Antisemitism seems to have triumphed. This wicked hatred that had been lurking just beneath the surface of civil society for many decades is now out in the open: in the public square and bringing terror and fear to Jewish people everywhere. The onward march of this abhorrent mindset is now prevalent in our universities, politics, and media.
We cannot, of course, ignore the international geopolitics that has shaped the media narrative since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists killed some 1,200 Israelis and took some 250 hostage. While this is not the focus of this piece, the forces of anti-Semitism nevertheless have crafted a political and PR strategy rooted in these events to advance their cause. Let me give just one example from the rapidly changing international situation.
The British government announced on July 29 that it will recognize the state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes action to end the war in Gaza. This is a most perplexing position, driven by domestic political pressure and will result only in increased cover for anti-Semitic activity. The British announcement lacked clarity and morality in almost every respect.
First, there is no Palestine state to recognize. A state cannot be conjured out of thin air. Gaza is controlled by a group the British government has defined as terrorists; in the West Bank, the more moderate Palestinian Authority exercises at least partial civil control. How will this be reconciled?
Second, demands were made on the Israeli government to enact a ceasefire. The utter lack of moral judgement in failing to make demands on the Hamas terrorists—demands that the Arab League has made, that Hamas disarm and relinquish control—was astounding. This purely symbolic gesture and virtue signalling will have no impact on the political situation in the Middle East, but it will encourage anti-Jewish sentiment. Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, has said that this betrays the right of Israel to an existence free from terror on its borders and will make diaspora Jews more vulnerable to abuse.
The most obvious example in the U.S. has been in the Ivy League (and other) universities, which have seen campus protests involving both student and faculty, encouraging not only anti-Israel bias but hatred and disdain for Jewish students, giving what the Simon Wiesenthal Centre has described as “the imprimatur of academic legitimacy to naked antisemitism.” This has continued to play out in the political arena.
In the U.K., Jewish comedians have had their shows canceled simply because they’re Jewish. Rachel Creegar and Philip Simon were scheduled to appear, in separate shows, at the acclaimed Edinburgh Fringe Arts Festival. As an explanation, Creegar was told that she had included a vigil for Israeli Defence Force soldiers during a previous performance (which was later admitted to be a lie), that there had been graffiti at previous venues, and that staff were concerned about their safety. In fact, Rachel’s show was about a Jewish mom.
Elsewhere in Europe, Jewish schoolchildren were forced off a plane for singing in Hebrew, Jewish sites have been vandalized, and Israeli tourists have been harassed and protested.
So why the silence from those who have spent their academic careers reminding us how both Jesus and the great apostle Paul were Jewish. Sometimes gathered under the title of “the New Perspective,” books have been written, monographs prepared, and lectures delivered in university theology departments across the world, all to persuade us of the importance of the Jewish Jesus and Jewish Paul. One might have thought this would lead to a more public stand against anti-Semitism.
The second response, perhaps the more familiar, is noise. If you want to start an argument among Christians, there are several red button issues, of which I’m sure we all have our favorite. Most lists, however, would have “Israel” at or near the top. I wonder if the evangelical Christian defense of the State of Israel has been proclaimed so loudly for so long that that no one listens anymore. I say this with a good deal of sympathy for the position that the Lord made two promises to his people in the Old Testament: the promise of a spiritual inheritance and the promise of land. The promise of the land and some explicit place for God’s ancient chosen people is carried forward into Romans 9–11. And so evangelical Christians (and, indeed, others) have historically advocated for a Jewish homeland for the Jewish people. But simply repeating it loudly from pulpits persuades no one not already convinced and carries some danger of ignoring realities on the ground.
One of the reasons the noise may not be breaking through and others are stunned into silence is that we have as a Christian community failed to teach our congregations how to handle in the public square the contentious issue of the place of Israel. The biggest complexity is how to handle the relationship of Old Testament promises to modern political realities. There are twin dangers: ignoring any connection at all or so conflating the link that no distinction is drawn.
There are two principles to keep in mind that can help here. First, the Lord’s promises do not wax and wane like the moon. The promise of land to his ancient people is an everlasting promise and it is a distortion of the text to see how this could be fulfilled in any other way than real territory. One consequence of this should be a clear stand in the public square against those who seek to destroy Israel today or reflect clear anti-Israeli animus.
Second, the Old Testament injunctions, whether relating to ancient Israel or any other matter (for example, payment of interest, injunctions on worship), cannot and are not intended to be mapped precisely into the modern context. In this way, Christians do not need to unthinkingly agree with every single action of the political leadership of modern Israel. The operation of these two principles, with discernment, might enable Christian support for Israel to be more carefully articulated and perhaps therefore heard and be more effective.
I also think there is a more fruitful approach to dealing with anti-Semitism. In the book of Nehemiah, the Lord’s people had been in exile in Babylon some 70 years, but a group of these exiles have been led back to Jerusalem by the prophet with the task of rebuilding a city in ruins. There were many obstacles to success, in the face of which Nehemiah did three things. First, he focused the minds of the people on God, commanding them to remember the Lord, who is great and awesome. Second, he reminded them that this was a divine task blessed by God, who would grant success. Third, with the walls half built but with many gaps and threats to the safety of the returned exiles, Nehemiah posted armed guards in the gaps, particularly at the lowest and most exposed points.
This may be a more fruitful metaphor for how the Christian should respond to anti-Semitism than either “silence” or “noise.” Will we Christians stand in the gap with our Jewish friends? Will we protect them from hatred and abuse? Will we base our defense of our Jewish neighbors on careful evidence rather than emotional or loud reaction? And will we advocate for the importance and value of the Jews to God and stand firm, with our spiritual armor, to defend them?
Where is our Nehemiah today? Both Christians and Jews stand in need of him.
