Why American Jewish attitudes need to change.

The results are in – and everyone is talking about how the mid-term elections have affected the balance of power in Washington.

Amongst Jewish communities in the US and abroad, understandably, questions are being asked about how the results affect Jewish interests: for instance, five Jewish Democrats were elected to senior House of Representatives positions, and the House’s leadership looks likely to remain staunchly pro-Israel, despite the election of some pro-BDS candidates.¹ And so on, and so on.

This is all interesting in its own right, but for those of us who take an avid interest in Israel and the Jewish people, there is a broader dimension that matters more than who is heading up the House Committee on Appropriations: the state of American Jewish political culture in general, and how this intersects with God’s purposes for the Jews, Israel and the whole world.

American Jewish Politics

Despite the obvious commitment of the Trump administration to Israel, American Jews notoriously lean left, with upwards of 70% identifying with the Democratic Party. This outstrips the general US public and starkly contrasts Israeli Jews, historically socialist, but who now lean to the centre and right.

American Jewish liberalism is strongly secular and includes a stereotypical left-wing rejection of Trump. Indeed, a poll caught my eye this week: 72% of American Jewry reportedly blame Trump for October’s awful synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, believed to be the deadliest anti-Semitic atrocity in US history.²

Their logic is much the same as that of Corbyn and much of the left-wing in Britain (see Charles Gardner’s article this week): anti-Semitism is seen as a purely far-right phenomenon; right-wing populism is seen as fanning the flames of the far-right; therefore, right-ring populists like Trump are solely and directly to blame if anti-Semitism is on the increase.

American Jewish liberalism is strongly secular and includes a stereotypical left-wing rejection of Trump.

But, there is an important difference emerging between the situations in Britain and the USA. In Britain, the penny is dropping amongst Jews that the left-wing is not immune to anti-Semitism either. The all-too-plentiful, high-profile scandals within the Labour Party have exposed this, and British Jews are getting the message: 90% now associate Labour with anti-Semitism and 40% are considering leaving the country, fearing for their own safety.³ The Campaign Against Antisemitism poll showed that British Jews now fear the far-left more than the far-right, with its chairman Gideon Falter remarking: “Many British Jews are mentally, if not physically, packing their bags.”⁴

In the US, however, no such comparable scandal has yet erupted on the left, and despite left-wing support for BDS and problems of anti-Semitism at left-wing rallies and on university campuses, American Jewry remains fixed upon the threat posed by the neo-Nazi far-right, though a comparatively tiny number of people. This is not to belittle the far-right’s capacity to wreak terror – as the Pittsburgh massacre shows – but it is to say, along with other commentators recently,⁵ that American Jews need to wake up to the fact that anti-Semitism can be found on both sides of the political spectrum, and that the left-wing isn’t necessarily their natural home.

Indeed, that American Jews embrace liberalism so unconditionally is cause for real concern. They end up blinding themselves to left-wing anti-Israel/anti-Semitic animosity and boosting a Party that has “embraced the identity politics, grievance culture and enraged narcissism that threaten to destroy American society”⁶ – and we might add, has brought the world the Iran Deal and repeated attempts to carve up Israel in the name of a ‘two-state solution’.

In the name of ‘authentic’ Jewish values they are actually embracing “the very antithesis of Judaism”, putting themselves “on course to destroy themselves as a community while aiding the left in the undermining of America”.⁷

This is the domestic picture. But there is another dimension to which all this matters even more: the global.

In Britain, the penny is dropping amongst Jews that the left-wing is not immune to anti-Semitism.

God’s Redemptive Purposes

We live in an extraordinary, unique period of human history: we are the generation chosen by God to witness the miraculous and final restoration of Israel to her historic homeland. In the last 150 years, we have seen wave upon wave of Jewish immigration back to the Land, legally signed over to them in 1948. As we write frequently in Prophecy Today UK, Israel’s journey since has been one of truly divine restoration, protection and blessing, despite enemies all around.

We also make frequent mention in Prophecy Today of how this fits with God’s covenant purposes for the Jewish people and his redemptive purposes for all Creation. While we will not discuss these in depth here, suffice to say that we believe it to be God’s purpose that the majority of the world’s Jews now return to their homeland, and that he is at work in the political and social affairs of the nations to this end.

Last year, we reached the tipping point: now, the majority of the world’s Jews do reside in Eretz Israel, in fulfilment of biblical prophecy.

Meanwhile, the largest group of diaspora Jews remains in the USA, and their political attitudes and voting habits bely a group that is highly secular, ultra-liberal and astonishingly out of touch with both domestic and global realities. Populous and prosperous, it is unsurprising that rates of American Jewish aliyah to Israel remain relatively slow. For this reason, I believe that God’s focus will be particularly on American Jews in the next few years.

Aliyah Rates Too Slow

At the current (relatively stable) rate of some 3,500 American Jews making aliyah per year, it will take well over 1,500 years for most of America’s 5.7 million Jews to transfer to Israel. If they are to be persuaded to uproot from a country that has been so welcoming and supportive for so long, the Lord might need to jolt them out of complacency.

Historically, he has done this in other countries by permitting anti-Semitism to proliferate until the Jewish people start to get the message – as we see at present in Britain. Far from anti-Semitism being a good thing, of course, it is woeful and a deep curse for those countries who fan its flames. However, that doesn’t mean that it does not have a stimulating side-effect on Jews that is ultimately positive, encouraging emigration back to the Land. There is a Christian parallel here: times of persecution are terrible, but they also classically unite, strengthen and grow the Church, furthering God’s purposes.

If our reading is correct, we may see many more events like Pittsburgh over the next years, as well as worsening anti-Semitism on campus, in the media and in US corridors of power.

Cultural Sea-Change Needed

Putting all these jigsaw puzzle pieces together, the emerging picture is very sobering: if our reading of the situation is right, then we are likely to see many more events like Pittsburgh over the next years, as well as worsening anti-Semitism on campus, in the media and in US corridors of power.

We cannot possibly rejoice in this. But we can at least pray that it would stimulate a cultural sea-change amongst American Jewry and a resurgence of conservative, biblical values, which (the statistics bear out) predispose greater support for Israel. This would lay the groundwork for the Lord to work his purposes out amongst this last great Jewish diaspora group, and one day lead them safely home.

References

1 Post-midterms: With Democrats retaking the House, Jewish leaders still see strong Israel support. JNS, 7 November 2018.

2 J Street poll: 72% of US Jews find Trump partly to blame for Pittsburgh shooting. Times of Israel, 7 November 2018.

3 Poll: 40% of British Jews Consider Emigration, 90% Cite Anti-Semitism. Breaking Israel News, 25 September 2018.

4 Ibid.

5 E.g. Jonathan S Tobin at JNS, Abraham H Miller for JNS, and Melanie Phillips.

6 Phillips, M. Jews and Conservatism: an idea whose time has come. 1 November 2018.

7 Ibid.

Clifford Denton examines the historical conquest of Israel by Rome and its creation of the Israeli diaspora.

Every Bible student needs a grasp of history and to set this alongside the purposes of God as revealed in Scripture. What was happening on the world stage when Jesus was alive, and in the first years of the Church's existence?

Roman Occupation

This is the background to the Roman domination of Israel preceding the biblical account of Jesus and the Apostles.

In the years before Rome, the Greek Empire dominated Israel. There was resistance from the Maccabees, a group of Jewish rebels, during this time. The years that followed saw the rise of the Hasmoneans as a priest-king dynasty in Israel, but which did not restore Israel as a truly Torah-based society.

Rome grew as the new world power and it was in the year 63 BC that the legions under Pompey entered Israel. Jagersma's account of Pompey's arrival (History of Israel to Bar Kochba, SCM Press 1985, p98) reads:

Bust of General Pompey[While] the Roman general Pompey was busy with his successful campaign in Asia (66-62 BC); one of his generals, Scaurus, had captured Damascus for him in 65 BC. Soon after that he turned his attention to Judaea. At about that time delegations came from both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus [two rival Hasmonean princes] to ask for his help. Both offered him gifts. On this occasion the Romans opted for Aristobulus.

In 63 BC Pompey himself arrived in Damascus. There not only delegations from Aristobulus and Hyrcanus but also representatives of the people of Judaea came to him. These last asked Pompey to abolish the Hasmonaean dynasty because they wanted to be ruled by priests.

At the time of this meeting Pompey did not make any decision...Arisobulus was least happy with the delay. He...established himself in the fortress of Alexandrium to make his position secure. This action aroused the wrath of Pompey, who immediately invaded Judaea. Aristobulus quickly surrendered, but most of his supporters refused.

Pompey then went back to Jerusalem and besieged the city. Hyrcanus and his followers opened the gates to the Romans, who were then able to occupy the city and the royal palace. However, a group of the supporters of Aristobulus, who had already been taken prisoner, occupied the temple. Only after a siege of three months did the temple fall into the hands of the Romans. To the dismay of the pious, on this occasion Pompey entered the Holy of Holies.

Pompey led Aristobulus and numerous Judaean prisoners through Rome in triumphal procession by which he celebrated his return. When they were later freed, the latter formed the beginning of a great Jewish community there.

The weak Hyrcanus II was eventually made the High Priest, and political rule was given to his powerful advisor, Antipater. Antipater's sons Phaesel and Herod (later Herod the Great) were given the task of governing Jerusalem and Galilee respectively, and the Romans gathered tax from Judaea. In 43 AD, Herod showed his allegiance to Rome by opposing an insurrection in Galilee and then opposing and undermining the Sanhedrin.

The Fall of the Temple

Jesus had made it clear that the Temple would fall:

...the days will come in which not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down. (Luke 21:6)

This prophecy came to pass in 70 AD, during the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 AD. This was the first of three major revolts by Judean Jews against the Roman Empire, brought on by religious and political tensions. It will be discussed in more detail next week). Josephus gives a graphic account of the Temple's fall:

And now two of the legions had completed their banks on the eighth day of Lous. Whereupon Titus gave orders that the battering-rams should be brought and set over against the western edifice of the inner temple; for before these were brought, the firmest of all the other engines had battered the wall for six days together without ceasing, without making any impression upon it; but the vast largeness and strong connexion of the stones was superior to that engine, and to the other battering rams also...

...and now the soldiers had already put fire to the gates, and the silver that was over them quickly carried the flames to the wood that was within it, whence it spread itself all on the sudden, and caught hold of the cloisters. Upon the Jews seeing this fire all about them, their spirits sunk, together with their bodies, and they were under such astonishment that not one of them made any haste either to defend himself or to quench the fire, but they stood mute spectators of it only...

While the holy house was on fire, everything was plundered that came to hand, and ten thousand of those that were caught were slain; nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity ; but children, and old men, and profane persons, and priests, were all slain in the same manner..." (Quoted from The Wars of the Jews)

Model of the Second Temple, destroyed in 70 AD.Temple Mount today.Jagersma summarises this sad event in Israel's history too (p144):

In early 70 Titus began the siege of Jerusalem...Titus had in all four legions and auxiliaries for this siege. The beginning of the siege fell some weeks before Passover.

The Romans began by attacking the northernmost wall. In military terms this side was always the most vulnerable part of the city to defend...three weeks later the Romans had the whole of the inner city in their hands. Meanwhile a pressing lack of food in the city made itself felt. That of course was disastrous to the morale of the defenders.

The focal point of the dispute now shifted to the temple mount with the citadel of Antonia and the upper city. When the defenders succeeded in destroying the entrenchments which the Romans threw up against the wall Titus had a stone wall put round the whole city. This was done in three days. Shortly after that the Romans were able to capture the citadel of Antonia in a night attack; it was then completely destroyed.

A great blow to the morale of the besieged was the day when the offering of the daily morning and evening sacrifice had to be stopped. From that day on the temple was only a fortress. At the cost of very severe losses Titus succeeded in gradually getting it into his hands. According to Josephus, Titus wanted to spare the temple. This does not sound very plausible, since such an action would go against the usual military practices of his time. Be this as it may, the temple went up in flames. This event is still recalled in the synagogue on 9 Av (about August). [emphases added]

After the fall of the Temple the upper city of Jerusalem was taken, the whole battle lasting five months and wreaking terrible destruction, evidence of which can still be found today. 700 young Jews were paraded in Rome. Others were put to work in mines in Egypt or sold as slaves. The triumphal march of Titus in Rome is depicted on the Arch of Titus in the city and can be seen today. He took with him the Menorah and the Table of Shewbread from the temple.

Some Jewish families fled to the fortress at Masada near the southern shores of the Dead Sea, where they were surrounded by the Roman army who gradually ascended the mountain. In the year 73 or 74 the families took a suicide pact as their capture and humiliation became certain. So ended the devastation of Israel. The Temple, and hence Israel's religious and national centre, was lost, sacrifices ceased and a new Jewish Diaspora began.Stone outline of Roman encampment, viewable from Masada.The location of the Masada fortress.

Impact on Early Christianity

The fall of the City of Jerusalem and of the Temple in 70 AD coincided with the early days of the community of disciples in Jerusalem and the spread of the Gospel to the Gentile world. The Council of Jerusalem had taken place 20 years earlier. Paul's three missionary journeys had already taken place and both he and Peter had suffered martyrdom in Rome.

The majority of the New Testament Scriptures had been written. The Christian Church was a visible body within the world of Judaism. Theological issues had arisen and the separation from the Synagogue had begun.

The destruction of the Temple contributed to this separation. In the final chapter of his book A House Divided: The Parting of the Ways between Synagogue and Church (Paulist Press, 1995), Vincent Martin writes:

The reaction to the catastrophe of 70 C.E. among Jews and Christians proved to be diametrically opposite. The Jews rejected the NEW and the Christians rejected the OLD. The Jews affirmed that salvation for Israel could be found only by upholding in its pure form the Sinaitic Covenant; the Christians proclaimed that salvation for Israel, and the Gentiles, could be found only in the eternal covenant established through the risen Jesus.

Judaism...was unique, clearly distinct from all other religious systems. Totally God-centered, it had a deeply humanistic quality emphasizing ethical and social values. It was a "classical" religion, moderate, measurable, seeking harmony with nature, bursting with love of life and joy – when not punished by the Lord.

Suddenly, the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth with its more radical aspects, the proclamation by the Twelve that the same Jesus was truly risen inaugurated the heavenly Jerusalem, and the reaching out of Saul of Tarsus toward the Gentiles, all seemed to destroy the delicate equilibrium God had built through centuries of patience and inspiration. Not only did these novelties not correspond to the actual messianic expectations of the common people, but they were changing the focus of traditional Jewish life from covenantal justice toward gratuitous love, from concern with this world toward concern with the world to come, and from nationalism toward universalism. Such new perspectives were not essentially anti-Jewish, or completely foreign to Judaism, but they were stretching Temple Judaism to its limits and even beyond its limits.

Martin goes on to distinguish out various reactions to Jesus and the early Church from within the Jewish community, and shows how the political situation at the time framed these different responses:

To understand the reaction of the Jewish people to this new teaching, we must carefully separate the reaction of the Sadducean party in control of the Temple, and indirectly of the nation, from the general reaction of the people. The colonial situation, the fear of the Romans, and the will to maintain a grip on political power, led to an unavoidable conflict at first between the religious establishment and Jesus of Nazareth, and later his Galilean disciples. As the Sadducees lost all power after the burning of the Temple, the general reaction of the Pharisees and the common people remained the most significant response. Originally it was not negative. It was rather a feeling of uncertainty concerning the imminent coming of a hoped for messianic event mixed with a deep uneasiness at experiencing cherished traditions stretched beyond acceptable limits.

It is principally Pauline evangelism which started to transform an attitude of respect, curiosity and distance into a negative reaction. The sense of self-identity and the struggle for national survival in difficult political circumstances brought forth a great fear that the dissolution of Torah Judaism into an a-temporal and universal Judaism would strike down the dividing wall carefully constructed by Ezra and would finally destroy the integrity of the nation. The leaders of the Diaspora dreaded that Paul would attract many Jews to this strange and easier kind of Judaism; they were deeply offended at the manipulation of Jewish sanctities by uncircumcised Gentiles. This time it was not a matter of systematic doubt or suspended judgment but of a religious injury that needed an antagonistic answer. (ibid, p178-179, emphases added)

For Study and Prayer:

What should a Christian's attitude be to the dispersion of the Jews over nearly 2,000 years - and to the restoration of Israel today?

Next time: The Jewish Revolts