This article comes from the November-December 2014 issue of LCG's Living Church News (pp. 14-17).
As many of you readers know, some self-appointed prophets have made wild pronouncements about Iran’s role in end-time prophecy, even labeling it the “King of the South” despite its location north of Jerusalem. Many mistakenly lump Iran in with the Arab countries to its south, and as a result fail to recognize important details about this mysterious nation.This is clearly a criticism of PCG's 1994 proclamation that Iran is the King of the South. And while Hernandez is correct in saying that Iran is east, not south, of Jerusalem, he is about to present an idea so ridiculous and bizarre even PCG has never mentioned it.
So, can we discern any key that would allow us to better understand the background behind this nation’s aggressive presence in the Middle East drama? Is there an explanation for the sharp contrast in the relations between Iran and Israel before and after the overthrow of the Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979? Is it just a matter of religion? Or is there more?Let us be enlightened.
It might sound strange to some, but the roots of the seriously aggravated tensions between the present rulers of Iran and the nation of Israel date back to a time when Islam did not even exist. We are faced with a family conflict that has been perpetuated throughout the centuries all the way to our time. ...
How can we explain the sudden and brutal 180-degree change of direction in the domestic and foreign policy of Iran after the overthrow of the Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979? How could a former friend of Israel and the United States turn overnight into their most bitter enemy?There are many reasons for this. Memories of what happened in 1953 being just one of them. Will even one of those many things be mentioned here?
The Shah, who was a Muslim, considered himself heir and successor of the ancient kings of the Persian Empire. Statistics indicate that the majority of Iran’s population today is of Persian origin. Both the historical record and the Bible clearly point to the fact that the Persian people have not been an enemy of Israel or the Jewish people.Hernandez means the Amalekites.
What most people do not understand is that after the fall of the Shah, the government in Iran was taken over by a minority that is not of Persian origin.
Who is that minority?
Here we see Haman’s Amalekite attitude causing a dramatic “180-degree” turnaround in the government’s attitude toward the Jewish people. This is remarkably like what we saw in Iran when the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power after the overthrow of the Shah. And here is a fascinating detail: in the grammar of the Semitic languages, “Khomeini” has the same root as “Haman”—notice the shared HMN.Is that even true? According to this discussion from 2003 the surname Khomeini refers to the town he was born in, namely Khomein. And apparently the town of Khomein was named after a character in the Iranian classic epic, The Shahnadeh, namely Hooman.
Incidentally the discussion from 2003 also mentions this assertion that Khomeini refers to Haman. So this idea seems to have been making the rounds of some churches since at least 2003. Hernandez must have heard this assertion somewhere, presumably outside the COGs, and has presented it to LCG members without checking if it is true or acknowledging where he got this ridiculous idea. That is plagiarism. He should tell his readers where he got this false idea instead of being silent about the fact that others have taught this idea.
But this does not appear to be true. And even if Khomeini was descended from the Amalekites what about everyone else who has led Iran since 1979? Are they all Amalekites? Every single one of them? Or is it only half of them? This idea is absurd and ridiculous.
So, is it any surprise that we find a parallel between Amalek’s attack against Israel in the desert (Exodus 17:8–16; Deuteronomy 25:17–18) and the increase of terrorism in the world favored (and sometimes even sponsored) by the current leaders in Iran? The Medo-Persian nation of Iran, despite its history of tolerance and even friendship toward the Jews, has come under the influence of an Amalekite mentality—even an ethnic Amalekite leadership—which took the reins of power after the overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi.The only surprise is how little regard LCG's leaders have for their members in promoting strange, racist and plagiarized doctrines such as this.
To say that certain people, in this instance alleged Amalekites, behave in a certain way because of their ancestry is racist. This idea is not just wrong, but racist too.
This article is ridiculous. It is simply untrue that another ethnic group has taken over Iran from 1979 onwards, Amalekite or otherwise. Hernandez does not even mention what happened in 1953. This article is useless in understanding current affairs. But it does reveal that LCG's leaders are willing to publish an article that happens to say something so utterly untrue and false.
The editors are the issue are listed as being Roderick Meredith, Richard Ames, William Bowmer and John Robinson. Why didn't any of them bother to note that this article is simply wrong to claim that another ethnic group has taken over Iran? Were any of them aware that this idea has been plagiarized from some other source?
That LCG's leadership would publish such a deluded article indicates that LCG's leaders have little regard for truth and seem content to promote such falsehoods to LCG members. LCG members have been badly misled on this issue.