The book begins with Mr. Cahn’s powerful and compelling exploration of Israel’s decent into immorality as a template to America’s current state of affairs. Mr. Cahn shows how two nations, with such auspicious beginnings, show uncanny parallels that are inescapable and troubling. This part of the book provides many valuable insights.
As the book progresses Mr. Cahn unpacks his Paradigm beginning with a look at the two infamous Biblical characters of Ahab and Jezebel which he sees as types for two of today’s most famous or infamous (depending on your point of view) political characters i.e. William Jefferson & Hillary Clinton. This exploration of shadow and type of Old Testament hero & villain and twenty first century American politicians continues up to our present day with the election of our current president Donald Trump.
Had Mr. Cahn left the exploration of shadow and type to a general character sketch which looked at the how immorality and righteousness influence men and women, especially those in positions of power, then this book would have been a home run.
Unfortunately Mr. Cahn didn’t stop with a paradigm which shows how human actions which separate themselves from the laws of God lead naturally down a path which has common threads amongst all human beings. In what appears to be a well-meaning effort to buttress this paradigm Mr. Cahn takes the ancient Biblical types and attempts to show how specific actions and dates are paralleled in their modern American political anti-types. This takes the subject from type and anti-type into the realm of prophetic speculation.
THE CENTRAL CORE PROBLEM SURROUNDING THE PARADIGM
After watching this video above I can assure you that Mr. Cahn's book is based on an eisegetical approach to interpreting the Holy Scriptures.
Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text. The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants. Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words. Second Timothy 2:15 commands us to use exegetical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us. The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life? Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea. To illustrate, let’s use both approaches in the treatment of one passage: 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 “Jotham was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. . . . He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Uzziah had done, but unlike him he did not enter the temple of the LORD.” EISEGESIS First, the interpreter decides on a topic. Today, it’s “The Importance of Church Attendance.” The interpreter reads 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 and sees that King Jotham was a good king, just like his father Uzziah had been, except for one thing: he didn’t go to the temple! This passage seems to fit his idea, so he uses it. The resulting sermon deals with the need for passing on godly values from one generation to the next. Just because King Uzziah went to the temple every week didn’t mean that his son would continue the practice. In the same way, many young people today tragically turn from their parents’ training, and church attendance drops off. The sermon ends with a question: “How many blessings did Jotham fail to receive, simply because he neglected church?” Certainly, there is nothing wrong with preaching about church attendance or the transmission of values. And a cursory reading of 2 Chronicles 27:1-2 seems to support that passage as an apt illustration. However, the above interpretation is totally wrong. For Jotham not to go to the temple was not wrong; in fact, it was very good, as the proper approach to the passage will show. EXEGESIS First, the interpreter reads the passage and, to fully understand the context, he reads the histories of both Uzziah and Jotham (2 Chronicles 26-27; 2 Kings 15:1-6, 32-38). In his observation, he discovers that King Uzziah was a good king who nevertheless disobeyed the Lord when he went to the temple and offered incense on the altar—something only a priest had the right to do (2 Chronicles 26:16-20). Uzziah’s pride and his contamination of the temple resulted in his having “leprosy until the day he died” (2 Chronicles 26:21). Needing to know why Uzziah spent the rest of his life in isolation, the interpreter studies Leviticus 13:46 and does some research on leprosy. Then he compares the use of illness as a punishment in other passages, such as 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chronicles 16:12; and 21:12-15. By this time, the exegete understands something important: when the passage says Jotham “did not enter the temple of the LORD,” it means he did not repeat his father’s mistake. Uzziah had proudly usurped the priest’s office; Jotham was more obedient.
It is easy to be a prophet of past events. In industry it's called reverse engineering. The tricky part is to get it right about something that will happen in the future. So far Mr Cahn's efforts in this regard have been abysmal. His false predictions and bogus mysteries concerning the four blood moons and the stock market collapse of Elul 29, 2015 is a graphic case in point. Jesus warned beware of the scribes cf Luke 20:45-47. The Greek word for scribe in this passage is "GRAMMATEUS", which means a writer( professional secretary). As in Christ's days on earth, we should be very careful of the writers of today, the modern day scribes who write books many of which are NY TIMES bestsellers that line the shelves of christian book stores. The modern church world today clearly lacks spiritual discernment by the way it neglects the 66 books of the Bible and runs after religious fad books. This gross lack of knowledge among those claiming to know the Lord is also an indication that many have not diligently studied the word of God for themselves, but rather have relied upon false teachers and prophets to tell them what they think God has said. Consequently many have been deluded by a false gospel. These false teachers and prophets prey upon the unlearned who are not skillful in rightly dividing God's word. These men and women are in the ministry STRICTLY FOR MONEY! Some hide this fact better than others which makes them all the more deceptive and deadly.
2 Corinthians 2:17
"You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ's authority, knowing that God is watching us".