March 1996: Volume 18, Number 3

Contents Do We Really Want a "Poison Pill?" Was Luke a Gentile? A Note from Zola Do We Really Want a "Poison Pill?" By Zola Levitt ZOLA LEVITT I think it's time to comment on the presidential candidacy of Pat Buchanan. I dislike doing this because every time I talk about politics, I get a tremendous amount of argument from our very alert and energetic readers. But Pat Buchanan is a topic from which we can learn a great deal. First of all, I don't trust the man as far as I could throw him (and I'd like to throw him very far). Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite, a racist, and a hater through and through. He dislikes all minorities, including women, and immigrants, which we virtually all are. A compendium of his quotes on America's position in the world shows a xenophobic, Fascistic mind at work. He would fit right in with the administration of the Antichrist. I do not use the term anti-Semite lightly. Arafat in the West Bank, Farrakhan in the United States, Zhironovsky in Russia, almost 100% of the world's Arabs, and a few choice others truly hate the Jews these days. Millions of other people merely dislike them. But Pat Buchanan's anti-Jewishness and anti-Israel bias are well known and documented. I personally watched Crossfire for years while he was a host, and in all that time I never heard him say a kind word about Israel. The editorialist A. M. Rosenthal of The New York Times devoted a column to Buchanan's anti-Semitism, and columnist Molly Ivins said that his right-wing address at the 1992 Republican Convention was "better in the original German." We have in our office William Buckley's excellent and well-researched magazine on anti-Semitism, in which Buchanan gets more than a little space. We will present quotations from that article below. On the issue of Larry Pratt, co-chairman of Buchanan's campaign, addressing rallies at which Nazi salutes were given, Buchanan only clumsily defended his friend rather than repudiating and firing him. Bob Herbert's February 16 column in The New York Times spoke about Pratt's association with Pete Peters, "the leader of Christian Identity, a movement that supports violence to promote white supremacy. Pratt was a regular guest on Peters' public access cable television show." A report released by the Anti-Defamation League states the following: "Peters proclaims that Jews pose a Satanic threat to American civilization; that they are conspiring to control America; that blacks and other people of color are inferior to whites; that homosexuals should be executed; and that northern European whites and their American descendants are the Chosen People of scriptural prophecy." Sam Donaldson, George Will and Cokie Roberts on the February 18 [1996] showing of This Week, asked Buchanan about this issue and other such questionable behaviors, and Buchanan sidestepped every question. On Pratt's obvious connections to the most loathsome elements in American democracy, Buchanan basically said that Pratt was a good supporter of his and he would stick by him. A key question had to do with why the Nazis in Louisiana, the state of David Duke, rejoiced so at Buchanan's victory. The candidate was obviously miffed by the question, but had trouble denying it. He finally implied that the Gramm campaign had planted the story. Buchanan is able to pander to a crowd in the way that David Duke and Adolf Hitler before him were able to do. People are captivated when they hear mottoes and slogans that agree with their thinking. But Buchanan, who has never held any government office, isn't beginning to say all that he would do to this country. Let the voter beware. Anti-Semitism is a spiritual sickness, seldom curable over time. I have usually found that those I knew who despised the Jews in my youth despise them still today. This is not a normal hatred, since the Jews have really done so very little throughout history to deserve the persecution that they have constantly received. But Bible people understand that there are larger issues here than mere racism and bigotry. The day that God chose the Jews, the devil chose them too. Look at it from the enemy's point of view: if he could get rid of the Jewish people, or at least most of them, then the Bible would become the relic book of an extinct people and would take its place along with the holy writings of the Babylonians, the ancient Persians, etc. And the God of Israel would be exposed as a God who did not keep His promises to His Chosen People. The Jews are in Satan's way, and all of those who consciously or unconsciously follow Satan hate the Jews. Along with disparaging Jews goes denouncing their homeland, and we are living in an age of watching Israel being dismembered in favor of a police state in the Holy Land. Christians watched as Bethlehem was given to Moslems, and some Christians — unbiblical, denominational church-goers — actually rejoiced, imagining they were promoting peace. I don't believe that the vast "liberal" church, the mainline denominations, have enough Bible knowledge or enough of a sense of Christ to understand what's going on in the world today. We are at what appears to be the very end of a lengthy spiritual battle over each soul in the world, and especially over the Chosen People. I am not at all surprised to see a racist appealing to people in primary elections, and it wouldn't be a total shock to see him installed as the president of this country, though that would be a disaster indeed. God's plan marches on, and we can only testify of His Son and get some people saved. And in this case, "saved" really means saved! The catastrophe that is coming down on the world very soon will be beyond anything it has ever seen, or as our Lord put it, "except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved" (Matt. 24:22). Following are quotes from a special edition of William Buckley's National Review dated December 30, 1991, and entitled "In Search of Anti-Semitism." Section two of this edition is devoted to Pat Buchanan, and begins with the incident that initially stirred concerns regarding Buchanan's anti-Semitism: an appearance on the McLaughlin television program during the Persian Gulf crisis. On this program he said, "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East — the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States." Later on the same telecast he stated, "The Israelis want this war desperately because they want the United States to destroy the Iraqi war machine. They want us to finish them off. They don't care about our relations with the Arab world." Buckley points out that while it was true (and quite natural) that the Israelis wanted the Iraqi aggression stopped, by singling out Israel and its "amen corner" in the U.S. as the only proponents of the war, Buchanan was being profoundly inaccurate. And, Buckley writes, "inevitably, when an intelligent person makes an assertion that is manifestly absurd, he arouses suspicions." In a later television appearance, Buchanan "came in with the wisecrack that Congress was 'Israeli-occupied' territory." Buckley warns that "any reference to Congress as Israeli-occupied' territory can be taken as encouraging resentment against the Israeli lobby and its backers. Breeding hostility, etc." Following this incident, Buchanan "pronounced the names of four important men who influence public policy, whom he identified with the hyper-bellicose wing of the anti-Saddam forces." Those men were columnist A. M. Rosenthal, former assistant secretary of defense Richard Perle, columnist Charles Krauthammer, and Henry Kissinger. Buckley writes that these men have many things in common, but "the most conspicuous of these is that they are all Jewish. . . . The evidence that the Jewish factor was engrossing Buchanan mounted. And then whatever coincidence might in desperation have been pleaded for this aggregation of all-Jewish anti-Hussein activists, its usefulness expired when Pat Buchanan went on to write that if we went to war, the fighting would be done by 'kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.' There is no way to read that sentence without concluding that Pat Buchanan was suggesting that American Jews manage to avoid personal military exposure even while advancing military policies they (uniquely?) engender." Further on in the article, Buckley writes that "in recent years and months Buchanan seemed to have been attracted one after another to positions in which Jews had a special interest, almost always taking the contrary position. A summary of these was done by Joshua Muravchik . . . [and] was published in Commentary in January 1991." Muravchik's article on Buchanan concludes: ". . . when he is hostile to Israel; when he embraces the PLO despite being at adamant odds with its political philosophy; when he implies that Jews are trying to drag America into war for the sake of Israel [alone]; when he sprinkles his columns with taunting remarks about things Jewish; when he stirs the pot of intercommunal hostility; when he rallies to the defense of Nazi war criminals, not only those who protest their innocence but also those who confess their guilt; when he implies that the generally accepted interpretation of the Holocaust might be a serious exaggeration — when a man does all these things, surely it is reasonable to conclude that his actions make a fairly good match for [conventional anti-Semitism]." (Brackets in original.) William Buckley's article is extensive and tries to evenhandedly present all sides of the situation; but even so, he concludes the article by stating, "I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism. . . ." More recently, on February 13 Lisa Meyers of NBC News with Tom Brokaw pointed out that Pat Buchanan made derogatory remarks against women, Jews and other minorities in the past. Also on February 13, David Letterman joked about where the various presidential candidates shop for clothes. He quipped that Buchanan goes to "the Gap for Fascists." The audience's laughter indicated that his meaning was clear to them. And A. M. Rosenthal commented in his February 20 New York Times article that Buchanan "offers isolationism, division, bigotry — his customary poison pill." Once again, please don't spend time lecturing me on my views. I'm barely interested in American politics compared with what's going on in Israel and the hearts of Christian people. I would just have felt very much remiss not to sound this warning. We have had a considerable number of letters about Buchanan, and all of the above is my answer. Return to Index Was Luke a Gentile? By Thomas S. McCall, Th.D. Thomas McCall As we speak and teach the Word, we often mention that the whole Bible is a Jewish book, and that all the writers of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, were Jews. Frequently, someone asks the question, "What about Luke, wasn't he a Gentile?" This has been taught throughout church history for so long and so consistently, that it is assumed without question it must be true. However, when you study how this conclusion was reached by biblical commentators, you realize how slender their evidence is. The idea that Luke was a Gentile seems to be based more on tradition than any strong biblical evidence. Importance of the Question It may not seem important whether or not Luke was a Gentile, but when you think about the magnitude of his work, the issue becomes truly significant. By counting the pages written by Luke in both his Gospel and Acts, it is clear that Luke wrote more pages of the New Testament than any other writer, including Paul and John. If Luke was a Gentile, then the Lord entrusted more pages of New Testament revelation to a Gentile than to any other writer. This would be remarkable, to say the least. Personally, as a Gentile Christian, I would love to have one of "our guys" as a writer in the canon of Scripture, so I am naturally reluctant to find otherwise. However, the evidence appears overwhelming to me that Luke was, in fact, a Jew. The matter cannot be settled conclusively, because the Scriptures never specifically tell us Luke's background, but the arguments for his being a Jew appear to far outweigh those for his being a Gentile. Arguments for Luke Being A Gentile Usually, biblical commentators simply assert that Luke was a Gentile, without offering any proof at all, as it is so universally believed. Some commentaries, though, present arguments for sustaining the concept of the Gentile background of Luke. Chief among these arguments are the lists from the Epistle to the Colossians. The Lists in Colossians In Colossians 4, the Apostle Paul closes his letter by listing the various people who are with him as he writes the epistle, and some of those who are addressed. In these lists Paul makes mention of some who are of "the circumcision" (Col. 4:10-11), and are, therefore, Jews. Although it is not perfectly clear which men are referred to, they are presumably the previous three: Aristarchus, Mark and Jesus called Justus. Paul apparently does not include Tychicus and Onesimus, mentioned before in verses 7-9, as being in the circumcision group. Later in this same chapter, in verse 14, Paul refers to Luke, the beloved physician. The argument is made that, as Luke is not mentioned in the list of those of "the circumcision", he therefore must not be a Jew. However, this is very slim evidence, indeed. In the above reference, Paul is speaking of his fellow workers in the preaching ministry. However, Luke was not ever described as being actively involved in the work of preaching, but was rather Paul's personal physician and historian. It would not be appropriate to put Luke in the list with those who were active in the preaching ministry, regardless of background. Thus, there are reasons other than background why Luke would not be included in the list of "the circumcision." It is risky to build a concept on evidence which is so weak, and this is the strongest evidence in the Bible that those who believe Luke was a Gentile use to prove their point. The Name and Profession Arguments Proponents have also argued that the name Luke (Lucas) is, in itself, evidence that he was a Gentile. However, the very names mentioned in Col. 4 as being in "the circumcision" are Gentile names: Aristarchus, Marcus and Justus. Paul's name itself is a Roman name, which he used throughout his ministry among the Gentiles, instead of his Hebrew name, Saul. In the same way Peter's Hebrew name was Simon. The fact of the matter is that most Jews who lived in the Diaspora used two names: one, a Jewish name, which was used in the synagogue, and the other, a Gentile name, which was used in business. So Luke could well be the public name of a Jew who lived among the Gentiles. Others have actually claimed that Luke's profession as a physician would be evidence that he was a Gentile. This would assume that there were no Jewish doctors in the Roman world. Such an idea is preposterous. Christ referred to physicians in Israel on several occasions: "Physician, heal thyself..." (Luke 4:23) "They that are sick have need of a physician..." (Matt. 9:12) There is as much reason to believe that Jews were in the medical profession in ancient times as they are today. Thus, none of the arguments supporting the idea that Luke was a Gentile are strong. It is helpful, then, to turn to the arguments that Luke was a Jew. Arguments for Luke Being a Jew There are several arguments that support the idea that Luke was a Jew. As has already been stated, there are no specific statements as to the background of Dr. Luke. Therefore, the only way we can know anything about Luke's background is from inferences in the Scriptures. The Rule: Oracles Given to Jews After showing the sinful condition of the Jewish people, explaining how the Jews are just as much subject to sin as are the Gentiles, Paul asks the question,"What advantage has the Jew?" His answer was "Much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom. 3:1-2). The main advantage that Paul recognizes in the Jewish people was that when God gave revelation to the human race, He gave it to and through the Jews. He did not utilize the Gentile people for this purpose. This was the rule: that Jews were the vehicle for revelation. If Luke was an exception, the burden of proof is on those who would claim that he is an exception. Thus, one has to prove conclusively that Luke was a Gentile before one should abandon the clear rule about the Jewish writing of Scripture. We must assume that Luke is a Jew unless the evidence is so overwhelming that we must conclude he is a Gentile. As we have seen above, the evidence from the lists in Colossians is so weak that it does not meet that criterion. Gentiles are blessed in many ways, especially during this Church Age, but God has never indicated that He has changed His rule of using only Jews to record His revelation. Trophimus, Not Luke, the Cause of Paul's Arrest Dr. Luke was a constant companion of the Apostle Paul from the time that he joined the missionary apostle when he sailed from Troas to Europe. Luke accompanied Paul on his fateful last return trip to Jerusalem, and was an eyewitness to the arrest of Paul in the Temple in Acts 21. The crowd was greatly agitated by the presence of Paul in the Temple, and charged him with bringing Gentiles into the Temple precincts. This was a crime punishable by death. Luke explains that Paul never did bring any Gentiles into the Temple, but he was seen on the streets of Jerusalem with "Trophimus an Ephesian." Apparently, Paul brought Trophimus with him to Jerusalem so that the apostles and the mother church there could see first-hand the fruits of his labor among the Gentiles. Even though the charge was false, they were able to spread the rumor among the people, and cause a near riot against Paul on the Temple Mount, and for this reason he was arrested. The point is that, when the Jewish people wanted to accuse Paul of bringing a Gentile into the Temple, they chose Trophimus. Why didn't they choose Luke, who was also with Paul, and was an eyewitness to these events? If Luke were a Gentile, it would have been far easier, and far more believable, to accuse Paul of bringing Luke with him into the Temple, rather than Trophimus. The fact that Luke was not mentioned in the accusation is a strong indication that he was not a Gentile. Luke was with Paul on several occasions when they made the various trips to Jerusalem in order to report on their missionary efforts to the apostolic church. The issue was never raised about Luke being a Gentile, although he was there in Jerusalem with Paul. As Luke was not controversial when he travelled with Paul to Jerusalem and the Temple, our assumption must be that he was also a Jew. Thus, there was no mention of Luke as a problem when Paul was arrested. Luke's Intimate Knowledge of the Temple Another argument for the idea that Luke was a Jew is that he showed such an intimate knowledge of the Temple, more than any other of the Gospel writers. When he described the announcement to Zacharias concerning the birth of John the Baptist, Luke went into considerable detail to describe the rotating selection of the Levitical priests for service according to their families. He further described the position of the priest before the altar of incense, where the angel appeared to Zacharias (Luke 1:8-20). The fact that Luke alone of the four Gospel writers gives this account, and he does so with such vivid detail, argues for his being a Jew, familiar with the Temple procedures. One could even speculate that Luke might have been a Levite as well, as he knew so much about how the Temple operated. Is it logical to assume, without question, that Luke was a Gentile, when he had such a clear understanding of the most intimate workings of the Temple, where no Gentile was allowed to go? Luke's Intimate Acquaintance with Mary Yet another argument is the striking intimacy that Luke had with the mother of Jesus, Mary. He relates the story of the birth of Jesus primarily from Mary's point of view, and then said that she hid these things "in her heart" (Luke 2:19, 51). How did Luke, of all the Gospel writers, get so close to Mary that he was able to find out what she had hidden in her heart? As close-knit as the Jerusalem church was, and as difficult as it must have been for Gentiles to have gotten to the "inner circle" of the apostolic leadership, it seems highly unlikely that Luke could have gotten that close to Mary if he were a Gentile. Actually, it appears that Luke might have served Mary for a time as her personal physician. This is speculation, but how else could he have had such a close relationship with her, so that he could draw from her the details she had hidden in her heart, and had discussed with few others? Luke would have had the opportunity to consult with Mary on the occasions when Paul made his reporting trips to Jerusalem, and especially while Paul was in prison in Caesarea for two years. Such access would have been quite understandable if Luke were a Jew, but would have been most unlikely if he were a Gentile. My conclusion is, then, that we must infer that Luke was a Jew. The idea that he was a Gentile appears to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking and tradition. The biblical evidence strongly supports the position that Luke was a Jew, and we should always believe the Scriptures over tradition, when there is a conflict between the two. Return to Index A Note From Zola Dear Friends, I spotted an article in The New York Times which called China the world's oldest civilization. Now it's true that there were people living in China a very long time ago, but China has changed its culture, its religion, its philosophy, its language, and so many things basic to what we call a civilization over the centuries. What would a Confucian of 3,000 years ago have to say to a Communist of Beijing today, and would they even understand each other? Is Europe older? Not at all. The great societies of Greece and Rome date from about 500 years before Christ, but Abraham came to Israel 15 centuries before that, and the Exodus predates the great Greek civilization by 1,000 years! How about Africa, where the most ancient skulls and bones are found? Well again, while people have walked the soil there for many thousands of years, their culture, their gods, their music, their prayers, their clothing, their habits have changed myriad times. What would a primitive warrior of 3,000 years ago have to say to an oil worker of Nigeria or a liberated South African, and could they find a common language? Egypt is a civilization very old indeed, with some of the pyramids reaching back 5,000 years. But where are the pyramid builders today? Where are the pharaohs of 3,000 years ago, when Egypt dictated life and death to the known world? That country completely changed over when it was conquered by Arabs, and finally by Moslems, and today it is totally changed. What would a sculptor of 3,000 years ago have to say to an Egyptian in suit and tie today? Perhaps you suspect where I'm taking you. Yes, Israel is the world's oldest civilization by far, with no competitor in the world. The point is that the celebration of Jerusalem 3000 is evidence that no matter how many visitors and invaders and pilgrims have come and gone, the people in Israel are reading the same Scriptures that were read 3,000 years ago, singing the same songs, praying the same prayers, worshipping the same God, and speaking the same language. While it is seldom given credit for much accomplishment, Israel, with all of its ups and downs, is truly the elder statesman of the civilizations of this world. I wanted to say a few words on behalf of our visit to Greece and our cruise of the Mediterranean islands. The fact is our schedule has changed as regards these tours because of the new relationship between Jordan and Israel. We were treated with total courtesy in Jordan on our Christmas Tour, and for the first time our pilgrims got to see Mount Nebo, from where Moses first feasted his eyes on the Promised Land; and Petra, one of the great sites in the Middle East. Our group then continued on to Eilat on the Red Sea, a resort with warm temperatures in December. The tour was so successful that we have decided to do it each fall and each December. That means we will only undertake our Greek cruise once each year. Since this is also a very popular tour, I did not want people to overlook the fact that if they don't sign up for our April tour, they will have to wait a year to go with us to see these singular New Testament sites. Truly the tour of Athens, including Mars Hill and the Acropolis, and Corinth on the mainland, in addition to the cruise to Mykonos, Rhodes, Ephesus and Patmos, is our most complete and luxurious product. While the price has slowly climbed over the years, it is still about half the price of a comparable Caribbean or Hawaiian cruise, but it includes such marvelous spiritual experiences! There is still time to sign up for the Greek cruise and Israel tour — our Grand Tour — which departs April 17 and returns on April 30. If you wish to do the 10-day Israel-only tour, then choose from either our April 22 or April 29 tour. But don't delay, since time is short. Call Cynthia at (214) 690-1876 immediately. Thanks. Your messenger, Return to Index Return to Levitt Letter Archive Index Return to Home Page