The Vatican responded to this problem by downplaying its significance. The State of Israel, it argued, was actually something entirely secular, part of the ever-changing political situation in the Middle East. A handful of Jews wrested control over a piece of land (as it happens, a consecrated piece of land), and they continue to control it only through force of arms. These events had nothing to do with divine will or election, and therefore had no theological significance.⁴ Though the Catholic Church is well-practiced in this sort of improvisation, the very need for an ex post facto explanation attests to the difficulties the establishment of Israel caused. Nor does the decision by both Vatican and Israeli authorities to ignore the theological dimensions of the problem, at least in public, make them disappear. Indeed, the theological challenge posed by the Jewish state continues to be felt today in the Catholic Church and in much of the Christian world.

 

The Vatican’s difficulty in accepting Jewish sovereignty continues to influence the West’s attitude to Israel, particularly in heavily Catholic countries such as those in Latin America and Europe. According to Catholicism, the world was redeemed with the suffering of Jesus, and has remained since then in a beneficent state. The Church, Jesus’ earthly heir, will continue his project of redemption until the end of days. The Church and its leaders represent an unchanging reality; the authority of the pope and cardinals is timeless. Therefore, every change in the world constitutes a potential challenge to that authority. As a result, the Church seeks to preserve the theological status quo, and to integrate every major event into its pre-formulated interpretation of history.

But there is another, contradictory movement in Christianity, one sustained by apocryphal, millenarian visions. According to this movement, the reality in which people have lived since the death of Jesus is essentially temporary. It is soon to be replaced by the final redemption of the Second Coming, when Jesus will return to the world and establish the kingdom of heaven on earth.⁵ This “messianic movement”—messianic in the Jewish sense of the word—naturally runs counter to Catholicism, as it challenges the permanence of the Vatican’s institutions. Catholicism has thus always viewed messianic Christians as rebels and heretics, yet within the less regimented world of Protestantism they were given freer rein. These Christians are active today under the aegis of what is sometimes called “Protestant Evangelicalism.” They are particularly powerful in the United States, where they comprise numerous sects that are eagerly anticipating and preparing for the end of days.

For many of these groups, Israel’s establishment is less a theological conundrum than a good omen, a sign that redemption is near. For proof they point to a number of statements in medieval and early-modern Christian apocalyptic literature, according to which the ingathering of Jewish exiles in the land of Israel is one of the signs of the redemption.⁶ For once assembled, the literature goes on to say, the Jews will do penance for their refusal to recognize Jesus, and will ultimately accept Christianity. The Jews will see the error of their ways, thereby enabling the advent of the kingdom of heaven on earth.⁷

Not surprisingly, a great many Evangelicals have, over the years, become enthusiastic supporters of Israel, mourning its losses and celebrating its victories. They view Israel’s enemies as the emissaries of Satan, and the strengthening of the state as yet another step towards fulfillment of the millennial vision. Evangelicals wield considerable political influence in the United States; quite a few have attained elected office, often adopting a more hawkish line on the Middle East than most of their counterparts on the Israeli Right.

Of course, one of the great obstacles to stronger relations between Israelis and Evangelicals is the matter of Jewish conversion. The Jewish sensitivity to Christian proselytizing has led many Evangelicals to conceal this basic element of their faith and sometimes even to deny it, and to insist that the Jewish state is of purely political or cultural significance.⁸ At the same time, Israelis who benefit from their support have, in effect, been playing along with the ruse, for otherwise no relationship would be possible. Both sides, then, have an interest in being less than forthright about the particulars of Christian theology.

Clearly, however, for Evangelicals no less than for Catholics, Israel is first and foremost a theological phenomenon, even if political realities make it necessary to downplay this fact. Yet the Evangelicals, like the Catholics, also cannot accept Jewish nationhood as something permanent: Israel deserves support until the Jews convert, but this in no way constitutes a recognition of the right of Jews, as members of the covenantal Jewish people, to a sovereign state.

Jewish immigration to Israel in the past generation has further strengthened the Evangelicals’ millennial belief. At the current rate, the majority of the Jewish people will soon be living in Israel. From the Christian perspective, this is nothing less than an apocalyptic drama unfolding outside the realm of normal history. In contrast, many Israelis prefer to view Jewish immigration to their country as no different from immigration to the United States or Canada—that is, as something possessing demographic, political, and economic implications, but nothing more. Nevertheless, we should not be surprised if others see the phenomenon of aliya in a different light.

Over the course of the last generation, Israelis have increasingly become desensitized to the theological significance of the Jewish ingathering. Their focus is mainly on the difficulties involved in absorbing Ethiopian and Russian immigrants, and on whether immigration can preserve Israel’s Jewish majority in the long run. In contrast, Israel’s enemies see Jewish immigration as a form of colonialism, claiming that the state should be eliminated as part of the overall process of dismembering empires and transferring power to indigenous peoples. When Israel’s Christian supporters respond that Zionism is not colonialism, but rather the fulfillment of a biblical vision, they are in effect denying the secular character of the state, since no other country in the world was established on the basis of an ingathering of exiles. Thus, any attempt to justify Israel on these grounds is an essentially religious statement.⁹ Whereas Israelis, particularly secular ones, see no contradiction between Israel’s Law of Return and its status as a “normal” nation state, it is easy to see how the outside observer could attribute great religious significance to the ingathering of the exiles.

In sum, Christian theology is inherently incapable of recognizing the Jewish people’s right to a sovereign state—unless, that is, the Jews convert en masse to Christianity. It is inconceivable that the Vatican would ever recognize the State of Israel as a Jewish state, since doing so would rob Catholicism of its most important proof: That divine election was withdrawn from the Jews and transferred to the Church. While perhaps only a small portion of the Christian world is aware of the magnitude of this problem, a great many Christians, particularly in Europe, assume that there is an inherent tension between Judaism and sovereignty. While they see it as a given that other peoples have a right to national sovereignty, they continue to treat the existence of the Jewish state as something contingent, which must be continually justified. Similarly, criticism leveled at other states is directed towards their policies and their leadership; criticism leveled at Israel casts doubt on its very right to exist.

This is not necessarily anti-Semitism, at least not in the traditional sense. Rather, it is a visceral reaction to the notion of Jewish political equality and the Jewish right to sovereignty. As Christian theology demonstrates, the Jews need not be hated or rejected for their right to sovereignty to be denied. While this kind of prejudice is certainly milder than traditional anti-Semitism, which often resorts to violence, its very mildness also makes it harder to identify and to overcome.

A sense of guilt over the Holocaust is also a factor in Christian attitudes towards Jews and the State of Israel. When Christians accuse Israel of Nazi-like behavior towards the Palestinians, they are not simply saying that Israel’s policies are wrong; they are assuaging their feelings of guilt. As they see it, the Jews were granted sovereignty in response to their suffering in the Holocaust, but if they act like Nazis, they forfeit this right. Sovereignty is then transferred naturally to their victims, and the Jews revert to their “normal,” exilic status.