Anti-Semitism: A Sign of the End

Anti-Semitism is the motivating factor of the Antichrist, as it is for all of those who counterfeit or simply cannot accept the simple Gospel of the Lord. Jesus Christ, the Messiah of the Jews said, “If you’re not for me, you’re against me,” and the Antichrist is certainly first among those who are against Him, and His people, at the end. It is amazing that just a generation after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is obvious again in the world today. In the United States and elsewhere, the Jews, for reasons hard to understand, are despised with a special derision. From American country clubs to Swiss banks to Oriental imaginings of Jewish-caused economic problems, hatred of Israel and the Jewish people is a normal state of affairs in this world. And increasing anti-Semitism is a true symptom of the end of the age.

Anti-Semitism has a long history, much of it chronicled in scripture. Moses’ pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus and Titus received scriptural credit, or were prophesied in scripture, but hatred of the Jews did not let up after Biblical times. The coming of the Moslems in the seventh century A.D. was the beginning of a perennial prejudice against Israel as virulent today as it ever was. The Crusades, the Inquisition and general discrimination against Jewish communities throughout Europe and Russia kept the chosen people moving from place to place in hope of respite. Finally in the United States, and seemingly only there, did the soles of their feet find rest and there they prospered.

But even in America, anti-Semitism has been a latent, but effective, force against God’s Chosen. We could take for granted a certain amount of anti-Jewishness in the church, particularly in the “liberal” churches. It was these very denominations who punished the Jews in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. One does not normally find aversion to the Jews among Bible-reading people, but occasionally the biases of the denominations seem to infect the true believers. And even some Biblical seminaries and colleges are going awry.

Because of a situation concerning my own son, I had to take action against a certain textbook at a Bible college recently. I told the story in a letter from our ministry and I will quote from that here. “… of making many books there is no end” (Ecc. 12:12). That would be fine with me if they were all good books. But sometimes I run into something really discouraging. One of our ministry’s most tedious duties is responding to churches, seminaries and the like to correct their anti-Israel and anti-Jewish biases. When my son Aaron went to a Christian high school, a teacher said one day that Christianity did not start in Israel, but actually in Greece. I ended up sitting in the principal’s office, having to inform a so-called Bible teacher that thousands of people were saved in Israel at Pentecost, in Antioch, in Ephesus, etc., before the Gospel took real root in Greece. I informed him that Jesus Christ is Jewish. So were all of His disciples and all of His apostles. I explained that all of the New Testament writers were Jews and that Christianity is part and parcel of Judaism. I reminded him that Jesus came to this earth and declared to His disciples, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5,6).

I was discouraged that this teacher, in a denominational school, had so little comprehension of Scripture. Most of the large denominations put the Bible away long ago and are almost unaware of the roots of their faith. I was relieved when Aaron graduated and went on to Dallas Baptist University, and then to The Criswell College to take up serious Bible studies. But lately I have been very disappointed. A perfectly awful textbook called A Survey of the New Testament, by Robert H. Gundry, is in use at both colleges. It is the most anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and Biblically wrong-headed textbook I personally have ever seen. I used to teach at Dallas Baptist University, and I realized then the sober responsibility of those who would train future pastors and other ministry workers. I would not have had such a book in the same building with my students.

Let me give you a few quotations:

• Trying to leave out the Jews, the author asserts, “‘And they glorified the God of Israel’ (Matthew 15:31), shows that the 4,000 whom Jesus now feeds are Gentiles.”This preposterous idea on the part of the one who said, “I am come only unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24) is followed by a vain attempt to create a non-Jewish following of Jesus. The author goes on, “Together then, with the preceding Gentile woman and, earlier, the centurion and the Magi, they represent the great mass of Gentiles who are flocking into the church of Matthew’s time.” Naturally, there was no Church in Matthew’s time, nor any “great mass of Gentiles” saved in the Gospels, though they are to come in considerable numbers later on.
• The author subscribes to Replacement Theology: “Matthew writes his Gospel for the Church as the new chosen nation, which at least for the time being has replaced the old chosen nation of Israel.”
• “Luke was probably a Gentile … his name is Greek. His facility in using the Greek language also suggests that he was a Gentile ….” The same things were true of Paul, certainly a Jew and a “Pharisee of Pharisees.” Other inane arguments on the point are contradicted by our excellent study by Dr. McCall entitled “Was Luke a Gentile?” which appears in the March 1996 issue of the Levitt Letter. You can read it on our website at www.levitt.com.
• When Peter converts Cornelius, he has to “defend himself against parochially minded Jewish believers in Jerusalem who criticize his going to the Gentiles.” Naturally, these Jewish believers were questioning of Peter because they had never seen Gentile salvation before. Evidently, they missed author Gundry’s 4,000 Gentiles fed, followed by “the great mass of Gentiles flocking into the Church of Matthew’s time.” I could go on and on. This is a book a competent Bible teacher can open almost anywhere and want to laugh, or cry, out loud. Truly the author has an agenda to promote an anti-Israel Replacement Theology doctrine, and he utterly misunderstands the mission of Jesus Christ, who came, as He said, to bring the Kingdom to Israel. If secular colleges are bothered by PC (political correctness), the Bible colleges need to watch out for PD (Progressive Dispensationalism), the awful doctrine behind these distortions.

This must be the first book on the New Testament whose index does not even mention Israel. The book refers to the land as Palestine, has a map called “Palestine in the Time of Jesus” (as does the new MacArthur Study Bible), and calls Peter, John, etc., Jesus’ “Palestinian disciples.” I can’t say it strongly enough: this textbook is a travesty. I am amazed that any believing Christian anywhere would try to defend it.

When Aaron originally came to me, troubled about what he was hearing in class and reading in this textbook, I consulted Dr. Tom McCall, senior theologian of our ministry, and asked what to do. Aaron had selected 49 different passages that were unacceptable, even to a 19-year old freshman Bible student. Dr. McCall, an ordained Baptist minister and theologian of great experience and skill, counseled me to schedule a meeting with the college administration. We discussed the fact that these two colleges were not unique. Dr. McCall mentioned other conservative seminaries, including Moody Bible College and Dallas Theological Seminary, whose doctrines concerning Israel seem to be subject to Progressive Dispensationalism. I would appeal to our readers and viewers to ask questions at their own Bible schools about such doctrines as amillennialism, Progressive Dispensationalism, and all the other fancy “isms” for cutting Israel and the Jews out of faith in the Jewish Messiah. The problems seem endemic. Of course, the liberal seminaries, the public media, and certain Christian magazines are a lost cause on this issue. They have long ago written off the family of our Lord.

But back to The Criswell College. Aaron and I met with the President and the Executive Vice President, and we discussed his 49 points. We were treated courteously and both administrators substantially agreed with all of our complaints. They seemed disappointed and taken aback that such a textbook had gotten into their college. They knew the author’s doctrine was suspect, they admitted. They told me they would correct the situation in good time. Two months later, I was obliged to write and ask if anything was being done. And nearly six months later, I finally received a letter defending the textbook — even defending the use of the term Palestine for the Israel of Jesus’ time! (Zola Levitt Ministries letter, June 1998)

It was a long battle just to get the attention of these college administrators, notwithstanding that I had made my original complaint six months previously. I was confronted with a situation where I turned to my own readers in desperation. The above letter was received at the beginning of June at The Criswell College but was ignored. Later in June, Dr. McCall wrote a heartfelt letter to the president of Criswell. That one received an answer some two months after it was written and after we had reported this college to every relevant authority we could think of. But the story has a relatively happy ending. In a long letter that again defended the textbook and the author, President C. Richard Wells finally stated the following:

“On the other hand, it is unquestionably true that Gundry’s eschatology differs from that which is stated in the Articles of Faith of The Criswell College. Of course, as you would know from your own experience in theological higher education, the use of a text does not imply that either the professor or the institution agrees with everything in the text. Still, in such cases, we (speaking of this institution) are duty bound to make clear where and how a text differs from our doctrinal position.

“For some weeks, I have reflected on and prayed over your objections to our use of the Gundry text, all in light of our obligation to teach faithfully. My judgement is that, while it seems best not simply to forbid outright any use whatsoever of the Gundry book, if a professor has good reason for doing so, we should at the same time instruct faculty to make clear where Gundry’s text differs from the doctrinal statement of The Criswell College.

“As a practical matter, however, these strictures hardly appear necessary. As Dr. Cooper indicated, the Gundry text was not used at all in the spring semester. This fall, only one professor plans to use it — and then only as a supplement to his two other primary texts. (The professor is using it because of its superb chronological outline of the New Testament, but is not requiring it to be read as a main text.) At this point, we do not anticipate its use as a primary text in the future.”

At the same time, we received a rather angry letter from Zondervan Publishing House and a 2000-word defense of his textbook from author Gundry. Zondervan felt that my complaints were “reckless, unjustified, arbitrary, and groundless” and said they had received “a few letters and e-mail messages” from our viewers and readers. They were sending the Gundry defense to those folks, and they threatened me that I had to print it all if I were going to criticize it. In the end we printed most of it, along with a critique by Dr. McCall. For your edification, that interesting debate is available in our September 1998 newsletter which you can find on the web at www.levitt.com.

Our viewers nationwide began to call their local seminary and Christian college bookstores to determine which institutions were using the textbook. We will eventually publish a complete listing of those schools. There are plenty of other bad textbooks in our seminaries and plenty of other seminaries that have fallen into this sort of doctrine. I don’t need to single out the ones mentioned other than tell my personal experiences with them. As a matter of fact, our ministry made a telephone survey of evangelical seminaries and determined that this particular textbook is in use in about 50 of them nationwide. That is approximately 15% of those listed in the National Evangelical Directory. Some of the best-known names in Christian education are involved, I’m afraid. We also discovered schools that sent the book back after obtaining it from the publisher.

In view of the fact that Zondervan Publishing House claims to have printed 250,000 copies over the nearly thirty years of the textbook’s three editions, a large number of church men and women have sat under this sort of error. Almost 30 graduating classes are out there in churches and ministries evidently believing that Jews are unimportant and the church has replaced Israel.

Who Is the Antichrist?

I am getting the above question in speaking engagements more than almost any other these days. I tend to be asked to speak to Biblical churches who are reasonably well taught where prophecy is concerned. And the members of those churches have realized that the Antichrist is very likely alive and mature today. Some folks make educated guesses, but they’ve been doing that since the beginning. The various popes, Hitler, Henry Kissinger, etc. have been selected, among others, for this very special dishonor. Kissinger has been a suggestion for some 25 years, and that is because he is Jewish. People think the Antichrist is to be a Jew. This is almost universally believed in the churches, but there is just no evidence for that idea.

The scriptural sanction for this theory is Daniel 11:37. “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.” (King James Version).

It is rendered this way in a different translation. “He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.” (New International Version).

The second translation is the accurate one. The Hebrew word used for God is not Elohim, but elohai. The difference is crucial. Elohai means “gods” in the sense of idols. The verse states that the Antichrist will not worship the idols his father worshipped. The King James translators, living in particularly anti-Semitic times in England, must have fallen into temptation to use the ancient Jewish expression “God of his fathers.” This indictment of the Antichrist being Jewish has persisted for all these centuries. (The King James translators’ aversion to Judaism is obvious again in Acts 12:4 where they substitute Easter for Passover.)

The idea that the Antichrist is a Gentile is easier to support. All Biblical persecutors of the Jews were Gentiles from the pharaohs to the foreign kings to the Caesars. Also, Israel undertakes a formal covenant with the Antichrist. If he were one of their own, they probably would not have to actually sign a document. The policies of Prime Ministers Rabin, Peres or Netanyahu were accepted by their fellow Jews without the necessity of signing formal documents. But dealings with Gentile powers like the U.S., the Arabs, or the Oslo peace accords themselves were contractual matters more like the Antichrist’s upcoming covenant.

And finally, there is the lack of logic in assuming that this major anti-Semite will persecute his own people. It really is difficult to imagine a Jewish person blaspheming to the extent of claiming to be the God of Israel.

But on the matter of just who among the world’s Gentiles the Antichrist may be, I just don’t know. And that is how I answer that question in the churches.

Where Do We Stand?

There are many renditions of end times events and many educated guesses as to the motivations of the characters. Suffice it to say that the construction above fits with scriptural fact. Other factors not foreseen at this time may change some of the motivations, but I feel that this scenery fits well with what we understand now.

So where do we stand now?

Today’s society is as much on the verge of the end of the age as the newspapers say it is. That is to say, while there’s no Biblical sanction for imagining the end to be at the change of millennium, it should surprise no Bible student if it were. There are any number of factors urging this point of view, including the satisfaction of all of the Lord’s warnings in Matthew 24:4-14. The anti-Semitism, which the Anti-christ will utilize to justify his ultimate raid of Israel, and the idea that some peace covenant must be made in Israel are all in place. The analogy of a stage play with pieces of a set and certain actors being in their right places for the culmination of a play is often used, and it is very appropriate.

Around that stage, besides what I have already mentioned, are global economic problems; alliances very similar to that described by Ezekiel in his invasion of Gog and Magog; a powerful European confederacy in the offing; a rising of the king of the East to a position where he could conceivably attack the Middle East; the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; the hostility of world Islam to democracy; the apostasy of the “liberal” churches: all conspire to make it seem that the world has either gone haywire or is simply conforming to our Lord’s sad picture of the end of the age. If these are not forewarnings, then we are misunderstanding either the world situation or scripture. Any reasonable person ought to deeply consider his position with God at a time like this.

I have always personally felt that prophecy is placed in scripture not only for the edification of the saints but as a tool of witness. Surely a common-sense appeal in a world like the one we now have is justified. Sometimes when I speak in churches, I am impressed to give an invitation — not so much an emotional appeal accompanied by stirring hymns, but rather a simple “Don’t be a fool.” In view of all of the forewarnings, this is the best time we have seen so far to expect the Lord’s imminent arrival. With that in mind, make your peace with Him and reserve your place in a much finer, more peaceful, more wonderful life on Earth to come.