American Evangelical Movement’s Atitude toward Israeli Territorial Compromises

 During the last century, many American evangelicals developed a very supportive attitude toward the State of Israel. For them, the success of Zionism, the territorial expansions of 1967, and, especially, the capture of the Temple Mount, were understood as a sign of the imminent return of Christ. Therefore, would Israeli withdrawals from territories caputered in the war produce a religious dilemma to that movement?

In the United States in the mid-twentieth century, evangelism emerged from the fundamentalist controversy. The fundamentalists condemned the modernists for denying fundamental Christian beliefs and for rejecting the Christian faith. The debate was about the level of acceptance of modern scientific discoveries and the level of acceptance of academic biblical criticism.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the evangelical movement greatly expanded. In 1979, Evangelicals emerged as a considerable force in American political life with the formation of the Moral Majority. This coalition of conservative forces, led by Jerry Falwell, benefited from his television ministry. Currently, Evangelical Christianity is the largest of all religious movements in the United States. [i]

The interest that fundamentalist and evangelist Protestants exhibit in Jews and in the concept of the return to Zion, as well as their support of modern-day Zionism, is deeply rooted in Christian millenarian beliefs regarding the second coming of Christ and the establishment of a thousand-year kingdom of God on earth.

From the mid-nineteenth century, messianic concepts began to penetrate Protestant denominations in the United States; by the end of the century, millenarianism had taken root among the more fundamentalist groupings of American Protestantism. A major school of thought in Fundametalism is Dispensationalism, which maintains that events connected with the End Times have not yet begun, but they are imminant.  

American fundamentalists put major emphasis on Biblical prophecy analysis and they look for clues in contemporary events to support their theory that the end of days draw near. the creation of the state of Israel plays a major role in their end-time scenario, and especcially Israeli expension to its biblical borders and the conquering of the Temple Mount. Therefore, it would be interesting to examine their attitude to “Land for Peace” solutions which might include a compromise in the Temple Mount. Would they oppose a political solution?

In order to answer these questions, this lecture will discuss the teachings of Hal Lindsey, a major evangelical pastor. He leads a megachurche, and he masters the media with his own radio, internet, and television shows.

 

Lindsey was born in 1929 in Houston, Texas, served in the Korea War, and acquired his religious education at the Theological Seminary in Dallas. In 1969, he wrote his best-known book, The Late Great Planet Earth, which sold over 15 million copies and transformed its author into an important and central figure.

I have chosen to focus on the Lindsey’s thought because of the extensive attention he devotes in his works to the Jewish question and the role of the State of Israel for contemporary Christianity. Lindsey can certainly be considered one of the most prominent advocates of Christian Zionism.

This lecture focuses on two essays written by Lindsey written in different times and analyzes the narrative they present regarding his attitude toward the Jews and the State of Israel. We begin with Lindsey’s most famous book. The Late Great Planet hearth from 1969.

In his book Lindsey attaches unique importance to the establishment of the State of Israel and the conquest of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount in the Six Day War (1967). He views the survival of the Jewish people as an exceptional phenomenon, particularly given their history of persecution and distress. He believes that the renewal of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel is an event predicted in the Biblical prophecies, and forms part of the realization of the messianic vision of Christ’s return and the end of history. The renewal of Jewish nationhood and the conquest of Jerusalem should lead to the building of the Temple on its historical site on the Temple Mount. These events must occur before Christ returns to establish his eternal kingdom and to convert the Jews.

Lindsey is aware of the presence of the Muslim mosque on the site of the ancient Temple, and recognizes that this mosque is of great importance to Islam. His response is vague: “Obstacle or no obstacle, it is certain that the Temple will be rebuilt. Prophecy demands it.”

According to Lindsey, the sacrifices must be reinstated in the Temple. At the same time, a prince will emerge in Rome and form a peaceful alliance with the Jews; he will become the leader of the Western world. This leader must then break the alliance and desecrate the Temple, an event that precedes the countdown of seven years of Great Tribulations preceding the return of the King Messiah. Interestingly, the role of the antichrist in Lindsey’s description is not filled by the Jew, as is customary in early dispensationalist literature.

Lindsey predicts the conflict in the Middle East will continue to deteriorate until it threatens the entire world. He claims that international forces are already beginning to prepare for a world war. After the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, a world war will erupt as prophesied by the Book or Revelation. Forces from across the world will attack the State of Israel. These forces will meet in Armageddon – the Valley of Megiddo – for a war that will reach the gates of Jerusalem. This is the final apocalyptic war, leading to the End of Days.

Just as humanity realizes that it is facing extinction because of the war, Jesus will appear to save it from self-destruction. When he returns, he will rule the world, and a period of 1,000 years will ensue, after which a further rebellion against his leadership will be crushed. Thereafter, Lindsey conclues, human history will change and there will no longer be such a concept as humanity without faith (secularism).

We see that the narrative of this book reflects the function of the establishment of the State of Israel as a catalyst for messianic expectations. The most significant event in this respect is the outcome of the 1967 War and the return of Jerusalem to Jewish rule. Lindsey’s literal interpretation of the Biblical prophecies regarding the End of Days led him to anticipate apocalyptic events in Jerusalem, including the rebuilding of the Temple on its original site. Some of his preditictions in the book went unmet, mostly his forcast that Jesus would return by 1988. It gave a strong blow to his reputation.

In 1994 he published another book, Will Mankind survive, where he revised his theories. In that book, Lindsey painted a highly pessimistic picture of the current generation. The American nation is in a state of decline, with a war of values that threatens to undermine America and the rule of law. Examples of this process, he claims, including the deterioration of public education, the granting of rights to gays and lesbians, and antireligious indoctrination in educational curricula.

Lindsey identifies multiple signs of the impending End: Natural disasters such as earthquakes; the spread of diseases such as AIDS; the global depression; the new world order and the rise of global governments such as the European Union, which was emerging at the time; and, also visits to earth by creatures from outer space, whom he identifies as demons exiled from heaven. According to the statement in Scriptures, before the believers are raptured up to heaven, evil will be expelled.

 Lindsey’s study of the Book of Daniel convinced him that the conquest of Jerusalem in 1967 may be of greater prophetic significance than the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948.

From his eschatological forecasts, Lindsey moves on to the question of land for peace. He presents collected data describing the process of armament of the Arab states, and notes that despite the objective dangers, Israel agreed to forego territory in the Gaza Strip and Jericho, and is discussing the return of additional territory.

Lindsey argues that although God protects Israel, the leaders of the country should still be concerned about the future. Apart from the fact that Israeli is a small island in a sea of hostility, a study of the Biblical prophecies shows that an apocalyptic war will soon erupt before the return of the redeemer.

After nuclear bombs were used against Japan, Lindsey claims it may be assumed that the mass annihilation described in the Scriptures was a prelude to the redemption of the world and will come in the form of a nuclear war. Unconventional weapons are now held by countries he describes as “insane,” such as Libya, Iraq, and North Korea.

During the Yom Kippur (1973) War, Lindsey notes that Israel was caught unaware and almost defeated on the battlefield. At the time, Israel began to threaten “Operation Samson,” which was the use of atomic weapons that would destroy the Arab nations, yet at the same time also destroy Israel. Lindsey concludes that a nuclear scenario is not unreasonable.

“Land for peace” is an international slogan that led Israel to relinquish territory to Yasser Arafat, its mortal enemy, According to Lindsey. However, Israel needs these territories as a buffer zone enhancing its security and enabling it to overcome its numerical inferiority. Accordingly, he concluded that any return of territory constitutes an existential threat to the State of Israel if it is attacked by the Arab armies. In this case, the “Samson scenario” will become very real. Does the world want Israel to rely solely on its nuclear strength? This, Lindsey argues, is the apparent conclusion being drawn in the Middle East. Lindsey opposes such a development and warns against it.

If, Lindsey argues, after making territorial concessions, Israel is subjected to an attack by the Arab armies with their numerical advantage in war – including the use of tanks, artillery, and surface-to-surface missiles – it will have only one option: a nuclear offensive. Accordingly, Israel faces a choice: to launch a preemptive strike and face global condemnation or to wait for the Arab attack and respond with nuclear weapons in order to survive.

According to Lindsey, the Biblical prophecies predict an apocalyptic war, and in the nuclear era annihilation by means of unconventional weapons is a real possibility. From this perspective, an imminent nuclear war in the Middle East is a rational scenario. His analysis leads to a demand to awake and take action to prevent this pessimistic scenario.

An analysis of Lindsey’s theological approach raises a paradox. On the one hand, he anticipates a nuclear holocaust as a prelude to the return of Christ, an event for which he longs. On the other hand, he believes that the weakening of Israel through political agreements will lead to a nuclear war, because he does not believe that the Arab side desires peace, and the entire process is merely a tactical move designed to weaken Israel and facilitate its downfall. Accordingly, he argues, “land for peace” is a certain recipe for a nuclear war in the Middle East – the very war he eagerly awaits. Yet rather than aspiring to such a scenario, he opposes further Israeli withdrawals in order to hamper its realization. His position entails an inherent contradiction; he might rather have been expected to encourage war and chaos in the Middle East, as a key interest of those who desire the immediate return of Jesus, or, at the very least, to adopt a passive position regarding such a possibility.

Therefore, a question arises as to why Lindsey advocates an approach that seems contrary to his own interests. The answer lies in the Divine promise that those who are concerned for the well-being of the Jews will be blessed - “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you” (Genesis 12:2–3). For Lindsey, the blessing he enjoys by promoting the well-being of the Jews is apparently more important than the theoretical possibility that his redeemer will return through a bloody war in the Middle East, a possibility he seeks to prevent.

In his first book, Lindsey emphasized the importance of the Temple Mount in the realization of the Biblical prophecies. He returns to this theme in his book from 1994, albeit with some nuanced changes. Now, however, he quotes more moderate elements, such as Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, who claim that the ascension of the Temple Mount should be the product of a process of popular spiritual uplifting, rather than the product of an act of violence such as blowing up the mosques on the site.

According to Lindsey, the End of Days events include the interruption of the rituals on the Temple Mount by the antichrist. As such, these rituals must first be resumed and a functional priesthood reinstated. However, these comments do not constitute support for active steps by individuals, and certainly not in a violent manner. Lindsey claims that a way must be found to rebuild the Temple without destroying the mosques on the Temple Mount, and without fueling religious tensions and wars. He even uses the term “fanatics” to describe those who attempted to blow up the mosques, such as the members of the Jewish Underground. He argues that the problem can only be resolved in a miraculous manner through Divine intervention.

The importance of Jerusalem to Lindsey is that he believes the city will be the arena for the events of the End of Days. Accordingly, in 1967, securing Jewish control of the city was a more important event than the establishment of the State of Israel in terms of the realization of the Biblical prophecies. This also explains why the city is the focus of international attention.

The issue of the Temple Mount illustrates Lindsey’s desire to avoid encouraging active steps to expedite the End of Days. He realizes that any attack against the mosques on the Temple Mount could lead to war and danger, and he clearly seeks to avoid such a possibility. Once again, we see a paradox, whereby he warns against any exacerbation of relations between Jews and Arabs, despite the fact that he views this development as an integral part of the End of Days. The question of the Temple Mount is arguably the most volatile issue in the relations between Israel and the Arab states, and the only remaining sign of the imminent return of Christ yet to appear. However, Lindsey considers it vital that Jerusalem and the Temple Mount remain under Jewish sovereignty, so that any territorial compromise in this area can be expected to arouse hostility and anger on his part.

In summarizing Lindsey’s theological approach, we can see that the Jewish resurgence in the Land of Israel is perceived as a tangible catalyst marking our period as that before the End of Days. The attempt to interpret the Biblical prophecies in a manner that suggests imminent redemption is the product of the Jewish success. Although Lindsey believes that these signs can be interpreted as the harbingers of imminent salvation, he does not believe this should lead to activism or to efforts to expedite the end. On political questions, Lindsey tends to prefer the passive approach.

Some substantial paradoxes may be seen in Lindsey’s approach. On the one hand, he anticipates that the Savior will return as the result of a nuclear war in the Middle East, yet on the other he is alarmed by the possibility of deterioration and escalation. He argues that returning territory to Muslim ownership as part of the political process is dangerous for Israel, because it will be obliged to use atomic weapons when the Arab plot is revealed; therefore, he opposes such compromises. He claims that the establishment of the Temple is the final stage that has yet to occur in the events preceding redemption, yet he opposes any activist steps in this respect. He regrets the decline of America and attempts to fight against this trend, yet he is aware that the Biblical prophecies relating to the End of Days leave America out of the picture.

Lindsey’s opposition to “land for peace” is the product of a political calculation, not a theological attachment to the Whole Land of Israel. This is not an absolute precondition from his perspective. The exception to this is the question of the status of Jerusalem. On this matter, according to his desired scenario, a number of events must occur on the Temple Mount and in the Third Temple that is due to be established. Accordingly, the Temple Mount and Jerusalem must remain under Jewish control.

In principle, Lindsey is not opposed to giving up land. However, he does not believe the Palestinians and believes that their apparent moderation is merely tactical, rather than strategic. He is concerned that compromises will weaken Israel and enable its enemies to act from within. However, he does not have any theological opposition to compromise. The question of the final status of Jerusalem, on the other hand, is certainly a substantive one. As such, on this matter no compromise seems possible, because key End of Days events must erupt on the Temple Mount and in Jerusalem under Jewish control.

To sum, the evangelist stream, which was represented here by the approch of Hal Lindsey, does not show substantive opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state, provided this does not jeopardize the State of Israel. They show a flexible approach to the “land for peace” approach. However, for Chrisitan Zionists, Jerusalem consists a red line; on other topics they are more flexiable.

---

^[i] According to Religious and Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, based on interviews with more than 35,000 American adults, 26.3 percent of U.S. adults belong to an evangelical church. http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations