*PHARISEE WATCH <http://whtt.org/index.php?id=PhariseeWatch#1282>*

The latest update is posted here: 
http://cp.whtt.org/index.php?news=2&id=3197 <../../index.php?news=2&id=3197>


*ISRAEL'S CHERISHED FRIENDS*
/*Gordon Ginn, Ph.D. */

PHARISEE WATCH

 (Editor's Note: Dr. Ginn's review and critique of Professor Timothy P. 
Weber’s article ‘How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend,’  
published in Christianity Today magazine of October 5, 1998, has become 
even more valuable in understanding the current explosion of Christian 
Zionism.)

 

For many years I have urged Americans in general and Christians in 
particular to awaken to the strange relationship between the modern 
state of ‘Israel’  and the evangelical-fundamentalist Christian 
communities in America. I use the term ‘strange’  because the concept of 
such a partnership was unheard of until recent times. For eighteen 
hundred years, give or take a few, Christendom was at odds with Judaism 
and all its intricacies, which is putting it mildly, and Jews have 
always keenly felt the total estrangement. Christians believed that an 
unbridgeable chasm separated the two. That has now changed. In the 
article mentioned above, professor Weber of Northern Baptist Theological 
Seminary in Lombard, Illinois furnished an excellent background for the 
development of this ‘love-hate’  relationship. It is a love-hate 
relationship because Jewish leaders saw an opportunity to exploit 
evangelicals vis-a -vis their dogma of dispensationalism, and 
evangelicals, though sticking like glue to the theme of ‘God’s chosen 
people’  (the Jews), have by and large insisted on the necessity of 
converting them to Christ. Some evangelicals go so far as to say that 
Jews have an unconditional covenant with God and don’t need converting. 
This is an extreme view and, in my opinion, biblically incorrect. Some 
have expressed surprise that Christianity Today would publish an article 
that seems to be (at last!) a refutation of dispensationalism in an 
evangelical magazine, since it might be risky to do so. Such exuberance 
is premature, however, for Professor Weber, while raising important 
questions, fails to object to related issues that help to solidify the 
whole. Nevertheless, he does suggest that evangelicals might be better 
served if they re-examined their dispensationalist doctrine. He 
refreshingly states: ‘Part of the problem is the overconfidence 
evangelicals have about their prophetic views.’  (p. 49) To that I can 
add a hearty ‘Amen!" It was not Weber’s intent to present the biblical 
case against dispensationalism, a case that can be firmly established 
with key points---the important reasons---for rejecting 
dispensationalism as heresy. I would call attention to 
dispensationalists’ peculiar interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 which 
includes their egregious silence regarding the torn veil that separated 
the Holy of Holies at the time of the crucifixion of Christ, and their 
misinterpretation of the reasons for the destruction of the temple in A. 
D. 70. Their anachronistic assignment of the ‘great tribulation’  in 
Matthew 24, their incompetence in dealing with Romans 11:26, their 
unwillingness to deal with Galatians 3, 4 and 6:16, and finally their 
hyper literal treatment of the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (Revelation), 
are glaring faults in their dogma that long ago should have seen the 
light of day via seminaries and publishing houses. Perhaps the greatest 
disappointment with Weber’s piece is his endorsement of the popular and 
widely accepted version of the Holocaust, and his politically correct 
view of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, i. e., that they are what 
the Jews say they are, the product of either Russian Czar Nicholas II 
and his government, or plagiarized material from other sources such as 
the Geneva Dialogues written by Maurice Joly. These unfortunate mistakes 
attenuate Weber’s otherwise excellent essay on the problems of 
dispensationalism. He apparently is the victim, along with millions of 
others, of the most efficient and clandestine propaganda offensive ever 
mounted, a sustained effort finely tuned with Talmudic and Zionistic 
casuistry. Marxist dialectics, born of Talmudic casuistry, were used by 
secular and left-wing Jews (Bolsheviks) who ravaged Russia after 1917. 
These dialectics are closely related to the phenomenon of evangelical 
ties to ‘Israel’ , and they continually manifest themselves in our 
everyday political and legal worlds. Weber apparently falls prey to the 
(now Popular) left-wing bombardment of ‘right-wing conspiracy theories’ 

(p. 42) by rehashing the involvement of Henry Ford who provided greater 
circulation in America for The Protocols. In an atypical, almost snide 
remark, Weber uses Arno Gaebelein, a past prominent figure in 
fundamentalist Christian circles, as an example of those who love some 
Jews more than others (p. 43) ‘Though he could not be sure,’  says 
Weber, ‘Gaebelein thought that The Protocols were ‘˜from the pen of 
apostate Jews’ who were responsible for Russian Bolshevism’¦.’  (p. 43) 
According to Ralph Lord Roy, Gaebelein changed his mind, but my research 
shows that he was correct in the first place. One doesn’t need to 
believe in the genuineness of The Protocols in order to demonstrate that 
they essentially emanated from Talmudic-Cabalistic doctrines. In my 
booklet Strong Delusion I made this statement:

 

‘I will not attempt to prove that The Protocols originated in secret 
Jewish meetings as some claim. No matter what evidence is presented in 
favor of that view, as such an argument would be denied by a horde of 
‘˜experts.’ Actually, it is not necessary to give such proof now that we 
have Michael Higger’s, The Jewish Utopia. My presentation will simply 
attempt to show that The Protocols fit nicely with Higger’s book, whose 
authenticity cannot be denied. If these works are similar and their 
linking holds, all Jewish denials of The Protocols will be moot! This 
will be devastating to Talmudic polemicists. (p. 11)

 

It is indeed a sad thing that contemporary scholars such as Timothy 
Weber have been deprived of solid evidence implicating ‘apostate’  Jews 
in the Bolshevik crimes committed against the Russian people, or perhaps 
they have seen the evidence and refuse to believe. They typically drag 
out The Protocols and proceed to use them as prima facie evidence that 
those who believe them are extremists undeserving of serious 
consideration. This stigma is the result of incessant propaganda that 
exudes from the mass media, usually prompted by Jewish organizations 
like the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith or others too numerous 
to mention. When certain buzz words such as ‘anti-Semitism’  or 
‘Protocols’  are used by the dominant media, the masses are expected to 
genuflect in obeisance to Orwellian Newspeak. God Himself has been made 
controversial by the use of this tactic. Millions of Christians have 
been taken in. The marriage of ‘Israel’  to modern evangelicals is a 
strong indication of the effectiveness of Jewish leverage. Professor 
Weber makes some valid points. In summarizing the features of the final 
days preceding Christ’s return as envisioned by dispensationalists, 
including the so-called battle of Armageddon, he observes:

 

‘Obviously, the key to this entire prophetic plan is the refounding of 
Israel, as a nation state in Palestine. Without Israel, the whole plan 
falls apart.’  (p. 41)

 

Yes, the key element in dispensationalism is the refounding of Israel, 
but if these modern chiliasts had practiced proper hermeneutics, the 
torn veil that separated the Holy of Holies in the temple would have 
been the major key for preventing their offbeat doctrine. When Christ 
was crucified it was torn from top to bottom thus signifying that the 
manifestation of God was no longer there. This was prima facie evidence 
that Christ by His death had put an end to all sacrifices for sin and 
was now the eternal High Priest. Any future sacrifices of animals would 
be an insult to God and His Son. This meant that the temple was no 
longer needed by Israel and its destruction in A. D. 70 was the end of 
the commonwealth. Israel as nation was no more. It ceased to exist. 
Therefore, if dispensationalists were to interpret the Bible correctly 
as eighteen hundred years of church history have shown, there would 
never have been an expectation by Christians of a regathering of Israel. 
In 1948 when Jewish zealots announced that Israel was reborn as an 
independent political-religious entity, no Christian should have 
believed that it was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. It is true 
that had the Jews not established such a state, dispensationalists would 
still be gazing at the horizon, trying to catch a glimmer of what they 
erroneously believed would occur. If present-day ‘Israel’  were to cease 
existing, dispensationalists would be hard pressed to justify their 
dogma. If I may be allowed to predict the future of ‘Israel,’  it will 
indeed cease to exist just as every other nation will, because the 
sovereign Lord will return in judgment. All impostors, whether political 
or personal, will perish. According to Weber, there was a small group of 
dispensationalists in the late 1900s who were not content to let God 
guide the course of history. They were more anxious to see Jews move 
back to Palestine than most Jews were. And today, we see more of the 
same in the Temple Mount faithful supporters who would like to give the 
rebuilding of the temple a little shove. Such an ardent, religious 
emotionalism would likely start a war, but their Christian particularism 
seems to ignore the risk. ‘Dispensationalists had a dark side that grew 
out of its beliefs about the Jews’ complex role in prophecy,’  says 
Weber. Though dispensationalists believe that Jews are the chosen people 
and therefore have a glorious future, at present they will suffer 
because they ‘are under the power of Satan.’  (p. 43) When 
dispensationalists received news of the Holocaust, Weber tells us, they 
had mixed emotions. They were horrified at the persecution, but believed 
that such suffering might serve to turn them to Christ, and also 
increase their desire for a homeland. This ‘dark side’  of 
dispensationalism, in my view, contributed in some measure to the 
present accusation by Jewish leaders that the New Testament and 
Christians were to blame for the Holocaust. If dispensationalists were 
aware (most Americans were not) of what was happening under the Nazis, 
why did they not sound the alarm to the Christian community? It was 
their ‘resignation’ , as Weber puts it, to the inevitable fate of the 
chosen ones who must suffer prior to their redemption. Orthodox 
Christians have not seen a future glory for Israel and thus would 
ideally condemn persecution of any human beings. Either way, 
unfortunately, Jewish leaders today are critical of both 
dispensationalists and Orthodox Christians. If today’s politically 
incorrect turn out to be accurate in the assessment that ‘Israel’  is an 
illegitimate state and Jerusalem is the headquarters of the avant-garde 
of the ‘beast’  system symbolically described in the Apocalypse of Jesus 
Christ, such figures as Hal Lindsey and Carl F. H. Henry must be 
considered as having played key roles in the present dilemma. Weber says 
that Henry, a former editor of Christianity Today (who received his Th. 
D. degree from Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, the school where 
Professor Weber teaches) ‘announced a prophecy conference in Jerusalem’  
in 1971. Fifteen hundred delegates from 32 nations attended and received 
a greeting from Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. The Israeli government 
provided the meeting hall free of charge. ‘That started a flood of 
favored treatment of American evangelicals from the Israeli 
government.’  Tour groups began to flock to the country (p. 46) The 
previous year, 1970, saw the publication of Hal Lindsey’s book, The Late 
Great Planet Earth. We were told that it was a world wide best seller 
(27 million copies?). If I were a detective investigating an important 
case I would try to learn how Zondervan Publishing House managed such a 
successful project, and how Carl Henry pulled in

1500 people from 32 countries. These questions may very well have 
reasonable answers, but they should at least be asked. The fact that 
‘’Israel played its fundamentalist card’’  (p. 46) tells us that 
political and religious strings were pulled in the right places to 
implement its agenda. My research through the years has convinced me 
that dispensationalism is a modern refinement of ancient Jewish chiliasm 
(millennialism) and as such should be suspect in terms of political 
intrigue to establish and maintain ‘Israel’  in the Middle East. If this 
sounds like a conspiracy theory, so be it. Marxists and pseudo-liberals 
are allowed to denigrate ‘right-wing’  conspirators (remember Hillary 
Clinton’s accusation?). The same free speech rights must apply to 
others. Professor Timothy Weber tells us that ‘American evangelicals 
were finding their political voice’  by the time Hal Lindsey wrote the 
1980s: Countdown to Armageddon. Because they were concerned about what 
was happening to their country ‘ ‘¦they formed groups like the Moral 
Majority and the Religious Roundtable to help elect Ronald Reagan ‘¦’  
After the Six-Day War they organized Christians Concerned for Israel 
which later became the National Christian Leadership Conference for 
Israel. Its goal was to educate the country, especially Christians, 
about the importance of U. S. Support for Israel. In effect, I believe 
it was an Israeli front. Prominent evangelicals such as Kay Arthur, 
Terry Meeuwsen of Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, Paige Patterson who was 
president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Cal Thomas, Senators Trent 
Lott and Sam Brownbach, Congressmen Dick Armey, Dick Gephardt and Tom 
DeLay attended. Jerry Falwell, John Hagee and Southern Baptist Morris 
Chapman and Richard Land, as Weber states, also represent the 
dispensationalists’ love for ‘Israel’ . A very important point made by 
Weber is that grass roots groups have formed among evangelicals, some of 
which, are primarily teaching others about ‘‘¦.. the Jewish roots of 
their own faith.’  (p. 47) This is especially disturbing to 
non-dispensationalist Christians who see a fundamental conflict between 
Judaism and New Testament Christianity. They believe that the primary 
doctrines of the New Testament confirm the prophecies of Jeremiah 
31:31-32, Daniel

9:24-27and Hebrews 10:1-22, et al., that is, that the Old Covenant was 
made obsolete and Christianity is the offer of salvation via Christ to 
both Jew and non-Jew. This is not ‘replacement theology’  as some now 
claim, but rather that true Israel and the true Church are synonymous. 
Throughout the history of humankind, God’s desire has been that the 
hearts of people would be right in terms of confession of sin and desire 
to live under the principles of truth, love and justice. When God called 
Abraham, it was with this in mind. The seed of Abraham was Christ 
(Pauline doctrine) and all who trust Him are Abraham’s true children. 
Judaism (Rabbinism) developed during the exiles of 721 and 586 B. C. and 
was never identical to the Mosaic economy established at Mr. Sinai. 
Dispensationalism cuts the ground from under New Testament teachings, 
but its advocates fail to grasp either the concept or the significance 
of the matter. It is not too much to insist on the utter difference 
between Judaism and New Testament Christianity. Such a shotgun wedding 
crucifies afresh the Son of God. Professor Timothy Weber’s essay is a 
much needed and refreshing wake up call to Christians to start 
questioning the dogma of dispensationalism. I give him an ‘A’  for that. 
Regretfully, I had to assign him a ‘D’  for allowing other false issues 
to stand, matters that I have mentioned herein.

(December, 1998)

 

Books and CDS by Gordon Ginn:

 

THE FINAL APOSTASY Dr. Gordon Ginn, Ph. D.  Apostasy means 'falling 
away' from the fundamentals Jesus of Nazareth taught. The Final 
Apostasy, Ginn tells us, is of a massive defection of Christians from 
their faith, the apostasy declaring Christ's work as failed or left 
incomplete. This is called chiliasm or futurism, that denies 
completeness of God's work in Jesus, making God a failure and Jesus a 
half done Messiah. Dr. Gordon Ginn's theological insights are clear for 
seekers of God's truth in the New Testament. Paperback. c. 2002. 193 
pages. http://eshop.whtt.org/eshop.php? id=28

 

Compact Disk

 

Dr. Gordon Ginn speaks on The Final Apostasy 
http://eshop.whtt.org/eshop.php? id=51

 

ON THIS TOPIC

 

Israel, The New American Idol, Moore

 

Christian Zionism's Roots, (Carlson narrated slide show)

 

http://www.whtt.org/show/)

 

God's Terrible Law that Judeo-Christians Break , Carlson

 

http://whtt.org/index.php? news=2&id=998

 

Sheep and Goats Part I Carlson (Matthew 25)

 

http://whtt.org/index.php? news=2&id=636

 

The Sheep and the Goats, Part II (Matthew 25

 

http://whtt.org/index.php? news=2&id=678

 

CD Classic, by Chuck Carlson and others

 

Now CUT by HALF!.

 



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"bangla-vision" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/bangla-vision?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to