“O LORD, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill?
He who walks blamelessly and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart; who does not slander with his tongue and does no evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend; in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but who honors those who fear the LORD; who swears to his own hurt and does not change; who does not put out his money at interest and does not take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved.”
I have been writing in response to critics of The Harbinger since late last year. There are a myriad of articles also that I’ve addressed, some others I have yet to address, much of these I have already addressed and my articles can be accessed at my website, The Pepster’s Post: A Voice in Cyberspace.
I have had the privilege to have what is a front row seat to the teachings and messages that Pastor Cahn has given over a ten year period which comprise the message of The Harbinger, and I know these messages very well. What’s more, I also have read The Harbinger for myself several times, and I know Pastor Cahn personally. None of The Harbinger’s critics can make this claim, and those who wrote their polemic against the book, cannot make any of these claims. It is my close and intimate knowledge of the topic, the one who has taught it for ten years in various messages which eventually became what the book contains, and know personally firsthand all of the aspects of this topic that needs to be known in order to examine it in the most thorough and biblical manner possible that has enabled me to write The Truth about The Harbinger: Addressing the Controversy and Discovering the Facts About This Prophetic Message and get it published October 1st of this year.
I was planning and had desired to end my discussions addressing the criticisms against The Harbinger and move on to other projects, and had prepared to do so after the publication of my book The Truth about The Harbinger: Addressing the Controversy and Discovering the Facts About This Prophetic Message on October 1st of 2013; but it had become increasingly evident from certain objections raised by one of them to my article about Pastor Gary Gilley’s brief but highly charged broadside that it was not enough for me and others to warn these brethren that their approach and methods, and their treatment of a brother in the faith – Jonathan Cahn – a fellow minister in service to Jesus Christ no less; the language they used against him, and their behavior towards those – like myself – who brought these things to their attention; was not enough to tell them of this, the evidence for it had to be presented to them, because they had become convinced in their minds that they had done no wrong and had not sinned in what they did to Jonathan Cahn for two years – 2012 and 2013.
Having made this clear, we now go on, and again express our appreciation to these critics for allowing me to fully examine everything possible according to the Scriptures, to verify both the efficacy of the message of The Harbinger and its particulars to the light of God’s Word, while we address man’s contentions with it. In doing this, we understand the purpose of such divisions these arguments pose to the body, and while we lament them, we also so God’s purpose in this, as Paul does when he writes in the Holy Spirit the following. I quote:
But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
(1Corinthians 11:16-19)
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28) I believe that God more than amply supplies what is necessary to validate something that is His by allowing critics of it to have their say, and then raising His servants to defend it biblically. In the case of The Harbinger, He has used the critics to compel His people to get their noses back in their Bibles to verify the content of this incredible New York Times bestseller. The critics of The Harbinger have allowed all of us to closely examine the Scriptural, historical, and public records available to us, and the arguments they present, so that we may biblically arrive at a definitive conclusion about this topic and address its clarion call to all of God’s people and the leaders of this nation, and its citizens to know the degenerate state we are in, seek God, and call upon the name of Jesus Christ in full personal repentance individually and then collectively as a nation. This is something all Jews, Christians – Jewish Messianics, Evangelicals, and all people of faith can agree with and do, and we must do it sincerely and fervently to avert disaster.
Jose J. Bernal
THE PEPSTER
As a man thinks within himself, so he is.
Proverbs 23:7a
The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord.
Proverbs 16:33
"Do not petition G-d to go where you are going; rather find where G-d is going and travel with Him."-- Unknown Jewish Wise Man
"I shall pass through this world but once. Any good therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer not neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.".--- Author Unknown
"It’s not failure, but the fear of failure that stops most people.”-- Philip Anschutz
"THERE IS NOTHING MORE FRIGHTENING THAN ACTIVE IGNORANCE." -- Goethe
"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth." - Unknown Author
“I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position one has reached in life, as by the obstacles that he has overcome while trying to succeed.” – Booker Taliaferro Washington, 1856 – 1915
“ A chief event of life is the day in which we have encountered a mind that startled us. ”— Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Truth is in history, but history is not the truth." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
---------O-O-O
|_//___l__,\___\,___|_l_---\___l---[]IIIIII[]
__(o)_)--(o)_)--O-)_)
|_//___l__,\___\,___|_l_---\___l---[]IIIIII[]
__(o)_)--(o)_)--O-)_)
The Harbinger is a novel that is becoming very popular among both Christians and non-Christians, even reaching the top of the New York Times best-seller list at this writing. What makes it worthy of review, like other books that we have addressed, is that it offers an important opportunity for believers to exercise critical discernment. In this case, author Jonathan Cahn believes that he has discovered prophetic signs from God that are found in the Old Testament and directly apply to the United States, referring in particular to the events surrounding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Because The Harbinger (TH) is a fictional novel with a large dose of nonfiction added (Scripture), this critique involves two aspects: 1) a personal, subjective opinion, and 2) a more objective consideration of the author’s application of Scripture in his novel.
MY REPLY: It is very unfortunate that T.A. McMahon should say that “Jonathan Cahn believes that he has discovered prophetic signs from God that are found in the Old Testament and directly apply to the United States which he applies to The Harbinger and claim that the book applies the prophecy to the United States. IT DOES NOT. I am glad however, that Mr. McMahon has admitted what David James, Jimmy DeYoung, Brannon Howse, Paul Barreca, Paul D. Van Noy, Roy Zuck, Gary Gilley, and Jeremy James have not – that what he is writing here is his subjective opinion and not correct hermeneutic, like the others have. In this he is markedly ahead even of David James, who was the first to write against The Harbinger without making this admission himself. I’ll make it for him – it’s his opinion, just as Mr. McMahon does here. In this I must credit T.A. McMahon and commend him. Now it is MY OPINION that his second claim is not necessarily applicable, though I do not question Mr. McMahon’s sincerity in having made it. I disagree on both counts for this reason, no opinion is an objective opinion. An opinion by its nature is not objective. An observation without prejudice is objective, not an opinion. And if an opinion is based on what the person calls an “objective consideration of the author’s application of Scripture in his novel,” it involves an amount of subjective analysis based on the person’s theology and their own personal perspective on the topic being discussed. This is something that cannot be avoided, it is part of every analysis, particularly when it involves a topic that can be called a “religious” one.
Whenever we read a fictional story or see a movie, our evaluation is almost always subjective, e.g., what we like or don’t like about it. As the untutored art critic might say, “I don’t know anything about art, but I know what I like!” Even an art aficionado with some expertise rarely gets beyond the subjective, although he has a great deal more criteria than the everyday art lover for evaluating a work of art. In the end, it’s still just his opinion.
MY REPLY: I’m beginning to have a new found respect for Mr. McMahon. In the first few sentences of this article, he is more honest than all of the ones I’ve read from The Harbinger’s critics before. Not one of them has admitted that what they were writing was their subjective opinion and shaped by their own personal theologies and biases. Mr. McMahon admits to them without reservation.
THOMAS MCMAHON: In my opinion, The Harbinger is a poor script. I say “script” because it reads more like a script than like a novel, lacking nearly all of the elements that go into making a first-rate work of fiction. It tries to fit into the genre of National Treasure and The Da Vinci Code but fails miserably in my view—and I’m hardly an admirer of The Da Vinci Code. The redundancy throughout the book borders on being insufferable. If it were eliminated, TH could easily have been reduced to half its size. In addition, the dialog is repetitious, yet little if any insight into the story’s characters is provided, with the result that we don’t get to know them any better than we would a stranger whom we might sit next to on a three-minute subway ride.
MY REPLY: It’s good that Mr. McMahon had prefaced his article with an admission that this article was nothing but his own personal opinion, because after he has completed saying this twice above, he jumps right in to give us his reasons for personally disliking the novel. He doesn’t like how it’s written, and makes a gratuitous comparison of it – unfortunately in my opinion, the apples and oranges analogy applies – to The Da Vinci Code and National Treasure, two works of fiction I have never read nor have any intention of reading. I’ve only seen one of the movies – National Treasure, but I cannot bear to watch The Da Vinci Code or read the book, because it is obvious pure blasphemous fictional disinformation and exploitation of the Bible. Ironically, Pastor and Messianic Rabbi Jonathan Cahn did an excellent teaching on the Da Vinci Code and the specific areas where it digresses both from history and the Bible. But not to digress from our discussion; Mr. McMahon’s personal preferences of literary styles shouldn’t even be in this discussion, because it has absolutely nothing to its content.
THOMAS MCMAHON: Good fiction has drama. TH reads like a nine-part seminar, ending with a two-chapter tract. I actually liked some aspects of the last two chapters (though I thought I’d never get there as I struggled through the previous ones). If there had been a clear gospel presentation, these chapters might have the basis for a good tract—but definitely not for a good fictional story. Again, these are simply my opinions. I have little doubt that some will disagree, especially those who are fans of the book.
MY REPLY: It is good for Mr. McMahon to end this part of his review by being honest with the material – we already know he does not like the narrative’s style – and admits that this is only his opinion and nothing more. In other words, don’t try reading anything into this, because this is one man’s opinion. Good for you brother, I commend you, because in one paragraph you’ve been more candid and honest than your colleagues. Thank you for sparing us what the others did not – opinion being presented as “biblical truth,” as one of them calls his daily radio broadcasts.
THOMAS MCMAHON: On the other hand, although TH is a fictional account that invites subjective criticism, it makes numerous claims regarding actual signs or harbingers from God—which it attempts to justify by supporting them with Scriptures. God’s Word, however, is not fiction. That subjects TH to factual evaluation, because the Bible is God’s objective truth. Therefore, we can challenge Cahn’s claims objectively by searching the Scriptures to see if they indeed are true (Acts:17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.). As Isaiah wrote, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to [God’s] word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah:8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.). Jesus reinforced Isaiah’s exhortation in His prayer for believers to His Father: “Sanctify [meaning ‘set them apart’]...through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John:17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.).
MY REPLY: Fair enough. But the lingering question is, was The Harbinger subjected to objective analysis or was it the target of a hit piece compiled by one man and promoted on another’s radio show during the span of several months in the year 2012? And let’s get something straight here, since Acts 17:11 is being cited as our template and example as to how the material – in this case – a fictional literary work called The Harbinger – is being treated. Was the template of Scripture properly applied to The Harbinger when these brethren analyzed its contents? And do we read in Scripture where the Bereans used the information discussed among them to speak against what Paul was preaching and to cast him in the role of a “false prophet” and “false teacher” ?
Even though it is obvious from the Acts narrative that none of this was done to Paul even though the conclusions about what he preached about the Messiah was not by unanimous consent for the narrative says that many – not all – but - many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men; we do not see anyone from this community persecuting Paul openly for what he preached. Let us look at this narrative, and also examine the other quoted so often by Mr. McMahon, and his colleagues. First, the example of the Bereans. I quote:
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
(Acts 17:10-12)
But let’s read the entire narrative so that we may see how Scripture treats those who stir up strife and put God’s servants to open reproach, as we read in the verses which follow. I quote:
But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds. Then immediately the brethren sent Paul out to go as far as the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there. Now those who escorted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a command for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they left.
(Acts 17:13-15)
Please note the contrast between the Bereans, who received the Word of God eagerly and searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul said about Jesus the Messiah was true, and the result was that some of them believed, and the actions taken by the unbelieving Jews of Thessalonica, who came over and stirred up the crowds against Paul. Keep these two groups in your minds as we continue. Also take note what the brethren did for Paul when this happened, and keep that in your minds as well. This is the biblical template, but keep this in your mind as we continue.
The mention of Isaiah 8:20 out of its context – its historical context by Mr. McMahon, is a strange irony, because this is precisely what they accuse The Harbinger of doing. Here is the proper context of the text Mr. McMahon so often quotes against other Christians with whom he disagrees.
By Isaiah’s time in the 8th century B.C., Solomon’s once great kingdom had years before divided into northern and southern kingdoms. The southern kingdom of Judah and Benjamin (ca. 740 B.C.) led by Ahaz faced attack by an alliance between the northern kingdom of Israel under Pekah (often called Ephraim, the largest tribe) and Syria under Rezin (Aram; the Arameans, see Isaiah 7). These two kingdoms had been tributaries of the Assyrian Empire, but had broken away from it and looked to Judah to join them in their rebellion, but Ahaz refused to join the coalition. This northern alliance sought to depose Ahaz by invading the southern kingdom of Judah.
The entire eighth chapter of Isaiah is magnificent. It involves God’s pronouncement of judgment on both houses of Israel – on both the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom; there is the prophecy of the child who would be named Maher-shalal-hash-baz, meaning “swift is the booty, speedy is the prey,” who is a sign (Isaiah 8:1-3), because the northern kingdom of Israel based in Samaria with Rezin as its ally against Assyria in the east and Judah in the south, would be overrun by the Assyrians, and they would sweep over the land and take everything from it. This land would be so devastated that by the first century, what was known at one time as rich with vineyards and the hills which were cultivated farmland, would be for grazing the grazing of sheep and oxen; a land filled with briars and thorns (Isaiah 7:23-25). Pertaining to what took place the late Dr. Harold Lindsell wrote:
“the…….waters of Shiloah, the modern Ain Silwan, are located southwest of Mt. Moriah. The quiet waters of Shiloah are contrasted with the turbulent waters of the Euphrates of 8:7. Since Judah has rejected Shiloah, symbolic of God’s rule, she would be overwhelmed by the king of Assyria, from beyond the Euphrates.”
(Harold L. Lindsell, Commentary to Isaiah 8:6 footnotes, page 859, Harper Study Bible, New American Standard Bible, Zondervan Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985.)
Mr. McMahon’s quoting of Isaiah 8:20 in its correct biblical context was the result of the people consulting mediums and spiritists who whisper and mutter,” it has nothing to do with The Harbinger or Jonathan Cahn, though Mr. McMahon uses it here, inferring what he thinks of both in his next paragraph. But in its context, this is what it means, and this is the history behind it. I’ll describe a little more of it below before we go on.
Assyria’s defense of the southern kingdom of Judah came at a price for King Ahaz. After the conflict was over, Ahaz had to pay Tiglath-Pileser III tribute with treasures from the temple in Jerusalem and his royal treasury. Also, to find favor with the Assyrians, Ahaz built idols of Assyrian gods in Judah, a great sin.
In 715 B. C. Hezekiah ascended to the throne of Judah – six years after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel (Ephraim and Manasseh) in Samaria to the Assyrian king, Sargon II. When the Philistines rebelled in 711 B.C., Hezekiah remained a loyal subject of the Assyrians. But when Sargon died in battle in 701 B.C., internal pressures from the heartland of the empire, and the power transferred from Sargon II to Sennacherib, the new Assyrian monarch faced rebellion on all sides. At this time the vassal kings like Hezekiah tried to exert their independence from him.
In 701 B.C., Sennacherib invaded, overran and took Lachish, which guarded Judah. At this time, Hezekiah paid him a heavy tribute, and release Padi the pro-Assyrian king of Ekron, to appease him; while Sennacherib gave some of the cities of western Judah to Philistine kings loyal to him. This was for naught, for during Hezekiah’s fourteenth year as king of Judah, Sennacherib sent his armies to besiege Jerusalem, demoralize its citizens, and persuade them to surrender its king, and most importantly of all; abandon faith in the Lord God (2Kings 18:19-35, 2Chronicles 32:10-19, Isaiah 36:4-20).
As his armies surrounded the city, Sennacherib sent his field commander, Rabshakeh to taunt the Judeans besieged inside Jerusalem (Isaiah 36, 37). But, God speaking through Isaiah the son of Amos, encouraged the people inside the city not to fear, for He would deliver Jerusalem from this petulant pagan king and his proud taunting (Isaiah 37:5-7). The biblical record preserves God’s direct judgment of Sennacherib, and how the Lord God delivered Jerusalem from his hand:
“Therefore, thus says the Lord concerning the king of Assyria, ‘He will not come to this city or shoot an arrow there; and he will not come before it with a shield, or throw up a siege ramp against it. By the way that he came, by the same he will return, and he will not come to this city,’ declares the Lord. ‘For I will defend this city to save it for My own sake and for My servant David’s sake.’”
Then the angel of the Lord went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men arose early in the morning, behold, all of these were dead. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and returned home and lived at Nineveh. It came about as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons killed him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son became king in his place.
(Isaiah 37:33-38)
As the biblical record describes above, when Sennacherib returned to the city of Nineveh, his capital, he was assassinated by his two sons as he worshipped in the temple of Nisroch, his god. (2Kings 19:35-37, 2Chronicles 32:21, Isaiah 37:36-37)
The Harbinger describes both the first strike and the second. As Pastor and Messianic Rabbi Jonathan Cahn describes it, the first strike by Assyria was a limited strike on the land, and it foreshadowed a greater one that would follow. This is where Isaiah’s prophecy falls into place (Isaiah 9:10). In the year 732 B.C. Isaiah prophesied this prophecy (Isaiah 9:10), and his prophecy came to pass ten years later in 722 B.C., when the Assyrian Empire invaded the land, despoiled it, and took most of its inhabitants away – Samaria fell, and Israel was taken captive. This war is known as the Syro-Ephraimite War.
THOMAS MCMAHON: The clarion call of The Harbinger, which seems to be quite sincere and is one with which all Christians might agree, is that the American people must repent of their evil ways and turn to God in truth. Amen to that! The major problem, however, is the way that the fictional story attempts to encourage such repentance. It declares that God has sent signs—nine harbingers—to the United States as a wake-up call that the country might take heed, repent, and thus ward off His impending judgment. If Cahn is mistaken about the harbingers and multitudes believe what he asserts, then he has led them astray. That is a serious issue and would identify him as a false teacher. Teaching God’s people wrongly carries a “greater condemnation” (James:3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.).
MY REPLY:I agree, but this is not the case. Neither The Harbinger or Jonathan Cahn are mistaken about the remedial judgments that America has experienced in recent years. While I respect Mr. McMahon’s concern, and appreciate and understand his concern, even agree with it as a fellow born again servant of God’s grace, his concern here is while well-meaning, completely misplaced.
THOMAS MCMAHON: The main characters in the story are a journalist and a mysterious prophet. The central contemporary event related to the harbingers is the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. As the fictional story unfolds, it is revealed that the harbingers of warning and judgment are directly related to a prophecy found in the Book of Isaiah. Here is where the major thesis of the book fails the Prophet Isaiah’s own challenge of Isaiah:8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.: the author, Jonathan Cahn, has spoken “not according to [God’s] word” but has misapplied the scriptures in an attempt to support his own ideas throughout The Harbinger.
MY REPLY: Here in this premise, is where T.A. McMahon, getting his queue from David James’ narrative (as he does with practically everything else), expresses the underlying erroneous premise from which all of the others flow. He writes, “As the fictional story unfolds, it is revealed that the harbingers of warning and judgment are directly related to a prophecy found in the Book of Isaiah,” yet this is not what The Harbinger describes at all. This is how Mr. McMahon interprets it, because this is what he’s heard the narrative says form Mr. James, but this is not what it says at all. The events themselves that transpired are the harbingers, and all nine of them form a prophetic pattern of remedial judgments that have befallen America since 9/11 which parallel those described within Isaiah’s prophecy where he uses the vows made by Israel’s leaders to pronounce judgment on them and the land (Isaiah 9:8-11).
T.A. McMahon got his queue from David James’ re-written false narrative of The Harbinger. Because David James was unable to recognize the biblical pattern of warning followed by judgment in the description of the nine elements which Jonathan Cahn calls “harbingers” – because they foretold ominous events that would transpire if Israel were to reject the Isaiah’s warning, which it did – he rejects any claim that the same prophetic pattern of warning followed by judgment has happened in this country; and builds his case from there. It is a form of denying that such a judgment can be visited on another nation other than Israel, and therefore a denial of the many lessons we find in Scripture where this precisely has taken place. Jonathan Cahn has never said, nor does The Harbinger indicate in any way “that the prophecy of Isaiah 9:10 is directly applicable to the United States right now,” as per David James’ false claim here.
Mr. McMahon’s use here again of Isaiah 8:20 is misapplied, because the Scripture has absolutely nothing to do with differences of opinion – as Mr. McMahon is honest enough to admit he is presenting here, unlike his colleagues – but the verse deals with those in 8th century Israel who advocated the people consult mediums and spiritualists. It is sad that T.A. McMahon uses it here against Jonathan Cahn, a fellow Evangelical Christian. Such a Scripture should never be so carelessly misused between Christians, because it denies that the light of the Holy Spirit is in the person who it is being used against. Note, it says, there is no light in them.
THOMAS MCMAHON: Cahn gleans nearly all of his correlations connecting America with a prophecy made to Israel from one verse —Isaiah:9:10 The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.. To begin with, this verse applies only to the tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, who, along with the Southern Kingdom of Judah, comprise God’s covenant people. All the way through TH , the United States is presented implicitly as a nation in covenant with God. No, God has only one covenant nation—the nation of Israel. This is a critical error of the book. Although that may be overlooked by someone eager to recognize the U.S. in Isaiah’s prophecy, one must read the entire context, which begins with verse 8 and runs through verse 21 of chapter 9. Cahn flip-flops between God’s judgment and God’s warning, giving the latter more emphasis as he promotes the idea that if the U.S. will heed the warning and repent of its evil ways and turn back to God, restoration and blessing will follow. Although that principle is true for every individual who turns to Him, Cahn picked the wrong passage of Scripture as a hopeful warning for America. In fact, the entire context of Isaiah:9:8-21 The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.
MY REPLY: Respectfully, what T.A. McMahon writes here is the lie that was given him by others critics in this group. It is obvious that when he wrote this article, Mr. McMahon had not read The Harbinger for himself, and was going on hearsay from another party, otherwise he would not written what he writes here. The Harbinger nowhere claims that the United States has a unilateral covenant with God like the Abrahamic Covenant. NOWHERE, and I mean NOWHERE is “the United States…presented implicitly as a nation in covenant with God” in The Harbinger, nowhere. And neither Jonathan Cahn or anyone at Beth Israel or Hope of the World Ministries, believe or teach this. It is a lie from hell, and an egregious form of false witness. I would agree with Mr. McMahon “This is a critical error of the book” if that is what it said, but it is NOT what is says at all. In fact, such a statement is nowhere found in the book. There is no flip-flop, as Mr. McMahon disparaging writes. As I mentioned above, the historical and textual context of the biblical narrative is correctly presented The Harbinger. Had T.A. McMahon read the book and not gone on hearsay from Mr. James and then offered to publish his flawed writings on it, he would not have written what he writes here, because the narrative of The Harbinger does not support what he claims it says. It simply doesn’t.
THOMAS MCMAHON:
[9] And all the people shall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart,
[10] The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.
[11] Therefore the LORD shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together;
[12] The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
[13] For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts.
[14] Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day.
[15] The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.
[16] For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.
[17] Therefore the LORD shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
[18] For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke.
[19] Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother.
[20] And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm:
[21] Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
It is a prophecy of judgment of the most devastating kind. God declares that He will send Israel’s enemies to “devour” them (v. 12), destroying her corrupt leaders and lying prophets (vv. 15-16), and “for all this,” His anger would not subside, and in His wrath He would not show them mercy. The carnage would result in civil wars among the tribes of Israel—brother against brother—with utter destruction, starvation, cannibalism (vv. 19-20), and finally captivity by her enemy. Even so, “For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out [against Israel] still” (v. 21). No “warning” is even hinted at in these verses.
MY REPLY: This is correct. But T.A. McMahon cites this passage of Scripture for the wrong reasons, because his next statements belie the motivation of citing this passage of Scripture – remember T.A. McMahon is trying to present the false narrative that David James has given him – that The Harbinger indicates that the prophecy of Isaiah 9:10 is directly applicable to the United States right now.” This incredible statement was made by David James’ on March 10th, 2012 when he was a guest of Jimmy DeYoung’s on his Prophecy Today radio program. It is part of many others which served to create many urban legends about book and its author.
THOMAS MCMAHON: Cahn’s isolation of Isaiah:9:10 The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars. (sic) and his symbolic interpretation of that verse to make it fit the September 11, 2001, jihadist attack on the U.S. is preposterous. (It’s also very odd that nowhere in the book is Islam or the term “Muslim” mentioned.) Nevertheless, as tragic as 9/11 was, what reasonably discerning person would see this as comparable to Isaiah’s account of God’s judgment on the Northern Kingdom of Israel? Furthermore, even a cursory review of American history will bring to mind far more devastating events than 9/11, from Washington, D.C. being burned and sacked in the War of 1812, to the Civil War, to Pearl Harbor, to the debacle in Vietnam, etc. Ignoring such events, Cahn zeroes in on the devastation of “Ground Zero” as verification that God has removed His “hedge of protection” from the United States. How Cahn decides what events of contemporary history God is using for His very specific purposes is troubling. Are they Cahn’s own prophetic insights or just his speculations? If the former, he is on very tenuous ground.
MY REPLY: There is more of David James here than T.A. McMahon. The same arguments, the same charges, the same repetitious and fallacious premises built upon one another. The deriding and contemptuous tone, even mocking, is what is troubling. First, nowhere does The Harbinger interpret Isaiah’s prophecy to fit September 11.th You’ll be hearing the charge over and over again, because the lie upon which it is based when told often enough is a tactic that has been found to be useful in convincing someone else about something simply by overstating it. Here, as is done in every other article written by these critics, the charge is overstated and repeated. You can tell that these people are playing by the same playbook – David James’ warped narrative and misreading of The Harbinger – and repeating it to each other and to everybody else. This is extremely sad that it is being done by professing Christian Evangelicals against another member of their faith. But we are living in the days which Christ described we would see such behavior from within the church. Why should we be surprised when exposed to it in these false witnesses? Just because these gentlemen do not understand the context of what has occurred previously in American history in the plan of God, or what has occurred around the world in this respect; they should never project their ignorance of God’s plan and His sovereignty on to God’s remedial judgments and how these unfold as the prophetic time clock winds to its end of days. And as if this were not bad enough; to then apply this ignorance in vain attempts to discredit a fellow member of the faith because they fail to understand it, and project this acute ignorance and compound it with additional sophistries by claiming that the book says something that it does not, is far below what any member of the Christian faith should do to another. It betrays a kind of careless abandon of reverence and the clear teaching of Scripture in dealing with differences of opinion – and that is what this controversy is all about. It is a terrible misunderstanding, egregious false witness by several – at least twenty people – and the public slander and libel of a member of our faith by a very small minority within it.
THOMAS MCMAHON: For many, selectivity on Cahn’s part creates some of the most compelling assertions in the novel. Again and again, as G. Richard Fisher of Personal Freedom Outreach has noted, “Cahn is playing on the old mistake of saying [that] similarity means identity.” The nine harbingers are selectively (and erroneously) taken from Scripture and are then given life by the comparison to similar things surrounding 9/11, which are then identified with Isaiah:9:10 The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.. That’s the faulty method. Fisher explains, “Similarity is not identity. A $100 bill is similar to monopoly money, which is paper, has numbers on it, and is referred to as money.” To attempt to tie them together beyond that similarity, like paying a bill with monopoly money, will have embarrassing consequences at least.
MY REPLY: While the above statements are true, they are just as dangerous, and I would say, more so when misapplied to the prophetic, especially in light of Scripture on such topics. It is more extremely dangerous to dismiss the remedial judgments of God when He is giving them, because of a lack of understanding of such things, or even ignorance of the prophetic, than it is to accept them, because if indeed God is presenting remedial judgments to call a nation to repentance, then it dismisses them or ignores them at its peril. This should be very clear to professing Evangelical Christians like Mr. McMahon and G. Richard Fisher. I would caution these brethren and their skeptical colleagues to put on the mind of Christ, and examine everything thoroughly, and not to be quick to dismiss something due to a lack of understanding on their part. Everything that is presented must do at the very least two fundamental things; bear witness of Christ by glorifying Him, and bring the person to full repentance in Christ. The Harbinger devotes an entire chapter to this, and presents the Gospel in clear concise terms.
We live in an extremely unbelieving, skeptical, cynical, incredulous age where much of what we believe and hold sacred from the Scriptures is summarily dismissed as legends, myths, and misplaced trust. While we are to be discerning – I cannot stress that more strongly – we must also guard from becoming so “discerning” that were we to witness Christ’s return to our planet today, we may just mistake it for a false sign.
THOMAS MCMAHON: Isaiah:9:10The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars. cannot be identified with America and 9/11, and that’s all one has to understand in order to reject Cahn’s book. Yet, for those enamored with The Harbinger and still not convinced of its serious biblical problems, consider a few of the harbingers themselves (there’s not enough space here to evaluate all of them). The sycamore and cedar trees are mentioned in Isaiah:9:10The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.: “The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycamores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.” The passage uses sycamores as a metaphor for weaker trees being replaced by stronger, taller cedars in an act of arrogant defiance by the Israelites, who will not submit to God. Cahn points to a singular sycamore and what he refers to as a type of cedar tree (actually a Norway Spruce) that replaced it at Ground Zero as harbingers connected to Isaiah:9:10The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.. Although there is a similarity , it takes a great deal of subjective wrangling by Cahn in his attempt to make it match Isaiah’s prophecy. The context does not allow Cahn’s claims.
MY REPLY: As I mentioned above, the oft-repeated mantra, now becomes the repetitious allegation and charge against The Harbinger. Again, if the lie is told often enough – some people think that it some of those listening, must just fall for it. Mr. McMahon is incorrect again in his charges. The Harbinger does not teach that Isaiah 9:10 should “be identified with America and 9/11,” nor does it teach, as Mr. McMahon here says that “The passage uses sycamores as a metaphor for weaker trees being replaced by stronger, taller cedars in an act of arrogant defiance by the Israelites, who will not submit to God. Cahn points to a singular sycamore and what he refers to as a type of cedar tree (actually a Norway Spruce) that replaced it at Ground Zero as harbingers connected to Isaiah:9:10The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.” If Mr. McMahon would’ve read The Harbinger for himself, done a little bit of is homework on what it says, rather than depend on the flawed work of David James, he would not write the nonsense he writes above. It is just pure nonsense. The Harbinger nowhere says any of what Mr. McMahon writes here.
THOMAS MCMAHON: Another harbinger of warning to America is referred to as “The Tower.” Cahn seems hard pressed to make a biblical connection to a tower other than a vague reference that the main character makes when he’s asked how he would know what the Tower of Babel looked like. He replies, “I don’t, but I’ve seen pictures of it.” That inane statement aside, Babel was not a Jewish tower. Nevertheless, Cahn finds a Jewish tower that he believes fits. But he had to go to the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, for help. Isaiah:9:10The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars. in the Greek is translated thus: “The bricks are fallen down, but come, let us hew stones, and cut down sycamores and cedars, and let us build for ourselves a tower. ” So, he has his “tower,” but not without an inherent problem for “harbingers six and seven.” Those harbingers are dependent upon a cedar replacing a sycamore tree. The Greek translation says “sycamores and cedars” are “cut down”; the Hebrew says that sycamores (plural) will be changed with cedars (plural). It would seem that Cahn can’t have both his “Septuagint” tower and his “Hebrew” replacement cedar (singular). They contradict one another. [For further explanation, refer to the TBC Extra page in this issue.]
MY REPLY: In an article that directly addresses David James’ book, parts of which he uses for an abridged online hit piece against The Harbinger, I address this objection of his, which T.A. McMahon makes good use of here. The more Mr. McMahon writes, the greater the evidence that if had read anything pertaining to The Harbinger, it was not The Harbinger that T.A. McMahon read, but David James’ flawed analysis of it. But T.A. McMahon takes what David James gave him and pumped it up with steroids.
T.A. McMahon’s claim that The Harbinger presents some type of a “Jewish tower” is an asinine and insulting Anti-Semitic snipe on Jonathan Cahn, a Jewish believer! It shows more about Mr. McMahon’s own personal racial biases than it does anything else. This is utter nonsense! And nowhere does Jonathan Cahn’s book call what was built in place of the fallen Twin Towers a “Jewish tower,” that is Mr. McMahon’s own invention! People, this is beyond just bearing false witness about another, this is pure sophistry! This is an outright lie!
It is painful to read this article, because it is misrepresents the facts that it is even embarrassing that this is still on the Internet. And the flippant manner which Mr. McMahon handles a very serious topic, and so easily and carelessly hyper-critically throws a member of our faith to the wolves is unconscionable. Until I read this article, and read it this far, and I must confess I had put it off until the present, the more convinced I’ve become that what we are dealing with here is spiritual in nature. Let me explain. For many years, the Berean Call under the leadership of the late Dave Hunt, was known for the responsible manner in which it handled Christian Apologetics. In fact, it built its reputation on Mr. Hunt’s careful direction of it. But reading this article, and other articles that have appeared on it about The Harbinger, which I’ve addressed and all appear on The Pepster’s Post: A Voice in Cyberspace; I’ve come to the conclusion that what we are seeing here is both spiritual in nature and a sign of the times we live in. No one can direct a ministry of the caliber of the Berean Call and present this kind of careless tripe. It’s embarrassing that this is put out and has been out there for over two years! This is utter nonsense.
THOMAS MCMAHON: There are numerous other problems with the harbingers, even though they are constructed subjectively and selectively by Cahn. Granted, the author does raise an intriguing date phenomenon related to the economic misfortunes connected with 9/11 when he attempts to link the Jewish shemitah , the Torah law of letting the land lie fallow and the forgiving of debts in the seventh year of a seven-year cycle, as a warning to the U.S. No matter what one conjectures regarding the significance of a stock market crash occurring on the first day of shemitah, the shemitah itself has no bearing on anyone or anything other than the nation of Israel. It has never applied to the Gentile nations, either in actual practice or figuratively in Scripture. To superimpose a connection with America is just that—a superimposition.
MY REPLY: This is David James again, and of course, Mr. James’ own knowledge about the Hebrew Scriptures and what they teach regarding the biblical Shemitah is suspect. Since Mr. McMahon is going entirely on his writing, what he writes is a mirror of what David James writes about this in his article based on his polemical work which Mr. McMahon published. None of what is written above has any biblical value whatsoever, and it is nothing but an embarrassing opinion made by somebody who does not know the subject matter and is relying upon another individual who is equally deficient in what he writes.
With regard to what he writes here, which is reflection of Mr. James – almost as though T.A. McMahon has become a “mini-me” of David James, as David James has become a “mini-me” of Jimmy DeYoung. But in regard to what Mr. McMahon writes here; if Mr. McMahon had any understanding of Jewish methods of biblical interpretation and translation as they developed during the Post-Exilic Era and will into the early stages of the Second Temple Era, he would have known and appreciated that the undertaking of the Israelite leaders to rebuild and replant, and recover was seen by these translators of the ancient Hebrew text as synonymous with Genesis 11:1-9, where the whole earth used the same language and the same words, and as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. It is there where they said, “Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” But the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. Why did they consider the Israelite leaders’ rebuilding efforts synonymous with Babel’s efforts to build a tower that would reach heaven? It was because they saw in the two enterprises a total arrogant disregard for God.
THOMAS MCMAHON: Another imposition from Cahn’s imagination is his suggestion that the inauguration of George Washington in New York City was a “consecration” of America to God similar to Solomon’s consecration of the Temple in Jerusalem. To even compare the two verges on blasphemy, especially because history reveals that much Masonic ritual was involved, as well as the “works-salvation” doctrine of Masonry contained in Washington’s speech. It was more suitable to the god of the Masonic Lodge, the Great Architect of the Universe, than to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the God of the Bible.
MY REPLY: It is embarrassing to read this. It is more of David James, who missed the mark so much that when he went to bat and swung, the ball went right passed him without his even swinging, and then after swinging wildly, T.A. McMahon called it a “home run.” The Scriptures rightly say that “Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.” (1Samuel 16:7) Man tends to give great credence to fraternal affiliations, party affiliations, religious affiliations, pedigree, upbringing, familial ties, and all of the outward trappings of how man judges man in this world. He uses natural methods of analysis to apply to the spiritual and supernatural, and basis his judgments and findings on these. Afterwards he develops argumentations called theology to support them. And he does this without considering that what he is presenting needs first to support Scripture, or rather, reflect what the Word of God says, and not the other way around. This is how we have so many divergent theological points of view in the body of Christ on just about everything. We know in part, we see in part, yet we all claim to have a perfect knowledge above out peers, don’t we?
Unfortunately this is the common fallacy everybody falls into quite often if they’re not careful. This fallacy is what David James fell into, and here T.A. McMahon repeats it, because he is parroting what Mr. James wrote in his book which he pulled for his article. The mistake repeats itself over and over again, and with it, the disinformation. This is really very embarrassing.
Does anyone really believe that any earthly affiliation of Washington’s would prevent God form answering the prayer of a people and the new nation they’ve founded when such a prayer is directed to expressly to Him? Especially when such a prayer is conducted in the sanctuary of a church or synagogue, and the God to whom they are praying is the Lord God of Israel?
The consecration of the United States was conducted in a small chapel which still stands to this day on the corner of Ground Zero. It was in St. Paul’s Chapel in New York City. Present at this holy convocation were the President and the entire government of the United States on the day of its founding, April 30th, 1789. A holy Christian convocation was held inside the chapel by the new president, members of the US Senate, and US House Representatives, and it was officiated by an ordained Christian minister. The same according to the newspapers and records of that day, was observed throughout New York and beyond across this land on that day for purposes of prayer to consecrate the new nation to the Lord God in the name of Jesus Christ for His Sovereign protection and grace, which regardless of what Mr. McMahon writes here – plumbed from David James crackerjack box – is of absolutely no significance or consequence, because it was not a Masonic ceremony that was held, but a Christian one. And that God who answered the prayers of our first leader, made it quite evident that He honored it by answering it in making this nation – the United State of America – the most prosperous, powerful, and blessed nation of all the Gentile nations that have existed in the history of the human race. If these gentlemen wish as Christians to dispute this, and then claim that some other god – not the God of the Bible – did this, I remind them to turn to their Bibles and read how Elijah the prophet proved that the prophets of Baal, who worshipped another god, worshipped no god, and only the Lord, who answers the prayers of those who in faith turn to Him for His blessings, hears most assuredly and answers those prayers when they are addressed specifically and only to Him. And if Mr. McMahon and Mr. James, and the rest of this cabal have any doubts about this, I would refer them to go to James and read how he uses the story of Elijah’s prayer to show God’s people in his day the efficacy of prayer, and how God answers it.
THOMAS MCMAHON: Part of the dilemma in criticizing The Harbinger is that if the foundational error in it is not acknowledged (that America has some sort of covenant with God, and that there is a direct biblical correlation between Israel and the U.S. in the events of 9/11 and following), that opens the door for the acceptance of the book’s many fallacious ideas. This creates a perception of “credibility” simply by entering into a dispute over them. Even so, because most of them are so obviously wrong, pointing any one of them out to someone enthralled with the book may still be helpful. Some of these things are addressed in other parts of this newsletter and will be touched on in our future issues as questions arise.
MY REPLY: This is pure nonsense. The Harbinger nowhere claims that America is in a unilateral covenant with God. NOWHERE. Only one nation and one nation alone possesses a unilateral covenant with God, and that is the nation and people of Israel, and it is inextricably tied to the land and the Jewish people and God. No one can make that claim and no one does. And nowhere does The Harbinger say that Isaiah’s prophecy in ancient Israel is a prophecy of 9/11. This is David James’ invention and T.A. McMahon parrots it here.
THOMAS MCMAHON: One final thought—we all know the saying, “You shouldn’t judge a book by its cover,” and that’s a reasonable statement. But I like to check out book covers to see who’s endorsing them. That’s hardly a failsafe practice, but it can put me on “discernment alert” if it raises red flags. In the case of The Harbinger, a big red flag went up regarding the publisher. Though the cover says “Front Line,” it’s actually an imprint title of Charisma Media/Charisma House Book Group, the publisher of Charisma magazine. For those not familiar with Charisma , there is no other publication that has supported and promoted more of the unbiblical Word/Faith teachers, the “wealth and health” preachers, the Kingdom/Dominionists, the Apostles and Prophets of the New Apostolic Reformation, the so-called spirit revivals of the Toronto Airport Vineyard, the Brownsville Revival, the Lakeland Revivals, the Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God, and so forth. There is some irony in the fact that in chapter 9 of Isaiah, TH ’s key biblical chapter, God brings down His judgment upon Israel because of “lying prophets.” Charisma has over the years featured many who fit that description. That doesn’t automatically throw TH into a bin of rotten apples, but it should at least cause one to examine its fruit very carefully. Jesus said, “A corrupt tree [cannot] bring forth good fruit” and “by their fruits ye shall know them.”
MY REPLY: Every publishing house – be it secular or religious – has its good authors and its bad authors. To judge a book and its author by its publishing house, or judge the publishing house because some of its authors were less than stellar, for lack of a better word; is nothing more than a sweeping generalization that we as Christians ought to guard against. It is part of fallen mankind’s tendency to do, but we should not fall for this, and I caution Mr. McMahon here, because he’s using a sweeping generalization to impute heresy on a publishing house, because some of its authors have been questionable, and has imputed the same on one author and his book using the same flawed and unbiblical metric. I’m amazed and alarmed about this, especially from the Berean Call’s president. Should I now judge Mr. McMahon and the entire Berean Call because they published David James’ completely erroneous book? Should I now dismiss decades of good work conducted by the late David Hunt because of the direction I see Mr. McMahon take the late Mr. Hunt’s organization and legacy? Of course not. So I would ask Mr. McMahon to tread lightly here, and consider very carefully what he has done and what he has said, and written against a brother in Christ, and to take remedial action to correct the record, retract the falsehoods and outright lies, and to apologize to Rabbi Cahn, because if he does not do this now in this life, he will most assuredly be called to account for what he has written here, what he has said both privately and publicly against Jonathan Cahn, and for his behavior. I do not want to see this happen, because after everything has been said and done, Thomas A. McMahon is my esteemed brother in Christ, and I would not wish to see any of his works be burned up. Repentance is necessary.
THOMAS MCMAHON: These are days of rampant and beguiling apostasy. We need, therefore, to test all things by the Scriptures so that we do not “slip” away from God’s truth (Hebrews:2:1Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.). We also need to pray for and encourage our brothers and sisters in Christ that we all might be biblically discerning regarding the latest agenda, movement, trend, or popular book that is adversely influencing multitudes in the body of Christ. TBC
MY REPLY: I agree wholeheartedly with what my brother and fellow servant in Christ has written here, but I do not agree how he has misplaced it to The Harbinger and its author, Jonathan Cahn, a brother in the Lord I’ve known for more than ten years, and whose character and faith I attest as genuine and whose teachings I bear witness Mr. McMahon would be surprised to know he would agree with if he had given him the same opportunity to express it that he gave his critics.
I have provided below a list of the different ministries that go by the moniker of Discernment Ministries and their doctrinal/theological orientation. The site I pulled it from is decidedly Cessationist and Calvinist in orientation. It is called with CHRIST.org. I list it here so that those who read their articles will be aware of the doctrinal and theological “bent” or bias of the Critic’s Corner, as I like to call it in order to understand their approach.
|
|
| |
|
| ||
