Is"Antisemitism" Really a Sin?
Short answer: No. Long answer: Lol, no.
Of all the accusations that can be thrown in 2020 America, one of the worst and most feared was that of “antisemite.” It wasn’t so much a description of someone, or even an accusation. It was an excommunication, operating as an anathema upon whomever it was placed. An accusation can be defended against, but the charge of “antisemite” was a pronouncement, and a pronouncement so feared and horrible that it might as well have been a curse to the bowels of hell and to an exile from polite society. It was enough to end careers, destroy reputations, and close pulpits. Those who made the accusation meant business; it meant that to whomever it was applied, you were wishing them firing, personal hardship, exile from the community, and excommunication. And what made it so terrible is that finding a defender was difficult because the cost of “defending an antisemite” was so high that even your best friend might not consider you worth the risk of doing it, even if they knew it to be wrong. Nobody wants to be known as an “antisemite defender,” so it meant that for those called that, you were probably on your own to defend yourself.
Fast forward five or six years, and “antisemite” hardly carries weight at all. Now, it’s little more than “racist.” More and more people see it as a canard rather than a concern. It’s the punchline to a societal joke. It’s becoming easier and easier to survive the accusation, and is starting to draw more laughter than gasps of bated breath. That’s not due to a rise in antisemitism. That’s due to the rise in idiots alleging it, who have used it so frequently and abused its original definition so egregiously that they’ve emptied the charge of any real meaning and weakened its use as a cudgel against Israel’s critics. The word is being taken less seriously by the day, and that is good, because it is a terribly unserious word.
When I was first called that word by the Editor of the Missouri Baptist Word and Way newspaper, I called him and asked why, because he did not bother to explain in his article why he chose to attach that label to me. I had never been accused of that before, had never criticized the nation of Israel, rarely discussed Judaism, and no one had previously alleged it. His response was forthcoming and candid. He explained that I routinely criticized George Soros’ advocacy of open borders and mass migration. George Soros, I explained, was a literal Nazi Youth who had helped his father round up Jews in the Holocaust. It doesn’t matter, he told me. If you criticize a Jew, even for things unrelated to their Jewish identity, that is antisemitism.
That’s when I first stopped to consider the real meaning of that label, why people were using it, and what it really meant. But I give him credit. Because it if you are going to call someone an “antisemite,” you should be able to define the word. At least he gave it an attempt. When Carrie Prejean Boller asked the Religious Liberty Commission to define antisemitism, considering they were condemning it and it was the topic of their meeting, they refused her an answer, removed her from the commission, and then accused her of antisemitism.
For most American Christians, antisemitism is presumed a sin. Most have never considered, even for a moment, that it might not be. They’ve never been asked what it is or how they are defining it. They might have even accused someone of that themselves, without stopping to wonder what the term really means and why it’s bad to be an antisemite. We encourage you to ask someone, when they use the term, what it means. I have. One of the most common responses is, “If you don’t know, you are one.” My follow-up, “Why is that bad?” rarely, if ever, gets a serious answer. I would suggest that there is no other term exactly like this on the planet, besides racism, where a label is presumed a sin, batted about by almost everyone, with almost no one knowing exactly what it means. The most common answer with a semblance of coherence is “Jew Hate.” But the phrases “antisemitism and Jew hate” are so often paired that it’s apparent that they are, in fact, two different things and not synonyms. People don’t list two synonyms in a row when one will do.
If you ask, “Why don’t you just say ‘Jew Hate’ then?” they will not readily have an answer, but they do know the answer. It’s not the same thing. It’s just that how antisemitism differs, they don’t know.
Try it. Ask five people who throw the term around every week for a definition, and watch them stall. They will point at a feeling. They will point at a vibe. They will point at a list that changes depending on who last edited it. What they will not do is point at a fixed standard, because there isn’t one. And a Christian has no business treating an undefined accusation as though it carries the weight of a divine verdict.
Antisemitism once referred to those who hold to Aryan Race Theory and its biological determinism: that a Jew has to behave a certain way because they are a Jew, and are ontologically bad from the womb. Few if any people, even those who have a severe contempt for Jewish people, believe that they are biologically incapable of being a good person. Today,
With the lack of good answers out there, and because Right Response exists to give right responses, we will answer the question, “What is antisemitism?” Also, “Who defines it, is the definition stable, and most importantly, is it sin?”
We are going to answer those questions directly, from Scripture, and we are going to show you exactly where the modern usage of the word goes off the rails.
SIN IS DEFINED BY GOD, NOT BY COMMITTEE
The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What is sin?” and answers, “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.” Sin is not a feeling somebody has about you. Sin is not a category invented last Tuesday by an advocacy group. Sin is transgression of God’s revealed Law.
First John 3:4 defines sin, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” That is the only definition Scripture gives us, and it is not up for renegotiation. God is immutable. His standards are immutable. God does not change. His standards do not change. The ceremonial and civil law of the Old Testament were fulfilled in Christ and served their purpose, which is why we are not required to put prostitutes to death, despite the fact that in the right context, it might be an idea worth investigating. We do not abstain from shellfish because lobster is delicious and we are set apart by the Holy Spirit governing our behavior, and not by dietary restrictions. But the moral right and wrong when Adam stepped out of the Garden is still the moral right and wrong today, and that law still endures, which you know as the Ten Commandments. These commandments, known as the Decalogue, are a framework for ten different categories of sin, comprising the full spectrum of human behavior that is unlike the nature of God and therefore sinful.
This truth is found, among many other places, in Malachi 3:6, which says, “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” Jesus said in Matthew 5:18, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” If the Moral Law of God does not change, then any legitimate definition of sin does not change either. It cannot be broadened this year and narrowed the next. It cannot gain new clauses depending on what a foreign government needs politically at the moment. Sin is fixed because God is fixed.
Keep that principle in your head as we walk through the next section, because it is the crowbar that pries this question open.
JEWS CANNOT AGREE ON IT
If antisemitism is a sin, somebody should be able to hand you a stable definition. So go to the source. Go to the ADL. Go to the American Jewish Committee. So, if we go to AIPAC, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, Yad Vashem, the official Holocaust museum in Israel itself, and read their definitions side by side, you will notice three things immediately.
First, they do not agree with one another. Second, nearly all of them fold criticism of the state of Israel, or “anti-Zionism,” into the definition somewhere. Third, every single one of these definitions is a living document, revised again and again, always trending toward broader coverage and toward how the State of Israel is facing the most criticism in the moment. The IHRA has had a “working definition” since 2008, and it has been amended, footnoted, and re-litigated repeatedly since, with new illustrative examples added or adjusted almost every time the political winds around Israel shift.
For example, in 2016, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a right-wing Israel lobby group, changed the definition of antisemitism to include those who claim that Israel doesn’t have legal ownership of the West Bank. Because a U.N. resolution rebuked Israel for allowing illegal settlements, it then accused the United Nations of committing “the worst act of antisemitism this year.” Critics noticed how self-serving that timing was. These are the people who lobby our Congress.
Think about what that means for a moment. No other sin on earth operates this way. Nobody revises the definition of adultery every few years depending on cultural mood. Nobody issues a new working definition of theft based on the needs of a particular nation’s foreign policy. Sin does not get amended. Definitions that require constant amendment are not describing an unchanging moral reality. They are describing a moving political target, and Christians should be able to spot the difference immediately.
ANTI-ZIONISM IS NOT A SIN
Since several of these official definitions include opposition to Zionism, or refusal to affirm the modern state of Israel, as a form of antisemitism, we need to settle the matter. Is anti-Zionism a sin?
No. Let’s test it against the only standard that matters, the Ten Commandments. Which one does it break? You will not find it. God does not command any believer, anywhere, to support a particular modern nation-state’s borders, government, or military policy. Geopolitics is a prudential matter, not a moral absolute. A Christian is free to hold any number of views on the nation of Israel’s founding, its government, or its conduct in war, and none of those views, by themselves, violate a single word of God’s law.
This is where the trick gets planted. Step one, get everyone to agree that hatred of Jewish people on account of their biological genetics is wicked. Step two, quietly redefine antisemitism to include anti-Zionism, usually buried inside a long list of “illustrative examples” nobody reads carefully. Step three, now anyone who criticizes an Israeli government policy inherits the moral condemnation that was only ever earned by actual Jew hatred. The word never changes. The referent underneath it does. That is equivocation, and it is one of the oldest tricks in the rhetorical playbook, dressed up this time in the language of civil rights.
WHAT ABOUT “JEW HATE”
Right Response wants to be clear. Ethnic Partiality - except for that which is demanded by the Ordo Amoris - and hatred of a person for no reason but their ethnicity, is a sin.
James 2:1 says, “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.” James 2:9 continues, “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.” Jesus Himself traced murder back to its root in Matthew 5:21 and 22. “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.”
Under those texts, unjustified hatred or contempt toward Jewish people, on nothing but their lineage, is condemned exactly the same way unjustified hatred of any ethnic group is condemned. These texts also forbid favoring the Jews for no reason but their ethnicity. This was true before the word “antisemitism” existed. Wilhelm Marr coined the term in 1879 to dress up Jew hatred in a pseudo-scientific racial costume. We want to be clear, though. “Jew Hatred” is not really its own category of sin. There’s nothing especially wrong with Jew Hatred; that isn’t wrong with Asian Hatred. That, too, is a sin if what that means is hating them for no reason but their DNA.
We reject the category of “Jew Hatred” for the same reason we reject the category of “Gun Violence.” The particulars are irrelevant. Just as gun violence isn’t categorically worse than knife violence, Jew Hatred isn’t categorically worse than Polack Hatred. That’s sneaking partiality into our hamaritology.
So do not let anyone tell you that Right Response Ministries says it’s okay to hate Jews for no legitimately righteous reason. But we will not commit the sin of partiality by turning the hatred of Jews into its own category with special contempt or punishment.
WHY REJECT THE WORD “ANTISEMITISM?”
Because the sin and the label are two different things, and collapsing them together is exactly how the trap gets sprung on well-meaning Christians. Compare this to how careful Christians already handle other modern buzzwords. For much of the same reason, we reject the claim “racism is a sin.” Racism is not a sin condemned in the Holy Bible. Partiality is the sin. Racism might lead to partiality, but the word itself is not a stable biblical category, and using it as one invites endless redefinition by people who do not share our theology. Ditto for “misogyny.” We demand a chapter and verse instead. What commandment is broken? Name it specifically, or the accusation has no weight. We will not let man stand in the place of God and declare what is and is not a sin. That is God’s place alone.
The Christian’s position is very clear. If you can’t be clear with which Commandment it violates, then you are literally making up new sins. This is condemnable. Deuteronomy 4:2 says, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." If what you are alleging is that someone hates Jews because they have an inherent bigotry against Jews because they are kin to Abraham, you’re violating the Commandments. But which commandment?
Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 145 names it directly, in the list of sins forbidden under the 9th Commandment: "rash, harsh, and partial censuring" is listed by name, alongside passing unjust sentence and calling evil good, and good evil, as violations of "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” This might seem like an odd placing in a commandment usually defined by “lying,” but in Reformed thought, the 9th Commandment isn’t “don’t lie” in a generic sense. It’s specifically about rendering a true verdict about your neighbor, whether in a courtroom or in ordinary judgment of his character and worth. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” is a testimony command. It governs what you say about a person.
Partiality fits there because partiality is, structurally, a false verdict. When you judge a man favorably because he’s wealthy, or unfavorably because he’s poor, or by extension favorably or unfavorably because of his ethnicity, you are not rendering judgment based on what is actually true about him. You’re substituting an external, irrelevant factor for the truth. And if you disagree with the official Reformed Protestant position on partiality being a 9th Commandment violation, and would rather put it somewhere else, it legitimately doesn’t matter. The Scripture condemns it by name. It’s a sin. That’s the sin. That’s the point.
If when you say “antisemitism” you mean partiality, then say partiality. But fair warning: The same sin of partiality that forbids bias against Jews on account of their ethnic lineage, it also and equally forbids showing favored bias toward Jews on account of their ethnic lineage. Partiality cuts both ways. Partiality is partiality. The Klansman giving discriminatory treatment to Jews for no reason but ethnicity is committing the same sin as the Dispensational Zionist giving favored status to Jews for no reason but ethnicity. The only partiality Scripturally allowed is that which is sanctioned by the Biblical principle of the Ordo Salutis - those people with whom God has given you an increased responsibility to love and serve by nature of your proximity and biblical duty.
HOW TO ANSWER THE ACCUSATION
Somebody reading this article is going to get called an antisemite this year (let’s be honest, more like today) for saying something perfectly biblical, maybe for rejecting Dispensationalism, maybe for questioning a foreign aid package, maybe for simply pointing out that the New Testament does not require Christians to treat modern Israel as a theocratic extension of Old Testament Israel. When it happens, here is your answer, and it is a short one:
“Which of God’s commands have I broken? Show me the chapter and verse.” If they say “you hate Jewish people,” ask them if it’s a greater sin to hate Jewish people than anyone else. If they answer in the affirmative, you have no obligation to listen to their opinion, because they are in sin, and have a plank in their eye so large you could hang a flag from it.
If their evidence of that hatred is that you hold a theological position, or a foreign policy opinion, or are willing to admit historical facts that they are not, then the accusation dissolves on contact, because truth isn’t hate. Neither are opinions, for that matter. Right Response Ministries is going to tell you something that most ministries will not: It is not a sin to hold a conspiracy theory (in fact, if you don’t hold to any in the year 2026, you’re gullible). It is not a sin to hold an unpopular opinion. It is not a sin to question the veracity and accuracy of your high school history textbook (in fact, you always should).
Ultimately, God defines sin, and not the ADL, not AIPAC, not IHRA, and not anyone else who has a stake in what the word covers this year versus last year. Man may coin labels to describe what God has already defined, and we are free to use those labels when they hold still long enough to mean something. Antisemitism, as currently deployed by the very institutions that invented and control it, does not hold still. It changes with the political need of the moment, which is precisely the opposite of how the unchanging law of an unchanging God behaves.