Posted on 09/13/2009 11:48:38 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
(This is an update of a study I first posted in Nov. 2003)
Those who labor to understand the nuances of the battle described in Ezekiel 38-39 quickly identify two major puzzles. One is the timing of the battle and the other is the identity of Gog, from Magog. Suffice it to say here that almost no scholar, certainly none I’m aware of, believes the battle of Ezekiel 38-39 has already taken place. Some believe it will occur just before the beginning of Daniel’s 70th Week, while others believe Ezekiel is actually describing the Battle of Armageddon, which would put it at the end of the Great Tribulation. But all place it sometime in our future.
In my opinion, there are several reasons why Ezekiel 38 can’t be part of the Armageddon scenario. First, only some nations are involved in Ezekiel 38. For example, Saudi Arabia and Western Europe are said to be on the sidelines observing and others you would expect to see, like Egypt and Jordan, are not mentioned at all, although both appear later on. But Zechariah 12:3 says that in preparation for the Battle of Armageddon all the nations of the Earth will come against Jerusalem.
Second, how is Israel going to burn the left over weapons for 7 years as Ezekiel 39:9 indicates unless there are 7 years left in which to burn them? Rev. 21:24. says the nations will walk by the light of the New Jerusalem in the Millennium, so they won’t need fuel for energy then. And then you have Ezekiel 38:11 telling us that Israel will be a peaceful and unsuspecting people when the Moslem coalition strikes. Could that be possible near the end of the Great Tribulation when all the nations are gathering to attack? I don’t think so.
But most importantly, Daniel’s 70th week can’t start until Israel is back in covenant with God and the battle of Ezekiel 38 is what causes the covenant to be re-instated. (Ezek. 39:22) Armageddon comes at the end of Daniel’s 70th week, not the beginning.
As for Gog and Magog, the first thing to note is that while Magog is listed in Genesis 10, Gog is not. The list of 70 names in Genesis 10 is often called the Table of Nations because each of the men named there was the original ancestor of an ethnic group that grew to become a nation of people. For instance, Magog was the 2nd son of Japeth, one of Noah’s three sons, and bore the children who in time became known to the ancient world as the Scythians. They lived in central Asia and are believed to be the forefathers of today’s Russians. Many historical references support this view. For example, Josephus Flavius wrote “Magog founded the Magogians, thus named after him, but who were by the Greeks called Scythians.” And in some ancient Arabic documents, the Great Wall of China is called the Ramparts of Gog and Magog. It was built to keep the Scythians out of China.
So while the Russian people of today are likely descended from Magog, there is no such biological connection for Gog to either Magog or any other ethnic group. There is an unrelated mention of a man named Gog, a grandson of Reuben, in 1 Chronicles 5:4 but there doesn’t seem to be any connection between him and the land of Magog either. Clearly, while Magog refers to the millions of his descendants in today’s Russia, Gog remains a single individual.
Some say he’s a king or leader, and in a real sense I think that’s true but I don’t believe he’s of the human variety. The time spanned by his three appearances in scripture make that impossible.
The first one is in the first verse of Amos 7, but you have to be reading Amos from the Septuigent translation to see it. There, Gog is identified as a king, but of a swarm of locusts. To further shroud him in mystery Proverbs 30:27 states that locusts have no king, and observers of locust swarms agree that no obvious leader directs them, as a queen would direct a hive of bees for example. The swarm of locusts led by Gog in Amos 7:1-2 was symbolic of a judgment that was to come upon the Northern Kingdom, but the Lord relented because of Amos’ intercession.
(This hint also lends insight to another appearance of locusts, by the way. I’m referring to the one in Revelation 9, where a swarm of locusts comes out of the Abyss to afflict those on Earth who lack the seal of God on their foreheads. These locusts have a king named Abaddon in the Hebrew or Appolyon in the Greek. Here again, the Proverbs passage would indicate that these locusts are of supernatural origin like the ones in Amos 7, not ordinary locusts.)
The next time Gog’s mentioned is in Ezekiel 38:1, where he is called by name as the leader of a coalition of what are now primarily Moslem nations attacking Israel. His final mention comes from the Book of Revelation where he again leads the people from Magog against the Lord’s army at the end of the Millennium (Rev. 20:8).
Even if you’re among those who place the battle of Ezekiel 38 at the end of the Great Tribulation, the span of time between Gog’s last two biblical appearances is at least 1000 years, and while I believe that some born in that era will have long life spans, there isn’t any indication that natural humans born before the Millennium begins will live to see its end. This is especially true of God’s enemies, since all surviving unbelievers are removed from Earth at the beginning of our Lord’s reign.
So I’ve come to the conclusion that Gog is a supernatural figure. The Bible clearly states that behind the human seats of government stand supernatural figures manipulating the thoughts and actions of the world’s leaders. These figures are in Satan’s employ, helping in his effort to wrest ownership of Planet Earth from its Creator. Gog is at least the supernatural figure behind the throne of Russia, and perhaps is even Satan’s counterpart to the Archangel Michael, who commands the Lord’s armies.
In Daniel 10:13 Michael is identified as one of the Lord’s chief princes who in 536 BC came to Daniel’s aid in a supernatural struggle with the Prince of Persia, a nation barely emerging on the world scene having conquered Babylon just three years earlier. At its conclusion Michael told Daniel that he’d soon be battling the Prince of Greece, a nation that didn’t even exist at the time. In Daniel 12:1 we’re told he’ll protect Israel at the end of the age. And in Rev 12:7 he’s seen leading the angelic host in a great battle in heaven when Satan is defeated there and cast down to Earth at the outset of the Great Tribulation. Michael is clearly a supernatural warrior leaping across the pages of history in defense of the Lord’s interests. It makes sense that Satan would have a military commander leading his forces as well, since everything he does seems to mirror the actions of his Creator. With his multiple mentions in Scripture and the long span of time between appearances, Gog could easily be this commander.
Only time will tell if this view is correct. But one of the great advantages of living in our day is that we won’t have long to wait till we find out. You can almost hear the footsteps of the Messiah. 09-12-09
Obviously,
interest, like beauty
is in the eye of the beholder.
It's been my observation that if you bring up Nicea, and get in response a ranting screed about Constantine and the Council, you're probably not dealing with anybody remotely orthodox.Is it your position that to be "right thinking" you must agree with all the councils that were called to resolve Christian beliefs?
Like Vatican x or Trent? No. Take my statement exactly as stated.
It is for some people, especially for those who like to beat up* their opponents for not interpreting the Bible “literally”.
(*) “beat up” in this context is meant to be taken figuratively.
Ezekiel's time as well as in the book of Revelation chapter 9, it would be difficult to describe things like jets or Apache helicopters since they had never seen one.
That’s an excuse, not an explanation. The OT prophets were able to describe quite clearly future conditions that did not exist in their day, e.g., the method of crucifixion.
Besides, it there were given a vision of reality then they would have seen the real thing, at least as it was depicted in the vision. Apache helicopters do not look anything like locusts or any other creature. Tanks and APC do not look like horses. M16s and AK47s do not look like swords or bows.
Sounds like a nuclear reaction?
No, actually it doesn’t.
Sounds like a nuclear reaction?No, actually it doesn’t.
And they accuse us of "spiritualizing".
Scythians in the New Testament
Chuck Missler’s typical hack job to support his eschatological preconceptions.
The Greek usage familiar to Josephus has nothing to do with Russia.
The Scythians or Scyths[1] (Greek: Σκύθης, Σκύθοι) were an Ancient Iranian people of horse-riding nomadic pastoralists[2][3] who throughout Classical Antiquity dominated the Pontic-Caspian steppe, known at the time as Scythia. …There is no historical evidence from the Bible times to support the identification of the Scythians with modern Russia.The name "Scythian" has also been used to refer to various peoples seen as similar to the Scythians, or who lived anywhere in a vast area covering present-day Ukraine, Russia and Central Asia—known until medieval times as Scythia. ( Wikipedia)
Topcat *is* noisy... but he has no bite. All he can do is be contrary to anyone who puts forth a Biblical study.
If you ask him what he believes, he will tell you that every Bible prophesy was resolved in 70AD.
Yet if you ask him to clarify who in 70AD the two witnesses were, Wormwood was, what the mountain that fell into the sea was, what the stars falling from the sky was, what the stinging creatures were, what the 200 million horses were... he will completely ignore you. LOL
He has no beliefs about these prophesies of his own at all. He exists only to be contrary to any theory put forth about what they are, to try and shutdown any discussion of Biblical prophesy.
AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!!
AMEN!!! AMEN!!! AMEN!!!
I hope it’s ignorance, but more and more it looks like some are playing for the wrong team.
The examples I quoted from Revelation used terms “like unto”, “as a” and “like”. I think saying a locust with a face like unto a face of men might be talking about a windshield of a helicopter with the soldiers sitting in it. A tail that stings could easily mean firing missiles. How COULD they describe a rifle other than a “sword”? I think Scripture is pretty clear when it speaks figuratively just by the words used.
Spiritualizing?
Thinking that horses COULD, MIGHT POSSIBLY be illustrative of horse power is spiritualizing?
Oh, I get it—spiritual horsepower???
LOL.
INDEED.
There are several who don’t want discussion, only contention. Confidence in your beliefs doesn’t equate with arrogance, stubornness or pride and instead is open to hearing other’s views. If someone comes on a thread like this only to verbally shout down someone else, they can always be ignored.
You only have to quote scripture here and you’ll be accused of being a hater, LOL.
Does it necessarily have to mean horses? They could have been seen as horses because they couldn’t really describe what they saw in modern language.
I completely agree. Wonderfully said.
I agree with you, boatbums.
Amen, Outership.
With all due respect, I don’t see how applying unsubstantiated notions of modern technologies to ancient prophecies is the solution. It just amounts to so much speculation. More importantly, it would make absolutely no sense to the people to whom it was originally written and intended.
The ball is still in your court.
PS, I won't take your comments personally. I realize the frustration you must feel not being able to answer for your gurus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.