Cahn's Message Brings Many to Salvation

Got a report this morning from someone who was at Jan Markell's Understanding the Times Conference this weekend, that Jonathan Cahn's talk on Saturday was a great success and that possibly as many as a hundred came to salvation through it. 

I'm reporting this because my source is credible and respected but I do have to add that I don't generally trust reports of "altar call" conversions either in church or at conferences.  You can't tell from a show of hands or people going forward what their motives are, whether they are Christians in a state of doubt desiring a renewal of their faith, nonChristians getting the message for the first time, people with a temporary pang of conscience that won't last long, people with a wrong idea of the gospel or what. 

While it is always the ultimate aim to bring people to Christ, Christians have many secondary callings such as to be salt and light in the culture and The Harbinger is that sort of message more than it is an evangelical message.  Restraining evil in our world by calls to national repentance for the sins that are destroying the nation would no doubt bring many to conversion but if it merely stirs up people's consciences so that they turn against the sins of the nation that's the work of God too. 

Did the repentance of Nineveh mean mass conversion to the God of Israel?  I don't get that message, I get the message that God had mercy on them in a temporal way as the city repented for their idolatries and other sins.  This kind of work in the world shouldn't be denigrated even if salvation is the ultimate most desirable outcome.  Improving the moral climate of a nation in this fallen world and therefore the peace and wellbeing of that nation is not something to be despised.

The Isaiah 9:10 Effect According to David James, Part 3

James goes on to what he calls "a historical problem" if there "really is such a thing as the Isaiah 9:10 Effect": 

What if "the breach" and "the terrorist" had been observed in 1812 or 1861 ot 1941?  In theory, could sojmeone have discovered the 'hidden ancient mystery' of Isaiah 9:10 in 1949?  And if it had been claimed that Pearl Harbor was a breach by an enemy who persistently used terrorist tactics throughout the war in the Pacific (which the Japanese did), then could it not be argued that God's hedge of protection had been withdrawn prior to December 7, 1941?  And if the hedge of protection had been removed long before 9/11, had God put yet another hedge of protection in place since WWII?  The questions are truly endless. 

This is not an attempt to mock the author.  This is a very serious issue because  if he is correct about the Isaiah 9:10 Effect, then it could have happened at any time in the past or it could happen again at any time in the future.  On the other hand, if it could only have happened one time on September 11, 2001, then there is no such thing as the Isaiah 9:10 Effect as a principle [p. 130].

Well, there is no such thing as James' straw-man version of The Isaiah 9:10 Effect which he persists in making into a general biblical principle apart from its application to 9/11, that's true, but that's not what Cahn means by it.  Even in its own specific context as a description of Israel at that particular time you can say that the attitude of defiance DID set in motion further judgment so that it's right enough to speak of an Isaiah 9:?10 Effect in that context alone. 

Beyond that it functions as an effect BECAUSE of its application in America.  IF it had applied to America at an earlier time then one has to assume that it would have been a principle and an effect at that time just as it is now, but it DIDN'T apply then.  God sovereignly disposes these things, the events, the discovery of the events, in this case by Cahn, and so on.  In His will it applies NOW and it is in its applying now that it becomes a principle and an effect from which further events can be expected to follow, just as they followed for Israel.

This is the usual problem the critics have of getting the cart before the horse and imputing their mistake to Cahn.   Isaiah 9:10 is a principle and an effect AFTER we see that it is being repeated in America.  As it concerned ancient Israel alone it is simply a description of what happened to Israel, with of course the obvious message to the reader that it's not a good thing to ignore God's judgments. 

But once we see that the message to Israel in all its parts also applies here, even to the manifestations of the harbingers that so uncannily echo Isaiah 9:10, then we can expect that the implication of further judgment to Israel also applies to America.

But James finds more problems to bring up:

If Cahn is right about the Isaiah 9:10 Effect, this raises another very important question:  Are there any other prophetic passages in the Old Testament that also function like the Isaiah 9:10 Effect?  How many other prophecies that were directed to israel can also be correlated to historical events in the United States?

Short answer:  Only those that APPLY to the United States. 

And again we have the situation of the cart before the horse.  The critics keep locating the effect, the principle and now the prophetic import of Isaiah 9:10, along with America itself, back in Isaiah, when none of these things become effect, principle or prophecy UNTIL they apply to America. 

He asks if there is

also a Genesis 12:2 Effect?:  I will make you a great nation;  I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing.

Or a Joshua 1:2 Effect?: 

Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you , as I said to Moses. 

Are there dozens of others?  Or is Isaiah 9:10 the only such passage in the entire Bible?  If the Isaiah 9:10 Effect really exists, then it seems remarkably unlikely that it would be the only such principle in the entire Old Testament.  But if not from the context, how could it possibly be known whether any given passage is supposed to functon in this way:?  And yet there is nothing whatsoever in the context of Isaiah 9:10 that would suggest the existence of such an effect.

Quite true.  The Effect is not IN Isaiah 9:10 or its context.  James keeps making the Effect INHERENT in the verse, but Cahn does not make it inherent in the verse, same as he doesn't treat America as inherent in the verse as the critics so persistently and mistakenly do.  Again, the Effect BECOMES the Effect in its application to America. 

There is no way that I can see that Genesis 12:2 or Joshua 1:2 would or could ever apply outside their specific immediate context,* and there also don't seem to be any implications of those verses that could become a general principle anyway.  But Isaiah 9:10 embodies, even in its context as a message to Israel alone, a principle that we can also take as a warning to us: that God does not overlook defiance of His judgment but "His hand is stretched out still" in further jugment.

Then beyond that, we can see that it clearly and specifically applies to America's response to 9/11 as it describes America's own defiance of the attack on the WTC as God's judgment, and then beyond that we have Cahn's revelations of the appearance of all those harbingers or signs that SHOULD tell anyone with any biblical sense at all that America is on the same course to much more severe judgment that Israel was on as described in that passage in Isaiah.

James has missed it entirely, got it all as wrong as it can be got, and yet he's so sure of his analysis of the situation he concludes the chapter with this: 

If a proposed theological or spiritual idea is not found in the Bible, or if it cannot at least be supported by the text in some way, then someone made it up.  This is exactly the nature of the Isaiah 9:10 Effect -- someone made it up [THFOF p. 131].

Well, somebody sure did make up a whole lot of stuff about The Isaiah 9:10 Effect that completely turns the meaning backwards, stuff that's certainly unsupported by the text to say the least, and it wasn't Jonathan Cahn. 

============
* Except as "Israel" MIGHT refer to the Church as it often does in the OT, but I'm not arguing that one here one way or the other.

The Isaiah 9:10 Effect According to David James Part 2

So David James has made the absurd accusation that

In the author's mind, Isaiah's words in the alleged Isaiah 9:10 Effect actually cause things to happen.  This is clearly affirmed in the following exchange at the end of chapter 16: 

[The Prophet] ...In this mystery the connections are evcn more beyond the realm of the natural. ... [Kaplan] And they connect 9/11 to the economic collapse? [The Prophet]  Not only do they connect them ... they determined them ... down to the time each would take place .... Yes, an ancient mystery upon which the global economy and every transaction within it was determined, a mystery that begins more than three thousand years ago in the sands of a Middle Eastern desert. {Sorry, I can't figure out the new Blogger formatting}

Now, I know what is meant by this, and I think most people reading the book don't have a problem with it, but if you are of a certain critical mindset I suppose you could get hung up on the word "determined" and think it SEEMS to be saying that the words of Isaiah 9:10 are MAKING something happen. 

Jonathan Cahn seems to have certain habits of mind that are unique to himself and may rattle some people who have different habits of mind. It's just the way he thinks, and he writes his book the way he thinks. He is apparently fascinated with the fact that scripture is supernatural, that it contains mysteries that no one would have known had it not been written straight from the mind of God, that it relates across three thousand years of time in a supernatural way, reaching into the future and judging our own time just as pertinently as it judges the time in which it was written.

Perhaps this comes mostly out of his Messianic frame of reference.  He seems to delight in the Jewishness of the scriptures the way many Messianics I've known do, and he extends that delight into all the Jewish writings, enjoying digging out their own unwitting affirmations of the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, mysteries of God's truth being revealed even in the context of writings that reject Jesus Christ. This is how he uses the Zohar for instance, not as a mystical tool but as a revealer of the gospel. All of it serves the gospel of Christ and that is his purpose in making use of these other writings.

But his habits of thought may cause a problem for some who let their own unfamiliarity with his style lead them into unfair judgment of it. David James for instance, later on in his book, lists some of the titles of Cahn's sermons from his website, particularly picking out those with "mystery" in the title or description, or extrabiblical references of various kinds, and gives the very stern warning: 

The titles and descriptions of just a few of his messages should serve as a warning to any serious student of the Scriptures [p. 193].

Certainly makes one stop and shudder for a moment.  But there are hints even in the titles he lists that it is biblical truth, the gospel itself, that is the central concern in all these sermons.  Apparently James hasn't heard any of them and is allowing himself to draw conclusions from the titles and bare descriptions alone in the context of his own presuppositions.  I haven't heard any of the sermons either, but I know already from a previous discussion of how Cahn uses the Zohar that his aim is most likely to be to bring out BIBLICAL truth from these extrabiblical sources. 

And there's nothing unusual about that aim, especially in the Messianic Jewish context.  We should all be familiar for starters with the many studies of the Types in scripture that reveal gospel truths -- let's call them gospel "mysteries" to show how Cahn is using that word -- the picture of Jesus Christ that is to be found in the scriptural description of the plan of the tabernacle for instance. The Old Testament is full of such types and the New Testament reveals them fulfilled in Christ.

The Messianic movement has added to these scriptural "mysteries" the pictures of Christ in the Jewish Holy Days as practiced by today's UNbelieving Jews -- in the Passover meal for instance.  I suspect this is really all Jonathan Cahn is doing with the other extrabiblical writings mentioned in the list of his sermons, showing how they point to Christ in spite of themselves.

Again, most readers have no problem with Cahn's style, but the critics are stubbing their toes on every slightly unusual wording and instead of doubting their own understanding they're getting carried away into unjustifiable excesses of condemnation.

So David James finds serious problems with The Isaiah 9:10 Effect that come out of his own preconceptions and distort the meaning intended by Cahn.  

... even if he were discussing only the fulfillment of Isaiah 9:10 in ancient Israelk, this would not be a good way to explain how prophecies work.  The reason that prophesied events happen is ecause God caues them to happen, not because the prophecy itself somehow Yet Cahn seems to be suggesting that as a principle the Isaiah 9:10 Effect can cause these same events to happen anywhere at any time once it is triggered.  [p. 129].

As I've already discussed, this is an absurd misreading of the concept.  The Isaiah 9:10 Effect is nothing more than the content of the verse, which describes Israel's defiance of God's judgment in the Assyrian attack, being the obvious cause of the further judgment to come, as described in the very next verse.  Ignore God's warning, expect further judgment. 

David James himself even seems to suspect this is what it means when he goes on to say

Of course, if it were simply a general principle such as that of 'sowing and reaping' or like the many principles found in Proverbs, it wouldn't necessarily be as problematic.  Even this would disregard the fact that Isaiah 9:10 does not appear to be a principle in context.

Well, it does amount to a general principle such as "sowing and reaping" as I've argued in the previous post, because it gives the CONDITION for further judgment to come, the defiance of God's warning judgment in the Assyrian attack, so that God's hand is "stretched out still" meaning further judgment must come because of their defiance.  Defy God's warning, more judgment will come.  THAT's The Isaiah 9:10 Effect.  It's obvious to most of us, it SHOULD be obvious to David James and the other critics, who instead are letting Cahn's somewhat unusual wording hang them up.  Instead of judging their own misreading the critics harshly judge Cahn for what is really their own error. 

Their assumptions lead them to crazy-making rejection of Cahn's own attempts to correct them:

As noted before Cahn strenuously argues that he has been misunderstood by those who believe he is saying that Isaiah 9:10 specifically applies to America.

Cahn has over and over tried to explain that this IS a misunderstanding, and over and over the critics deny him the right to speak for himself.  Reminds me of the Inquisition where there's no way to be innocent once they've decided you're guilty.  Even "strenuously" defending yourself can't allay this entrenched suspiciousness.  Everything you say on your own behalf only confirms your guilt and the more "strenuously" you say it the guiltier you are.  Is this the way Christians should deal with other Christians?  Whatever happened to benefit of the doubt, to extending grace? 

However, if that is not what he is saying, then the only other possible explanation is that the Isaiah 9:10 Effect is an independent and formulaic principle that operates in a mystical way through the power of the words themselves.

One could almost admire the jesuitical cleverness of this logic -- if you can't get 'em one way you'll get 'em the other.  Oh I'm sure James is quite sincere, however, and believes what he is saying.  I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

Please, Mr. James, consider that it is NEITHER that Isaiah 9:10 specifically applies to America in the sense that it was written TO America at the time of Isaiah, NOR that there is some kind of mystical power of words involved.  It is quite simply and biblically that Isaiah 9:10 describes the attitude of defiance that INEXORABLY LEADS TO further judgment by God, as expressed in the very next verse, as "His hand is stretched out still," AND that it applies to America because it describes America's attitude just as it describes Israel's.  There is nothing mystical about this, it's standard application of the biblical text.   It describes America EVEN WITHOUT the harbingers, but the harbingers, those uncanny appearances of the very literal elements of Isaiah 9:10 in America, nail it down with a special emphasis that OUGHT to cause the most sceptical to snap to attention.

So yes, certain things MUST happen as a result of this defiance, all in keeping with what we all SHOULD know about what God has said about blessing for obedience and punishing for disobedience.  As I said before, scripture is saturated with this BIBLICAL principle. 

And there's more yet.  Sigh.

The BIBLICAL "Isaiah 9:10 Effect" and the UNBIBLICAL attempts of David James to turn it into something mystical

As I said somewhere in this voluminous series of postings on The Harbinger (sometimes wish I'd started a new blog just for the purpose, too late now), the very STRANGENESS of the attacks on the book does have to make you wonder what the devil has against it.

I often feel this way as I consider an argument by just about any of the critics.  Sometimes they are truly jesuitical in their bizarre logic, conjuring objections on the flimsiest of excuses, taking words completely out of context and imposing a formulaic definition on them that they then shoot down as a straw man.  I'm sure they aren't conscious of being so manipulative, but nevertheless I have to think that just a LITTLE benefit of the doubt, a LITTLE grace extended to a brother in Christ, could have spared us all such confusing, useless, wearisome and destructive exercises in fallacious logic and wooden pedantry.

All this as preamble to my next task, David James' chapter on The Isaiah 9:10 Effect. 

This one has all the nonsense of the whole critical enterprise rolled into one.   Cart before horse:

Just as the theory of the nine harbingers was developed to demonstrate the connection between Isaiah 9:10 and America...  [THFOF, p. 127]

There is no "THEORY" involved here that was "developed" to demonstrate the connection.  The observation of the harbingers that appeared in America that so uncannily repeat the elements of Isaiah 9:10, alone dictates the connection that carries the whole meaning of The Harbinger.   There's no THEORY here, there's straightforward inescapable FACT.  Too bad to have to keep repeating that.  But he finishes his sentence:

... the Isaiah 9:10 Effect is crucial to understanding God's second round of warning to America... [Kaplan] Which is what?
[The Prophet] This: 'The attempt of a nation to defy the course of its judgment, apart from repentance, will, instead, set in motion a chain of events to bring about the very calamity it sought to avert.'

It would never have occurred to me in reading The Harbinger to suspect that there could be a problem with such a statement, so consistent with scripture does it read to my simple mind.  But David James perceives depths of nefarious meaning that most of us simpletons miss.

He prepares us for the revelation thusly: 

Before going any further, the first question every reader should be asking about The Prophet's degfinition of the Isaiah 9:10 Effect is, 'Where did this definition come from?'  *It cwertainly didn't come from Isaiah 9:10.  Neither did it come from any of the verses in the vicinity of Isaiah 9:10.  The importance of this matter cannot be overstated because the rest of Cahn's entire theory depends on this theory -- that there really is such a thing as the Isaiah 9:10 Effect.  This is immediately apparent as the dialogue continues: 

...[Kaplan] Behind the collapse of Wall Street and the American economy was...  [The Prophet] Isaiah 9:10.

In the author's mind, Isaiah's words in the alleged Isaiah 9:10 Effect actually cause things to happen.[THFOF pp. 127-8].

Are you curled up in the fetal position pulling your hair out and muttering to yourself by this point?  No?  Then you're either party to this schizophrenogenic distortion of critical thinking or you haven't read The Harbinger.

I exaggerate, I dramatize.  I hope.  But that's what The Harbinger is doing too.  Dranatizing I mean.  This is what the critics fail to see time after time as they "discover" doctrinal issues where there are nothing but literary stylistic choices. 

IN WHAT SENSE IS ISAIAH 9:10 "BEHIND THE COLLAPSE OF WALL STREET?"  Certainly NOT in the sense that Jonathan Cahn thinks that WORDS "cause things to happen."  Oy.  Oh groan.  Oh yeah, James will go on to try to prove this and I'll have to say more against the idea. 

But ALL CAHN MEANS IS THAT THERE IS A SPIRITUAL CAUSE-AND-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEFIANCE OF GOD AND JUDGMENT.  He's saying it poetically or metaphorically, using "Isaiah 9:10" to STAND FOR the defiance that was the harbinger to the judgment in Israel's case and is now also a harbinger of further judgment on America -- to those who have ears to hear, that is.

This OUGHT to be standard biblical understanding.  It doesn't NEED to be STATED in Isaiah 9:10 or nearby because scripture is SATURATED with this message.  If you read the law in Deuteronomy and Leviticus you will see that the enumerated laws and failure to obey them are followed by blessings or cursings.  Disobedience is punished by the enumerated cursings.  If the nation obeys they will be blessed, if they disobey they will be cursed, and the specific blessings and cursings are described. 

"You will reap what you sow," says scripture elsewhere. 

"The wages of sin is death" says scripture elsewhere. 

The Book of Proverbs is another place where you can find out how you will be blessed if you pursue Wisdom but suffer punishment if you follow Foolishness instead.  The Psalms too, as the psalmists are always lamenting the unhappy circumstances their sins have gotten them into and appealing to God for mercy and so on.  But even the historical writings document over and over the obedience and disobedience of the kings and the people and the consequences that followed.  The Book of Judges is one story after another of the disobedience of the people followed by God's giving them a leader who obeys and sets them back on the right path after which they fall away again, over and over and over.  And all the Prophets are after all enumerating the sins of the people and warning of the consequences God is going to bring upon them for their sins if they do not repent.  That's the ESSENCE of the message of ALL the prophets.  Isaiah has brought that message quite clearly in his very opening chapters.  Why should he need to repeat it in the context of chapter 9?  Alas, My people, a people laden with iniquity...

THIS IS WHAT THE ISAIAH 9:10 EFFECT IS: 
Defy God's Warning of Judgment, Expect More Judgment.

Buildings and Trees Update: The Critics Demand a Perfect Match; how close does it have to be?

In his book criticizing The Harbinger, David James objects that the fallen bricks and the hewn stones that were their intended replacement in ancient Israel are not matched at all by the fallen Trade Center and the one quarried stone brought in to be the cornerstone of the new Freedom Tower.  To his mind that cancels out any claim to their being harbingers or signs at all that reflect Isaiah 9:10. 

He also says the sycamore tree that was destroyed by the falling World Trade Center is not enough of a match to the sycamore trees destroyed by the Assyrians as reported in Isaiah 9:10 to qualify as the harbinger Cahn makes of it;  nor that the Norway spruce brought in to replace the sycamore in New York was enough of a match to the cedars of Lebanon with which the leaders of Israel intended to replace their sycamores.

Because the American building materials don't match those of ancient Israel, and the American trees are not similar enough to Israel's, not a close enough match in James' mind, they don't qualify as harbingers at all. 

THE BUILDING MATERIALS

We don't build with clay bricks or quarried stones any more, especially not skyscrapers. So it ought to be regarded as uncanny indeed that anything at all could have been found in New York City in the 21st century to suggest or imitate those materials that are described in Isaiah 9:10.   Even the description of the rubble of the WTC as "a pile of bricks" makes the connection, as does the fact that a quarried stone WAS brought in with the intention of making it the cornerstone of the new Freedom Tower.

Remember the verse doesn't say they actually built anything, what it says is that they intended to, and that is what has reappeared in America, that intention to rebuild that is the expression of defiance of God.

THE TREES:

When scripture is applied to situations in the present it's going to be adapted to the conditions of those situations. That ought to be obvious.

It occurred to me to look up the various trees that grow in the US to see if a better match could have been found for either the sycamore or the conifer and I've concluded that it couldn't.

The fig-mulberry tree does not grow natively in North America and is not a desirable enough tree to be transplanted here, but we have a tree we named after that Middle Eastern tree because of its general similarity of appearance.

Likewise the cedar of Lebanon, which turns out to be an endangered species, requires specialized conditions to grow well and is not a desirable candidate for transplant in North America. 

Both the Middle Eastern ficus sycomorus and the cedar of Lebanon are cultivated here in special nurseries*

The North American tree named after the Middle Eastern sycamore or fig-mulberry tree is the absolute closest match that could have been found, a "perfect" match.  It's the tree that would have been planted in a churchyard in New York City and along Wall Street.  But of course, beyond that, its choice was made ultimately by God Himself which is why it IS a harbinger that echoes the sycamores of Isaiah 9:10. 

As for the Norway spruce, the criterion for an appropriate match ought to be what is most likely to be planted in America and this tree is probably the most popular.  It IS an "erez" tree as Jonathan Cahn points out, making it enough of a match to satisfy all but the obsessed critics, but beyond that the best match has to be the one most suited to its particular location.  The choice of a conifer at all to replace the sycamore of 9/11 is uncanny, something only God could have done, but in America the conifer of choice would have been the Norway spruce.  In my own neighborhood I'm aware of two Norway spruces in people's yards.  I conclude that the Norway spruce is the PERFECT match, the perfect AMERICAN match for the cedars of Isaiah 9:10 to replace our AMERICAN version of the sycamore.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Norway spruce:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picea_abies

The Norway Spruce is one of the most widely planted spruces, both in and outside of its native range, and one of the most economically important coniferous species in Europe.^[7] It is used in forestry for timber and paper production, and as an ornamental tree in parks and gardens. It is esteemed as a source of tonewood^[8] It is also widely planted for use as a Christmas tree. Every Christmas, the Norwegian capital city, Oslo, provides the cities of New York, London (the Trafalgar Square Christmas tree), Edinburgh and Washington D.C. with a Norway Spruce, which is placed at the most central square of each city. This is mainly a sign of gratitude for the aid these countries gave during the Second World War.  

It is naturalised in some parts of North America, though not so extensively as to be considered an invasive weed tree. It can grow fast when young, up to 1 m per year for the first 25 years under good conditions, but becomes slower once over around 20 m tall.^[9]

A very likely tree of choice if you're going to choose a conifer in North America.

I suppose it MIGHT have been a "white cedar" which is really a cypress and is also used for ornamental plantings and is native to North America, especially the northeast:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuja_occidentalis
but I don't see anything that would make it preferred over the Norway spruce.

HOW CLOSE DOES IT HAVE TO BE?

The best match between elements of different cultures, times and climates -- in fact the PERFECT match -- is the equivalent match, not exact identity.  You can't have perfect identity and to demand it is to impose an impossible standard and make it impossible to understand The Harbinger at all.

It has to be close enough to be situationally equivalent with the buildings and trees of Isaiah 9:10 so that we can see that God IS talking to America through Isaiah 9:10.  Equivalence we've got, and that does amount to perfect matches.

======================
*Notes on Trees in America:
There is a place that grows cedars of Lebanon, Trees of Joy: http://www.treesofjoy.com/content/about-us
They call it "the RARE cedar of Lebanon" tree.

http://www.treesofjoy.com/content/cedar-lebanon'''
http://www.treesofjoy.com/content/cedar-lebanon-tree

They also have a page on the Middle Eastern sycamore, Ficus Sycamorus: http://www.treesofjoy.com/content/sycamore-fig-ficus-sycamorus

Pictures of Ficus Sycomorus: http://www.flickriver.com/photos/tags/ficussycomorus/interesting/

"North American Sycamore grows in NY": http://forestry.about.com/od/hardwoods/ss/sycamore.htm

Brannon Howse gets it wrong again

I appreciate most of Brannon Howse's work in calling out false teachers and movements within the Church, but when it comes to The Harbinger he's just wrong over and over and over. 

His program of October 1st is a comment on Jan Markell's Understanding the Times show of Saturday the 29th,  It's Not Too Late for America, in which she interviews Jonathan Cahn again and presents some clips in support of The Harbinger as well as clips teaching that judgment is coming to America.

Brannon Howse has been a major promoter of the criticisms of The Harbinger and today he feels he's found confirmation of a major criticism of the book in something Jonathan Cahn said on Jan Markell's program.

First let me say I also heard Jan Markell's show and thought it a good presentation of the case for The Harbinger overall.  It can be heard at the link above. She is hosting a big conference this coming weekend, the 5th and 6th, which includes Jonathan Cahn, and that is the occasion for Howse's presentation of first the Douma criticism (discussed in previous posts) and today his discussion of last weekend's show by Jan Markell -- to poison the atmosphere for the conference?  Intentionally or not that's what it does, although the actual motivation is no doubt to warn the church of a false teacher.  Sad that there can be SUCH a difference among true Bible believers, even discernment ministries, who usually agree on who the false teachers are.  This is truly an amazing divide among true Christians. 
In her latest emailing, Jan included links to two articles defending The Harbinger, from the site Rapture Ready, one by Terry James and one by  Grant Phillips.  Both strong defenses of the book.  Thank God for sane people!

I had a disagreement of my own on a peripheral point in her last show, and a question on top of that, that I'd really like to see answered, which I'll put in a footnote at the bottom of the post.* 

As for Brannon Howse's response to Markell's broadcast, there is one major argument he is determined to make:  that The Harbinger promotes the idea of extra-biblical revelation through prophets today, which is considered by most orthodox Christians to be false doctrine as the Biblical canon is closed, and the supernatural gifts are believed to have ceased with the apostolic generation. 

Cahn himself is not a cessationist, believing that the supernatural gifts continue to operate.  But as far as the book The Harbinger goes, Howse is wrong:  It does NOT promote any idea of extra-biblical revelation.

But here's Howse:  He's concerned about the character of The Prophet in the book, "Is he forthtelling or foretelling?"  He suspects he's foretelling, which is the big no-no.   All who preach the Bible "forthtell" the truth and that is today's form of prophecy.  We don't "foretell" any more.  That's what the Biblical prophets did.

[5:00]  And that was my concern, that this book, which I have read, has a prophet in it and I thought 'Maybe he is a prophet that is foretelling.'  Well, that office is closed.  We don't have people getting extra-biblical revelation.  But you heard him [Cahn] say the book is written as a fiction but it 8is true ...  But listen to what Mr. Cahn says himself: [he keeps repeating the clip of Cahn saying the following] 

[7:18] I put a narrative of a man, a man who's called a prophet.  He's really representing the Old Testament revelation  of the prophets of judgment giving warning to a nation. 

I've strongly emphasized Cahn's statement because Howse repeated the clip a number of times and it's what he hangs his comments on. 

[6:39]  Notice that Cahn in this interview from last week says that the prophet in his book is one like the Old testament.  Well, an Old Testament prophet, folks, could do signs and wonders, an Old Testament prophet got extra-biblical revelation.  That is what ...I thought might be represented in this book to begin with [7:04] but could never really get it nailed down.  Listen to his words again [and he repeats the clip]. 

So where is that revelation coming from, folks?  [7:39]  It's coming from God.  Would that not then be, if you have a prophet in the modern age ... as the book is set [in the modern age] a prophet much like the Old Testament prophets, isn't that again confirming what we've been saying all along?  Remember the book is a fiction...but...it is true.  Is this not affirming the idea that people receive revelation, like an Old Testament prophet, to uncover these mysteries ....

In his blurb describing the show at his website Howse tries to defend his point of view this way:

Brannon believes this clearly involves extra-Biblical revelations or mysteries and thus opens up a serious theological issue. While some would say the "prophet" is revealing the revelation given in the Old Testament; that would not be an accurate assumption if the "prophet" is also revealing new mysteries that are for us today. There is nothing in the text of Isaiah 9:10 that would suggest it forms a repeating pattern of judgment or a mystery that could be applied millennia later. That is completely new revelation.

A mystery is something that was in the mind of God that was not revealed in the Old Testament but was revealed in the New Testament through the writers of the Bible. Thus, if Cahn’s prophet is revealing mysteries then that puts him in the category of the kind of prophet that we see in the Bible.

Howse goes on emphasizing this point for a few more sentences. Well, is he succeeding at making a case that The Harbinger teaches extra-biblical revelation through Old Testament type prophets even today?  He himself is apparently completely convinced that this one statement by Cahn is smoking-gun proof, confirmation of what he's suspected all along.

My answer is of course a resounding No, he has proved no such thing. 

What in Howse's mind is the "new revelation," the "extra-biblical revelation?"  Is it the message of Isaiah 9:10?  But that's Biblical, that's not extra-biblical.  He mentions this in his blurb but goes on to say it isn't accurate

...if the 'prophet' is also revealing new mysteries that are for us today.

So, what new mysteries has this prophet revealed for us today?   Is it the message of Isaiah 9:10 as applied to America?  But again, even in being applied to America it's not new revelation, it's the Bible itself being applied, an ancient text written by the true prophet Isaiah. 

He insists it is new revelation because 

There is nothing in the text of Isaiah 9:10 that would suggest it forms a repeating pattern of judgment or a mystery that could be applied millennia later. That is completely new revelation

THIS is his "new revelation."  But this is nothing but his misuse of the word "pattern" that so many of the critics have been misusing, which I discuss in my response to Douma below.  Cahn never suggested a "repeating pattern of judgment."  He merely referred to Isaiah 9:10 as the pattern for America, and why?  Because it so well describes America's response to 9/11.  That is what makes it a "pattern," as any scripture that is applied to another time than it was written for becomes the pattern for that future time.  It COULD be repeating if it applies to more than one future situation as most scripture usually does, but in this case it's a pattern just because it applies so America.

THE SUPPOSED "NEW" or "EXTRA-BIBLICAL" REVELATION IS NOTHING OTHER THAN THE PERFECTLY STANDARD APPLICATION OF AN OLD TESTAMENT VERSE TO OUR OWN TIME.

Nothing the Prophet has said is either new or extra-biblical, it's merely the transmission of the message of Isaiah which can be found IN the Bible as Howse himself recognizes --or should.  The "revelation" in the message of Isaiah 9:10 is the revelation that since the verse describes America's attitude toward God's judgment in the attack of 9/11 the nation is under judgment just as Israel was when that passage was written to them.  It's the verse being APPLIED to America.  What's extra-biblical about THAT? 

Howse is letting words trip him up by insisting on definitional or formulaic meanings or meanings of his own that have nothing to do with anything in the book.  He's concerned that The Prophet is revealing "mysteries."  But WHAT mysteries is The Prophet revealing?  Nothing more than the BIBLICAL message of Isaiah 9:10 as it is being played out in America.  A standard application of an Old Testament verse to a current situation.  The Prophet didn't make it play out in America, he OBSERVED it playing out.  The Prophet is merely bringing that fact to the attention of the character Nouriel. 

Jonathan Cahn says The Prophet "represents" the Old Testament prophets, he doesn't say he is LIKE them, as Howse misrepresents his statement, or that he does what they do.  He is STANDING FOR them, for THEIR messages, for BIBLICAL truth, and this is borne out in simply READING THE BOOK, where it is clear that the only prophecy is the one in the Bible and the only mystery is the one in the Bible and the only revelation is the Bible's application to our time.  The little clay seals all refer to elements in the Bible, so they also direct the reader back to the BIBLE, not to some new revelation, except, again, the revelation of the APPLICATION of that verse in today's America.  

So in what sense does The Prophet "represent the Old Testament prophets of judgment giving warning to a nation" in Cahn's words?   By passing on the message of judgment given by one of those prophets in the spirit of all the prophets of judgment who gave warning.   He is passing on THEIR message, he is not giving a NEW message from God that he received himself.

• There is nothing extra-biblical going on here, it is ALL biblical. 
• There is no  new revelation, what is revealed is the meaning in applicaton to America of a passage in the Bible. 
• There is no new mystery that is being revealed, only this same meaning in its application to America.

 The Prophet is not presented as receiving anything the way the Old Testament prophets did, by direct impartation from God.  ALL he is doing is passing on KNOWN BIBLICAL TRUTHS and showing their application to America in our time.  What he passes on of their application is something that theoretically anyone could have observed because it's all out there to be observed, though it did take someone to draw our attention to it.  That's the function of the book and The Prophet is the character who presents the information.

How to explain this complete misrepresentation of the book by Howse?  Clearly he is jumping to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence.  A lack of care to really think it through?  A lack of prayer to protect against such obvious error?   Too much eagerness to have his own opinion vindicated?  An allergy to certain words that makes him along with his fellow critics itch to falsely brand a fellow Christian as a purveyor of false doctrine?

===========================
*  The disagreement I had with Jan Markell's show was about their insistence that the American founders, especially George Washington, were true Christians.  One reference given was to a Prayer Diary attributed to Washington that expresses the very Christian concept of being washed in the blood of the lamb.  The problem is that Washington's authorship of that diary is in dispute.  Beyond that, what IS known about Washington's beliefs is rather scanty because he was extremely reticent to talk about his beliefs, an attitude amply testified by his contemporaries.  This in itself ought to raise some doubts just because there is no reason for such reticence in someone who holds true Christian beliefs, in a nation which was as predominantly Christian as America was at that time.   And there is also the equally well testified fact that Washington refused to take Communion at his Anglican Church but would walk out at that point in the service, and when chided by the pastor for setting a poor example for others his response was simply not to attend church at all on Communion Sunday after that.  

The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders, A recently published book by Gregg L. Frazer, a scholar connected with John MacArthur's Masters College, concludes that the big name founders were neither Christians nor Deists but something Frazer dubbed Theistic Rationalists.  They believed in Providence, in a God who oversees His world, who answers prayer, which is not the Deist concept of God as having created the world and then left it to operate on its own, but they all denied the deity of Christ, which certainly defines them as nonChristians.  It's easy to find statements by Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine against the deity of Christ, some quite blasphemous statements as a matter of fact as they ridicule the concept, while Washington's belief in this regard is generally hard to pin down.  But I checked in the book by Frazer at Amazon and found in his chapter on Washington a description of him as denying the deity of Christ as well.

The nonChristian and in fact even anti-Christian beliefs of the American Founders has been a bitter pill for many to swallow and it is still denied by many although the evidence has been mounting.  I found it hard to accept when I first encountered the idea too, but the evidence is just too strong to ignore.  So my position now is that we need to get these facts straight no matter how bitter the news.  The nation is still nevertheless founded on a very strong Christian base, we just have to look further back to our Pilgrim and Puritan forebears, and the Christian influences in the nation all along until the last half century or so had been very strong in all areas of the nation's life.

The beliefs of the founders comes up in relation to The Harbinger because the book puts some weight on Washington's prayer for the nation in the chapel that happens to be located right at Ground Zero, as one of the founding markers of the nation as dedicated to God.  That's a whole discussion in itself and all I'll say here is that I believe God would have honored our first President's dedication of the nation just because he was our first President, the "father of the nation," but I'd also suppose that there must have been true Christians praying along with him as the nation WAS overall a Christian nation in those days, despite the Enlightenment thinking of the major Founders.  In any case Cahn also refers back to the first generation of Pilgrim and Puritan settlers where the Christian foundation is uncompromised.

That was my disagreement with one position stated on Jan Markell's broadcast.  The question I also had is about the fact that they claim that The Harbinger is bringing people to salvation, and they mentioned that even Catholics and Mormons are coming to salvation.  Nothing could make me happier if so, but I have to confess scepticism about that.  I can certainly see that Catholics and Mormons might be drawn to the message of the book and to a renewal of their belief, but since I know that converting either of those groups is far from easy I have my doubts that they are converting FROM their respective churches to true Christianity.  I hope it is so, but the evidence one way or the other has not been given, and it should not have been implied that they are in fact converting without such evidence.

New Criticism of The Harbinger: Douma, Pt. 4 The Shemitah

The other point I wanted to get to but didn't in the last post is Douma's remarks about the concept of the Shemitah as as it is used in The Harbinger.  There's a lot to say about this concept that I'm not going to get to, I just want to respond to Douma's main point.

First as usual we encounter the Dispensationalist framework which is what is making an ungodly and unbiblical confusion out of the whole discussion, when Douma objects to Cahn's applying the concept of the Shemitah to America at all, since according to that system of Bible-mangling it was

meant only for Israel.

He condemns Cahn for applying it to America, quoting page 159 of The Harbinger:

The sign of the Shemitah, given to a nation that has driven God out of its life

 Interesting that he doesn't quote the earlier part of that dialogue:

Yes, but what does it have to do with America.  Ameica has never had a Sabbath Year. 

That's correct.  It was only commanded for one nation.  But the issue here isn't the literal observance of the Shemitah or any requirement to keep it....  The issue here... is its dynamic, its effect and its consequence.... The issue is The Shemitah as a sign.

Cahn, in other words, is clearly not applying the Shemitah to America in the same sense it was given to Israel.  I don't want to get into that here except to say that I think he observed -- emphasis on OBSERVED -- somethng interesting about a pattern of seven years that actually OCCURRED in America that led to the connection with the biblical concept of the Shemitah. That is, it isn't something he took from the Bible to make it fit America, it was the other way around.

Be that as it may, for another discussion another time, Douma, having found Cahn at fault for applying the Shemitah to America at all, says 

Are you and I bound to sabbatical rest laws?  Isn't he saying as Peter did that we Gentiles have to start living like Jews?  [41:59]  How is that not a distortion of the goepsl?  Where is the criticism of that?  How is Cahn not trying to build up a wall that was taken down by Christ in Ephesians 2, the wall of separation, the Mosaic law that separated Jews and Gentiles.  Is not Cahn rebuilding that wall once again?  Of course he is.  So this is a gospel issue.  He's resstablishing the Mosaic Law and now it applies to you and I [sic].  [42:28]

No, I'm free from that in Christ.

Here can be seen one major confusion that needs to be untangled.  Douma fails to distinguish between the inheritance of freedom in Christ that we have AS BELIEVERS and the condition of the unbeliever, but also between individuals and nations.  The Harbinger is about the nation of America.  It is the NATION that is coming under judgment by God.  That will certainly affect individuals, both believers and unbelievers, but the judgment as such is about the nation and not the individuals. 

God deals with individuals individually.  That is a different thing altogether from His judgment of nations as nations. 

9/11 should have been recognized as judgment on America by anyone with any biblical sense at all, and I have to say most of the nation has no biblical sense so it's no wonder it was missed.  America as a nation is corporately in defiance of God, only too well described in Isaiah 9:10 but also given a special confirmation and emphasis by the existence of the harbingers as described in Cahn's book, and it all relates specifically to 9/11. 

But this does not in any way imply anything about the individuals who were killed on that day.  We have no way of knowing how God dealt with them and it's none of our business.  Some were no doubt believers, some weren't.  We can say that God showed a great deal of mercy in the midst of that judgment, in that relatively so few were killed when so many thousands more could have been killed.  There are miracle stories galore about that day. 

Judgment on a nation is NOT at all the same thing as judgment on individuals.

So when we think about elements of the Old Testament coming to apply to America today we have to keep the nation separate in our thinking from individuals, either believers or unbelievers.

Yes, we BELIEVERS are free from the Law in Christ, but unbelievers are not but "abide under the wrath of God" as scripture says, and nations are still corporately dealt with by the Law in the fashion laid down in scripture for Israel.  The Mosaic law is really a revelation of The Law that runs this universe.   It's no arbitrary thing.  It inexorably rules, it inexorably judges.  That is why we NEED the gospel to rescue us from it as individuals, and we can ONLY be rescued AS individuals. 

But outside the gospel The Law goes right on ruling and judging.  The Mosaic Law was the basis for Blackstone's Commentaries on the law that used to be the foundation for English and American law.  No more of course since the Bible as any kind of authority in our world has been brought down by the powers of evil.  But once upon a time The Mosaic Law was taken to be the foundation for all civilized laws in this fallen world.

THAT IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE THING FROM THE GOSPEL.

Cahn is NOT reestablishing the wall of separation, he is simply doing what sane intelligent Christians, unhampered by idiotic Dispensationalist presuppositions, have ALWAYS done, apply the Law to NATIONS.

The confusion in the critical attacks on The Harbinger is truly dangerous -- again, far beyond The Harbinger.  Maybe it's because of this truly unbiblical system of theology that so many pastors in this nation had no clue that 9/11 was God's judgment in the first place.   These critics, even when they think the nation deserves judgment for all the sins they can enumerate that all conservative Christians agree about, seem to be strangely unable to be SURE of it.  Well, we MAY be coming under judgment they say, or maybe we're GOING TO BE some time in the near future.  This is a terrible blindness and it's sad to think it might be theologically induced blindness.