Christian Zionists like John Hagee

Remove all ads!

What struck me as the most peculiar and at the same time illustrative political utterance from the US last week was father John Hagee's sermon about Adolf Hitler. John Hagee is an evangelical leader, and head of Christians United for Israel, a group that proclaims it's steadfast support for Israel. What he said basically amounted to Adolf Hitler having fulfilled God's will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy, and that for that the Jews have no one to blame but themselves because they have angered god some two or three millennia ago.

Now, now - before everybody jumps up and starts rambling about the obvious, that Hagee is a nutter, that his comment was ghoulish, that now you know why you're atheist, or that it comes from a apparently suspiciously liberal site - we had that before - so what about pausing and putting things into context?

As for liberal site, that of course was a pun that I couldn't resist (as usual I am succumbing to the temptation to try to catch two flies with one stroke, bloating my post, alas). We have the source, and it's most probable motive, kicking McCain in the balls. Then there is the information itself, and we're in the lucky situation of having first hand info, an audio recording, that is totally independent of the site that found and then hosted it.

What this little sound bite shows up is the simple yet often neglected point behind the support of Christian fundamentalists like Hagee for Israel. When they do proclaim support for Israel, they don't do it out of love for the Jews. It is because the Jews are instrumental in bringing forth the prophecy according to their literal reading of their favoured translation of the Bible. The Jews got to have their Israel, rebuild their temple, so that Jesus can return, eventually, and the Jews will all die so the Christians can go to heaven. That's in my reading not exactly 'semitophile'. To Hagee the Jews and their inevitable death are a stepping stone on his way up the stairway to heaven. He wants them to live so they can die.

What this culminates into is that American Christian Zionists are supporting the radical fringe and Likud in Israel, and are successfully lobbying for their hard line politics in the US, the latter readily accepting their support because it is support after all, nevermind the ulterior motives (as for that Irvin Krystol's illustrative quote: 'It is their theology; but it is our Israel'). The (imo profound) effect this has on US politics goes beyond the scope of a first post.

For everyone who is interested, I recommend two books:

• Gershom Goremberg - The End of Days - Fundamentalism and the struggle for the temple mount.
• Stephen Sizer - Christian Zionism - Road-map to Armageddon? (from a Christian theologian's perspective)

Which of course both can be ordered through SP's link to your favourite online bookstore.

 

Just to note it here as well: McCain declined Hagee's support over that sermon - which, btw, appears to be quite old. So far it seems only Hillary hasn't gotten in trouble from her spiritual aides - though she's doing just fine finding trouble in other ways, thank you very much.

 

Indeed, it appears as if the 'kicking McCain in the balls' part was an unmitigated success.

 

I would agree that many fundamentalist Christians have a truly nasty anti-Semitic core. However, my theology preaches a love of all people while stating that God will punish those who have sinned against him. Note that God will do this punishing and does not ask us to do it -- Christ's commandment that overrides all other is "love one another" in my book.

Now interestingly enough, in Isaiah (I probably spelled that wrong) and other Old Testament writings, one reading of the texts says that the Babylonians and the Assyrians were God's tools in rebuking Israel for her transgressions. It does not say that God inspired those countries to brutalize, but that he permitted them to do so by withdrawing his protection from Israel. Later prophecies indicate that God will smite the Babylonians and Assyrians for their evil actions.

That said, based on what little I heard of what Hagee said, perhaps he is trying to speak in the same manner as the Old Testament prophets. If so, he's still an idiot, because anything that even smacks of supporting or excusing Hitler is utter and complete nonsense and spells political suicide for the fool uttering it.

 

The theological concept of God's use of evil to accomplish good is an interesting item, and one that is frequently misunderstood, both by outsiders and believers. There are christians who blame the Jews for executing Christ, and rightly so in a strictly literal sense, but they fail to see that it was Christ who personally allowed this, who even instigated it. This theology is inherrant in the Bible's statement that all things work for the good of those who serve the Lord, in order to bring them closer to Him, yet that hardly makes it easy or simple.

I can see the idea that Hitler was being used to fulfill God's will of a new Israel, but that hardly excuses Hitler. In the passage of Isaiah that LKD is referencing (and you spelled it just fine, btw), Nebuchadnezzar is specifically said to be annointed by God, and that God placed His sword in Nebuchadnezzar's hand, yet the Babylonians are punished not for conquering Israel, but for stepping beyond those bounds, for disrespecting God in it despite clear evidence of His presence (which is given in some detail in the book of Daniel). Perhaps Hitler was in a similar position, allowed to do the job of bringing about a new Israel, but going about it the entirely wrong way and going way too far.

Regardless of what God's intentions for our actions are, we are still responsible for what we choose to do. God uses adversity to achieve a lasting good, but that doesn't excuse the perpetrators of the adversity. I haven't read Hagee's entire message, but what I have read makes me think he merely did a poor job of showing that. I could be wrong, though.

LKD, I would like to know your definition of 'fundamentalist' Christians, because there are those that take the Bible and it's message seriously and are called fundamentalists, and there are those nutters that re-write it, ignore it, and twist it to fit their ideologies of hate, and are called fundamentalists.

 

This is theologically inaccurate. It only promised that God would return the Jews to their homeland. This was fulfilled by the establishment of Israel. It was prophecied that they would suffer, and that this return would be their deliverance from the evil. A prophecy is only something forseen, not planned out. I believe that Hittler was not doing the will of the Lord, but rather delivering the forseen suffering and iniquity.

Again, this is prophecied. It is not necessarily what God requires but rather what has been shown to His chosen prophets. What you suggest is that they believe that they have their part to play in this. I beleive that these things are forordained to occur and that we should take these signs as warning to prepare ourselve for the further crap that will happen.

 

@Ragusa:

Sorry I missed responding to this earlier, but again there are those nutters who are called 'fundamentalists' and twist the Word to suit their own hate, and do this exactly. There are also a lot of us 'fundamentalists' (I do consider myself fairly fundamental in my beliefs) who genuinely do not. In my book, the Jews were first and still are God's chosen people. Many may turn from Him, and they will be punished just like any other who does so, but it is in His plan to redeem and save a great many of them. In the New Testament, it is Jesus's will that they bring His word to the Jews first, and everywhere that Paul went, he started his ministry with the Jews before moving on to the Gentiles. In the Revelation of John (the book of Revelation), there is a specific Remnant of 144,000 Jews that are saved. Now how exactly this is meant I don't know. Does that mean that all other Jews reject Christ and are damned? Does it mean most of them by that point have either been raptured or died and are thus subject to whatever judgment they have gotten, but this 144,000 is preserved alive to the end? I hope so.

 

NOG (No Other Gods),
that's why I called it "Christian fundamentalists like Hagee", or more precisely: Premillennial Dispensationalists.

For Hagee the numbers in the bible are in all likelyhood to be understood literally. For literalists there is no room for interpretation of the text. The text itself is literally the Word of God. That's why Hagee is juggling around with his confused and confusing interpretation of historical events to justify his peculiar (and IMO questionable) reading of the bible.
But he isn't just one kooky exception. In my understanding their reading of the bible made it into the mainstream with best selling books like "Left Behind" series or the "The Late Great Planet Earth" or somesuch. Iirc, but I can't back that up with a link, there are an estimated 30-40 or so million Americans who subscribe to that particular set of protestantism.

Insisting in a literal truth of the bible is what I understand as fundamentalism. Their literalism or theological (un)tenability of their belief aside, literalists are of course very religious. To make the distinction: Everything else that's 'also quite religious' but not literalist is just religious conservatism in my book. Between the two I see a great difference.

 

Ok, yes, I'm largely a fundamentalist in that case. And except for the part where the plan for the Nation of Israel are considered seperate from the plan for the Church, I'm a premillennial dispensationalists, though I had never heard of that term refer to any style of seperating the Church from the Jews.

Anyway, I'm definitely premillennial (though that's just a belief, the Bible never says one way or the other), and, with the exception of areas that are obviously alegorical or symbolic (beasts with ten horns for example), I'm a fundamentalist. I'll agree there's a great difference between this approach and other christian conservatives, but really, there aren't any more nuts on either side. Wackoism doesn't appear to take any preference on religious beliefs. It can appear in conservative, fundamental, liberal, new age, even atheism. Everything's fair game.

 

NOG (No Other Gods),
which bible is literally true? The Lutheran German translation? The previous Latin one? The ones before it? The King James Bible? The Scofield Bible? How good were the collectors and translators at their Latin, Greek, Hebrew? Did they leave some evangelists out? (Yes, they did.) What did they leave out? And why? I am aware the Bible was translated a few times, and that it, especially in the new testament was retold a few times and the versions of the evangelists iirc conflict. That suggests to me, quite strongly, a more distanced reading of the original text and should discourage literalism.

Example: Does the number 144000 mean that there is a seat limit for Jews in heaven? Does it merely mean 'very, very many'? I think it's the latter, because the number in all likelihood went beyond the imagination at the time, and was chosen accordingly.

I am with Benedict in that doubt is a powerful vessel of faith. We haven't been given our minds to believe blindly.

Which of course means, yours is yours, and if it suits you, fine.

 

...to think, I'd promised m'self I'd never get involved in these discussions again...

Speaking technically in a non-technical way, Ragusa, the Bible is inerrant only insofar as it is correctly translated from the original message and properly interpreted. So although no given translation is absolutely literal, most modern translations -- even more so than past translations -- are highly reliable because they work directly from the earliest known manuscripts. And unlike in Islam, where no translation from the original Arabic is acceptable, Christians accept that translations can still accurately communicate God's message even if they are not as 100% on-target as the original manuscripts.

As for the difference in details between the four Gospels, those are indications that the evangelists compiled their accounts separately rather than cribbing from each other's accounts, which ironically, given how much they agree, shows how little disagreement they really had.

And as for the quoted number -- 144,000 -- I doubt that it's meant literally, just as I doubt that it was "beyond the imagination of the time", as you suggest, Ragusa. Rome at this time had about a million people, so 144,000 ain't unimaginable. More likely it's just that 12 is a typical Biblical number (12 tribes, 12 apostles, etc., etc.) that shows up many times in Revelation, and 12 squared is 144, so ironically it might not even be a peculiarly Jewish number -- it might symbolize all saved people through all time from all peoples. (But I'm not a theologian; I merely speculate.)

Anyway, that's a tangent. Per your actual topic, it's clear that Hagee and many other American Christians are very confused about the relationship between Christianity, Judaism, Jewish identity, and the (highly secularized) state of Israel. But confusion about what God means for Judaists and the state of Israel doesn't make Hagee a subconscious anti-semitist, merely manipulating the Jews while hoping they all will die to fulfill some peculiar interpretation. He can be confused and still love Jewish people.

Me, I think there are plenty of legitimate political reasons to support Israel that don't have to rely on strange theological misinterpretations. But that's another topic.

 

...Haven't we all...? BTW, good to see you back on the "squabbling" threads again, GM.

 

I look at the bible in four parts.

First, there's the Divine Commandments. These are simple, straight forward, and generally easy to agree on the translation. That part is to be taken literal. Don't steal, kill, lie, worship other gods. Sure the Scribes and Pharisees added commentary and interpretation to this, and NO religious organization is immune to such hair slpitting, but the basics are set in Stone (Literally according to the record in Exodus 20 for the Ten Commandments).

Second, there si the Secular History. This is the record of the laws, wars, kings, geneologies and other things of interest. While some of this may not have translated well, I'd like to think the basics are there. There are, of course, lessons to be learned through what these people did and the results that came from their choices, but that's for Sunday School.

Third, is the Divine Wisdom. Look at Proverbs, Ecclesiates, Much of the New Testament (The Epistles of Paul especially), and there's a lot of wise council. Not Commanded, but good ideas none the less.

The fourth is Prophesy. Much of Isaiah and Revelation is in this category. I wouldn't be surprised if there are the most translation errors in these books. They are very confusing, and frankly, some of it is really hard to understand. There is a ton of symbolism in these books. These are the books that Hagee is reading out of in his ministries about the role of Israel in the last days. The 144,000 Jews bit is in the Book of Revelation too.

 

Ragusa, as has been stated, one should rely on the oldest possible. My mother-in-law is teaching herself hebrew for just this purpose, and my brother studied greek for the same. The really important bit, however, is to remember that we don't really understand a lot of this stuff yet. Therefore, on any non-critical issue, I have no problem with different people following different interpretations so long as none of them take them too absolutely.

For example, I'm pre-trib, which means I believe the Rapture of the Saints will happen pretty much as the opening event of the Tribulation. The Bible never says this. In fact, it doesn't even really hint at it too clearly, so if someone else is mid-trib (believes the rapture will happen durring the Tribulation, usually in the middle), I have no problem with them, and I won't say they are an evil blasphemer who is perverting the word of God. I say, I think X, you think Y, and we'll both find out when we get there.

So long as they believe that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, who is the ressurected incarnation of God, I think we're on the same page, and I know we're at least reading from the same book.