ, but the land
is not mentioned nor is Israel mentioned as a political entity...
3. The Old Testament
promises according to the apostles are fulfilled in Christ and the international
community of Christ. The New Testament authors apply the promise of Abraham’s
seed to Jesus Christ. And they apply to Jesus Christ the promise of the land
and all the land which is inherited, the land flowing with milk and honey,
because it is in him that our hunger is satisfied and out thirst quenched.
A return to Jewish nationalism would seem incompatible with this New Testament
perspective of the international community of Jesus.[2]
This may be illustrated by
the way in which promises made to the ancient Hebrews are applied by Jesus
to his followers, both Jews and Gentiles. So, for example, the promise made
in Psalm 37:11 “But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace.”
is universalized by Jesus in Matthew 5:5,
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”
I do not believe, and have never stated in my published articles,
that Christians have any entitlement to the
For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and
the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary
way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These
things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One
covenant is from
The
New Testament simply teaches that the true children of Abraham and Sarah are
those who share the faith of Abraham and believe in Jesus knowing that they
cannot inherit eternal life by keeping the Law or by their good works but
through faith in the atoning work of Jesus the lamb of God who takes away
the sin of the world.
The
promises made to Abraham and his descendents concerning the land have also
been universalized to encompass the entire earth. Christians understand that
the New Covenant promised by Jeremiah (31:31-34) has fulfilled, completed,
annulled and replaced the Old Covenant. “By calling this covenant "new",
he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and ageing will soon
disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13)
‘Rights’
to the
He acknowledges that Israel has the right to exist since it
was established by a United Nations resolution. But he also says that it is
‘fundamentally an apartheid state because it is based on race’ and ‘even worse
than South Africa’ (this, despite the fact that Israeli Arabs have the vote,
are members of the Knesset and one is even a supreme court
judge).
I do not see any
connection or correlation between these statements. I affirm the right of
the State of Israel to exist within secure and internationally recognized
borders. Sadly the evidence shows that
He therefore hopes that Israel will go the
same way as South Africa under apartheid and be ‘brought to an end internally
by the rising up of the people’. So, despite saying that he supports Israel’s
existence, he appears to want the Jewish state to be singled out for a fate
afforded to no other democracy properly constituted under international law.
I do not remember
ever making such a statement and such a statement would certainly not accord
with my professed and stated beliefs. I would suggest Melanie has misheard
or misquoted me. If anything which I may have said gave rise in Melanie’s
mind to such a conclusion, then I must apologize for having used words capable
of such misinterpretation. My views on this point are well documented through
both public lectures[8]
and published articles.[9] I do wish to see Israel withdraw from the Occupied
Territories in accordance with UN Resolutions 242 and 338, etc. I do believe
that, like South Africa, the people themselves, Jews and Palestinians can
and must achieve this peacefully, whether in a unified and truly democratic
state in which they have equal rights or by the creation of an autonomous
and independent Palestinian State.
But perhaps this is not surprising given his
attitude towards Jews. ‘The covenant between Jews and God,’ he states, ‘was
conditional on their respect for human rights. The reason they were expelled
from the land was that they were more interested in money and power and treated
the poor and aliens with contempt.’
This assertion is plainly
taught throughout the Hebrew scriptures.
“This is what the Sovereign LORD says … You rely on
your sword, you do detestable things, and each of you defiles his neighbor's
wife. Should you then possess the land?'… Then they will know that I am the
LORD, when I have made the land a desolate waste because of all the detestable
things they have done.” (Ezekiel
33:25-29)
“For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not
turn back my wrath. They sell the righteous
for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads
of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny
justice to the oppressed…
Therefore,
though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you
have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine… You oppress the righteous and take bribes and
you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.” (Amos 2:6-7, 5:11-12)
According to the Hebrew scriptures residence within the land was always conditional
on the respect of human rights.
Today’s Jews, it appears,
are no better. ‘In the United States, politicians dare not criticise Israel because half the funding for both the Democrats
and the Republicans comes from Jewish sources.’
My
generalization is in fact an understatement. Aluf Ben, considered a spokesman
for Shimon Peres, was quoted in Ha’aretz as claiming
“60 percent of all financial help to
Democrats came from Jewish sources.”[10] According
to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,
Most pro-Israel fund-raisers estimate
that at least 60 to 90 percent of Democratic campaign funding comes from Jewish
sources, which also supply perhaps 40 percent of Republican funding.[11]
Jewish
writers, politicians and academics have all said, far more eloquently, the
same assertions that Ms Phillips claims are evidence of my anti-Semitism.
I see no correlation. I do see her article, however, as representative of
those who, for what ever reason, wish to silence legitimate criticism of
I
am writing to express my own views and not on behalf of the Bishop of Guildford
or of Christian Aid or of any other party mentioned in her article.
Yours
sincerely,