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
While I see your point, I am somewhat sympathetic toward topcat too - I think y'all (meaning not you in particular) are reading things into prophetic visions that may well not be there.
What was seen by Ezekiel/Daniel and etc. may have been precisely what they reported. In fact, it quite probably was. It was a vision. It was not needfully a birds-eye view of a future time. It may have been a rendering that the Spirit knew the man could understand, that if he wrote it down faithfully, we would be able to understand as well.
Prophecy is seldom predictive. It usually cannot be fully understood until it has been fulfilled. At the very time of it's fulfillment, those who are awake can see, at least can feel the season as it is happening, but most will not understand until after the event has occurred.
But in the eyes of the prophet, he may well have seen horsemen, with "thundering noises", and the sound of "rushing waters"... He didn't have to understand what it all meant... In fact they normally didn't understand the end times stuff. What he had to do was write it down faithfully.
What we have to do is apply the vision to history, and see if it is completely fulfilled. Jehovah's Word does not return to him empty, so if the prophecy is not perfectly fulfilled, it is not the fulfillment, and we await the truth of the prophecy.
But even if the vision was "just" a vision, and not foreknowledge of the battle scenes themselves, That takes nothing away from it's veracity.
"Horsemen" can still easily be translated into "Cavalry". In fact, that is probably as close as a literal translation can get to a term that we would clearly understand. Our Armored Cavalry perform the same function as horsemen would all those years ago. "Blood up to the horse's bridles" does not necessitate a horse. It is a measurement that we can certainly quantify.
Soldiers are still soldiers, armor is still armor, and while a sword is no longer used, the gist of the vision, that the soldiers are heavily armed and armored with the best of everything comes through very clearly. It is neat, btw, that armor is back on the job, as prophecy predicted it even though we have been hundreds of years without it.
While I agree most firmly with the idea that the very end of things is near, I also agree in (small) part with the preterist view. The Scriptures say that the end times began in the times of the Apostles. One must take that broad a view in order to see, as what the Bible calls the "Time of the End" has been running for 2000 years, and the prophecy has been unfolding all along.
Where I think we are now is entering, or having already entered the "Time of Jacob's Troubles", which is within a generation of the end, which is what most folks call the "end times".
Thanks for the ping!
I don't see how one could study the scriptures and come to any other conclusion...
I agree, but it has been strongly argued that Christians have become the true Israelis.
Strongly argued without merit...Or not even strongly argued...Just claimed and demanded...You must destroy and mis-use a lot of scripture to come to that conclusion...
Am curious . . . Do you both
believe that
Daniel was
A) in a literal lion’s den wheren the lions’ mouths were shut by a literal angel
or
B) that it was symbolic somehow of some spiritual truth?
And what about his 3 buddies in the fiery furnace?
That is really true. Anything we do speculate upon, that has not already happened, is libel to be wrong - It is one of the things I wonder at in Jehovah's Holy Word. He truly does make the learned men fools. Predicting the Prophecy is a slippery predicament. Like trying to hang onto a wriggling fish.
I take a much broader view than most. The Apostles say that the "End Times" were occurring even in their time, so as I said above, that much of the preterist view I must accept (sola scriptura). What I reject of the preterist view is that it is all over and done... and in that I vociferously join the ranks of end-timers.
However, the antichrist spirit was well at work, even in the Apostolic times, and I see the seals and perhaps some of the trumpets having already happened, having spanned many, many generations. I believe we are very, very far along, and Christendom has missed the lion's share of the billboards and landmarks Christ, the apostles, and the prophets have left to guide our way.
The 1st war of Gog and Magog has to be in front of the Tribulation.
That seems to be true - Though I am not convinced entirely that there are two. It certainly is possible that there are two, as even after New Jerusalem comes down, the Bible describes thieves, whoremongers, and every other sort of evil person living outside of Jerusalem's gates, and "leaves of healing" for the healing of the nations... If all were peace and happiness upon the earth, there would be no need to heal the nations. Whatever is happening that far off is hard for me to speculate upon.
I do believe that the War of Magog is the *next* big thing.
The 2 witnesses testify for 3 1/2 years before they are killed and are killed 1/2 way through the Tribulation.
The two witnesses are identified in Isaiah as the two Houses of Israel. Whether that is quantified into two actual witnesses remains to be seen. The 3 1/2 years may refer to 3500 years of testimony as easy as 3.5 actual years... I don't know. It is interesting to me that these two witnesses are thought to be dead and rise up alive into the clouds just as the 7th trumpet is sounding... That has it's own amazing connotation.
My reading of Rev 11 is they are testifying in front of the Temple. If this is true, the building of the Temple has to begin prior to the Tribulation.
So it seems... Christ certainly physically enters through the East gate- that seems inescapable... and the Abomination has always been set up within the Holy of Holies, these also assume the Temple must arise.
the war of Gog and Magog has to be at least 2-3 years before the Tribulation.
That seems very condensed.
I think the treaty comes into play because Islam is not swept away. They begin to reunite and war again and that is why a treaty is necessary. Also, I think the Antichrist is their Mahdi. The great falling away may be the rise of Islam and decline of Christianity in the world.
I agree in part, but do not forget that Rome, the iron of the statue, has TWO LEGS. Even as there are two feet of iron and mirey clay (concrete). I think the Mahdi is the first of these, but I also see the European leg gaining ground. The 10 sectioned world government is being prepared, and the German/Franco/Italian beast rises once again. Communism/Globalism is paving the way for that world government.
Thanks for your reply.
I agree that the end times began after the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. I guess I'm taking a more narrow view that the Tribulation will be 7 years as indicated in Daniel 9. I think it will be a literal 7 years because the literal time line matches up perfectly for Jesus and his ministry and crucifixion in the first part of the prophesy.
It is interesting to me that these two witnesses are thought to be dead and rise up alive into the clouds just as the 7th trumpet is sounding... That has it's own amazing connotation.
It just occurred to me that if the 7th trumpet is sounding after their death they are killed towards the end of the great Tribulation. IOW, the rebuilding of the Temple could be at the start of the Tribulation, simultaneously with the Treaty the Antichrist enters into. The 3 1/2 yrs they witness does not have to be at the start of the Tribulation.
I agree in part, but do not forget that Rome, the iron of the statue, has TWO LEGS. Even as there are two feet of iron and mirey clay (concrete). I think the Mahdi is the first of these, but I also see the European leg gaining ground.
We forget that the capital of the empire was moved to Constantinople before the Roman Empire collapsed. I think Europe will be involved but I think the Roman Empire that rises again will be from Istanbul, Turkey. I think Europe will willingly go along because of the rise of Islam there and the decline of Christianity.
The indigenous birth rates are very low and within a couple generations Christians will be minorities. I don't believe Rome, or the RCC, will play much of a role other than trying to coexist with a hostile religion that is a majority.
Communism/Globalism is paving the way for that world government.
After the collapse of the USSR who would have thought it possible.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. You've got me rethinking about when the 2 witnesses are killed. BTW, I think they are Elijah and Enoch. The two humans who never died.
Good points.
Though i’m utterly convinced that the 2 witnesses are 2 individuals who’s human bodies lie in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 days viewed by the whole world just as Scripture describes.
What I would argue is that the book of Revelation is full of symbols and images; symbols and images that represent some reality. The question is whether these symbols and images necessarily refer to something far in the future, or in the past, namely the events of AD70. I prefer the latter position.
The futurist wants to have it both ways. E.g., they take the 200 million in Rev. 9 as referring to some literal number while admitting that 200 million men of horseback is too far-fetched for their theology, so they twist it to fit with a scenario they can defend. They apply their imagination and come up with Cobra helicopters and nuclear weapons, things that make sense to their 21st century mind and fit with their presuppositions.
The preterist, on the other hand, starts with the prophecies of the OT to see how those images and symbols were used to describes events of those days and then explain John’s revelation in similar terms. So, for example, the “great whore” of Revelation harkens back to the whoredom of ancient Israel spoken of in places like Ezekiel 16 and 23. And so they see Revelation being mainly about God’s preservation and vindication of the Church during the judgment of Israel in AD70, rather than far future vindication of Israel vis-à-vis the nations of the world after the Church has been raptured from the earth. The same is true for the historicist, who sees Revelation primarily about the persecution and preservation of the Church during the time between the first and second advent of Christ.
How long is this generation, and when did the time start?
So, have you just opened the entire book of Revelation up to a subjectivist interpretation?
OK. While I don't agree with your interpretation, I think I understand it. This isn't a salvific faith kind of discussion, so our different interpretations of this is not going to send anyone to Hell. :)
Here's my difficulty with believing that Revelation is pointing to 70AD. Please keep in mind that I may not be clear on all points (My writing isn't the best):
My view on Scripture (in general) is that it is both a history of mankind and his relationship with God, and a revealing of God's nature to man. As a result of this last point, Scripture is not intentionally obfuscated. If anyone decides that he would like to know what God wants mankind to know, then all he has to do his read God's Word. The heart will allow him to understand what may seem silly or weird.
In Genesis 15, Abram is talking with God. He doubts and believes at various points in this conversation. Finally, Abran asks "How do I know that what You said will happen?" This is AFTER God has already done powerful things for Abram. Pretty weird, huh? God instructs Abram to go get various animals. But that's the end onf the instruction. Because of the culture back then, though, Abram knows exactly what God has in mind. He prepares the animals for a covenant ceremony.
A covenant ceremony requires two parties. This is a very serious oath. More so than marriage. More so than master/servant. More so, even, than the oath of citizenship. The breaking of a covenant--no matter the subject of the covenant--requires a forfeiture of life.
Now God puts Abram to sleep. God then verbalizes His oath and "walks" between the riven animals. He is, in effect, undertaking the responsibilities of both parties to this covenant. Pretty weird, huh?
Because mankind failed (Abram was representing all his descendants), a participant's life is now forfeit. God has every right to take life.
But because He took on the responsibilities of both parties, God now must forfeit is life. Because of Genesis 15, Jesus came to die on the cross for ours sins.
I relate the previous because it is fairly straightforward. There were no need for symbols, etc. Revelation, though, was describing things that no one had heard of, or could imagine. 30-40 years in the future is not so far as to require imagery of that sort. That is why I don't believe that Revelation pertains to events of 70AD. Also, some events in Revelation just didn't--or couldn't--happen back then.
I read Revelation as pretty literal--with descriptions being in terms of someone who knows nothing about what he's seeing, nor can he understand the technology he's seeing.
Let me just ask a question at this point. If passages in Revelation are not speaking figuratively, why the use of words "like unto", "as it were", "like", "as a", etc.? If John is speaking of literal events he witnesses why the use of those allegorical words?
Don't get me wrong. I understand that Revelation was written using a form of greek that is very symbolic. I know this book is apocryphal. I just tend to read things as they are written, with modifications depending on the context.
The specific verses I have referred to are:
Rev 9:7-19
And the shapes of the locusts [were] like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads [were] as it were crowns like gold, and their faces [were] as the faces of men.
And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as [the teeth] of lions.
And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings [was] as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power [was] to hurt men five months.
And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon.
One woe is past; [and], behold, there come two woes more hereafter.
And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
And the number of the army of the horsemen [were] two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses [were] as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails [were] like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.
OK, so as I mentioned in Post #274, the description of items are worded in a way that someone who has no idea what he’s seeing may describe them in terms that he (and his contemporaries) already know. Locusts, armor, teeth, fierce animals.
Agreed. But the point I was trying to make, maybe not to you specifically, was that if John saw real locusts, real scorpions, real horses, etc., he wouldn’t of had to use allegorical words such as “like unto”, “as a”, etc. He could only describe what he saw with words he knew. I don’t think anything was “mechanical” back then, or had a motor, or was able to fly other than insects and birds and maybe arrows and lances once they were launched from the hand.
The gist of the disagreements, I think, are mainly whether things spoken of in Revelation have already happened (as Roman Catholics and amellinialists believe)or if they are describing future events. Also, if Scripture is ALWAYS literal, always figurative or both.
Ahh. Now I understand. Sorry for being slow--I'm doing this in between tasks at work. My mind may not be focused as well as it could be. :)
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.