Posted on 06/07/2010 7:28:42 AM PDT by topcat54
I knew it would happen. The latest incident in Israel has brought out the prophetic speculators again. “A council of rabbis in Israel says their nation’s conflict with Turkey over a flotilla of ‘aid’ ships headed for the blockaded Gaza Strip controlled by the terrorist Hamas organization just may be the beginning of the ‘Gog and Magog process where the world is against us, but which ends with the third and final redemption’” (see here ). Picking up on the story, Christian prophecy speculator Joel Rosenberg takes a similar position but with some caution:
There is growing interest in the Ezekiel prophecies and whether they could play out in our lifetime. I believe it is still too early to say anything definitively. But I agree that current events are strikingly consistent with the prophecies and I believe it is possible that we could see these events unfold soon. The mention of “Gomer” in Ezekiel, for example, refers to the modern-day State of Turkey which will be an enemy of Israel and part of a Russian-Iranian alliance against the Jewish state. I’m not saying the prophecy will necessarily come to pass soon, but I can’t rule out that possibility. We’ve never seen a convergence of geopolitical and spiritual events so consistent with Ezekiel 38–39 in history like we are seeing today (see here ).One of the arguments used to futurize Ezekiel’s prophecy 2600 years from the time it was written is the claim that the Hebrew word rosh in Ezekiel 38:2–3 and 39:1 sounds like Russia. So then why doesn’t “Gomer” sound like some modern-day nation? Why Turkey? If God wanted to identify Turkey 2600 years ago, then why didn’t He use some sound-alike word that would identify modern Turkey? The same is true of the other nations listed in Ezekiel.
There is no need to speculate beyond the historical boundaries of Ezekiel’s day to force the names of these ancient nations to find a place on a modern-day map and conform to today’s geo-political landscape. Iain Duguid’s comments are helpful in accounting for the historical realities of Ezekiel’s prophecy:
[Gog] is the commander-in-chief ([ chief prince]) of a coalition of forces gathered from the ends of the earth. He himself is from the land of Magog, and he rules over Meshech-Tubal. His allies include Persia, Cush, and Put (38:5), along with Gomer and Beth Togarmah (38:6). It is no coincidence that together these make up a total of seven nations, and it is significant that they are gathered from the uttermost parts of the known world to the prophet. Meshech-Tubal, Gomer, and Beth Togarmah come from the North, Put (Northwest Egypt) and Cush (southern Egypt) from the south and west, while Persia is to the east of Judah.[1]Ezekiel was given a revelation that was describing his world. You don’t have to be a biblical scholar to figure this out. The people making up these nations were alive and well and living in proximity to Israel in Ezekiel’s day. There is no question about this claim. There is no way to refute it. To maintain that the nations that attack Israel are nations in our day is not allowing the Bible to speak for itself. “To seek the fulfillment in the dark region of the end of the days,” Ernest Hengstenberg (1802–1868) writes, “is the less possible, because most of the nations named either no longer exist, or are no longer heathen. Magog, Gomer, Meshech and Tubal, Phut, Sheba, and Dedan, are no more to be found”[2] on any modern map.
If the battle described in Ezekiel 38–39 does not refer to modern-day nations that will attack Israel, then when and where in biblical history did this conflict take place? Instead of looking to the distant future or finding fulfillment in a historical setting outside the Bible where we are dependent on unreliable secular sources, James B. Jordan believes that “it is in [the book of] Esther that we see a conspiracy to plunder the Jews, which backfires with the result that the Jews plundered their enemies. This event is then ceremonially sealed with the institution of the annual Feast of Purim.”[3] Jordan continues by establishing the context for Ezekiel 38 and 39:
Ezekiel describes the attack of Gog, Prince of Magog, and his confederates. Ezekiel states that people from all over the world attack God’s people, who are pictured dwelling at peace in the land. God’s people will completely defeat them, however, and the spoils will be immense. The result is that all nations will see the victory, and “the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God from that day onward” (Ezek. 39:21–23). . . . Chronologically this all fits very nicely. The events of Esther took place during the reign of Darius, after the initial rebuilding of the Temple under Joshua [the High Priest] and Zerubbabel and shortly before rebuilding of the walls by Nehemiah. . . . Thus, the interpretive hypothesis I am suggesting (until someone shoots it down) is this: Ezekiel 34–37 describes the first return of the exiles under Zerubbabel, and implies the initial rebuilding of the physical Temple. Ezekiel 38–39 describes the attack of Gog (Haman) and his confederates against the Jews. Finally, Ezekiel 40–48 describes in figurative language the situation as a result of the work of Nehemiah.[4]Ezekiel 38:5–6 tells us that Israel’s enemies come from “Persia, Cush, and . . . from the remote parts of the north. . . ,” all within the boundaries of the Persian Empire of Esther’s day. From Esther we learn that the Persian Empire “extended from India to Cush, 127 provinces. . .” in all (Esther 8:9). Ethiopia (Cush) and Persia are listed in Esther 1:1 and 3 and are also found in Ezekiel 38:5. The other nations were in the geographical boundaries “from India to Ethiopia” in the “127 provinces” over which Ahasueras ruled (Esther 1:1). “In other words, the explicit idea that the Jews were attacked by people from all the provinces of Persia is in both passages,”[5] and the nations listed by Ezekiel were part of the Persian empire of his day. The parallels are unmistakable (There are many more parallels that can be found in my book Why the End of the World is Not in Your Future .) Even Ezekiel’s statement that the fulfillment of the prophecy takes place in a time when there are “unwalled villages” (Ezek. 38:11) is not an indication of a distant future fulfillment as Grant Jeffrey attempts to argue:
It is interesting to note that during the lifetime of Ezekiel and up until 1900, virtually all of the villages and cities in the Middle East had walls for defense. Ezekiel had never seen a village or city without defensive walls. Yet, in our day, Israel is a “land of unwalled villages” for the simple reason that modern techniques of warfare (bombs and missiles) make city walls irrelevant for defense. This is one more indication that his prophecy refers to our modern generation.In Esther we learn that there were Jews who were living peacefully in “unwalled towns” (KJV) (9:19) when Haman conspired against them. Israel’s antagonists in Ezekiel are said to “go up against the land of unwalled villages” (Ezek. 38:11). The Hebrew word perazah is used in Esther 9:19 and Ezekiel 38:11. This fits the conditions of Esther’s day. Jeffrey is mistaken in his assertion that “Ezekiel had never seen a village or city without defensive walls.” They seemed to be quite common outside the main cities. Moreover, his contention that Israel is currently “dwelling safely because of her strong armed defense” is patently untrue. Since 2006, the Israeli government has built more than 435 miles of walls in Israel.* * * * *
Ezekiel’s reference to “dwell safely” and “without walls . . . neither bars nor gates” refers precisely to Israel’s current military situation, where she is dwelling safely because of her strong armed defense and where her cities and villages have no walls or defensive bars. The prophet had never seen a city without walls, so he was astonished when he saw, in a vision, Israel dwelling in the future without walls. Ezekiel lived in a time when every city in the world used huge walls for military defense.[6]
There are many more parallels between Ezekiel 38–39 and Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. I had one emailer argue with me over the above summary interpretation. He fed me all the standard end-time arguments that are popular with interpretations of Ezekiel 38–39. When I told him to purchase my book Why the End of the World is Not in Your Future and offer a detailed response, he wrote the following: “I’m not buying prophecy books just now, but I will accept a complimentary copy for review.” This is a person who is not serious about Bible study. He’s afraid of what he will find. He wanted to know if I belonged to the “Allegorism school of interpretation” that dismisses a literal interpretation. As I show in my book, I am very literal. I don’t turn horses into “horsepower, bows and arrows into “launching pads” and “missiles,” or chariots into tanks. When the text says “to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods” (Ezek. 38:13), it means silver, gold, cattle, and goods (Ezra 1:4) and not natural gas, potash, or oil.
He and many others like him have adopted a system of interpretation that locks him into a theology of irrelevance. Here is his final comment to me: “Things are winding up very rapidly these days.” Yes they are. We are witnessing the end of humanism. Either get on board to make it happen through the preaching of the gospel, applying the Bible to every area of life, and building an alternative society when the inevitable collapse comes or get out of the way. There won’t be a “rapture” to rescue you. Deal with it.
Endnotes:
1. Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 448.
2. E. W. Hengstenberg, The Prophecies of the Prophet Ezekiel Elucidated, trans. A. C. Murphy and J. G. Murphy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869), 331.
3. James B. Jordan, Esther in the Midst of Covenant History (Niceville, FL: Biblical Horizons, 1995), 5.
4. Jordan, Esther in the Midst of Covenant History, 7.
5. Jordan, Esther in the Midst of Covenant History, 7.
6. Grant R. Jeffrey, The Next World War: What Prophecy Reveals About Extreme Islam and the West (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press, 2006), 143, 147–148.
Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. In 2007, he earned his Ph.D. in Christian Intellectual History from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, he also hosts The Gary DeMar Show, and History Unwrapped—both broadcasted and podcasted. Gary has lived in the Atlanta area since 1979 with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and are enjoying being grandparents to their grandson. Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).
We recognize that Scripture frequently uses metaphors. The Lord’s Supper is a metaphor. Some of us believe that for SOME metaphors, God will also reveal in eternity that there was ALSO A VERY LITERAL reality as well.
Do you ever get the feeling that there are many who really don’t WANT to believe the Bible anyway? Many who just want to argue with God? N0 faith-obedience?
I’m a Bible-Literalist AND I beieve that the metaphores in the Bible are literally metaphores. I believe the similes in the Bible are literally similes, because I believe words like “as” and “like” literally. Parables are literally parables, too.
Many times, Bible-literalism is criticized simply because the critic wants a natural explanation for everything supernatural. Or does he really want an explanation at all-—God hides things from the wise-guys.
God created natural elements and supernatural elements as well. All of these are referred to in Scripture, and the two are equated by critics to their own confusion.
What a monster that would make God.
But we do know better, and we do know that the believing Jews of that time, who met the faith and obedience requirements of God at that time, were saved and we will see them in Heaven.
Praise God for His compassion and faithfulness!
There is certainly MUCH to learn contained within your statement... Rightly divided... rightly divided.
Of course, you are correct in your assumption. But while correct, your statement is being purposefully ignored, as is the lion's share of the Prophecy.
Replacement theology is a stubborn theory which has been, and will always be debunked by anyone with the slightest bit of study in the prophecies - beginning pretty easily with Genesis 49, in which a prophecy is given about the children of Jacob. It begins with this line:
Gen 49:1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.
Genesis 48 gives very specific prophecies about Ephraim and Manasseh:
Gen 48:19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
Gen 48:20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.
These prophecies, known as "the Blessing," among MANY others, defy replacement theology, and preterism as well - For they have *not* knowingly come to pass (I think they have, though folks are to bound by doctrine to see), nor can they be said to be inherited by the "church."
The first example specifies the condition of each of the tribes of Israel in the "last days." The most liberal view of "the last days" is that they began with Christ, or shortly thereafter in the time of the Apostles... surely now we are in the very end of days... on the cusp of it... Where are these things fulfilled?
These things remain unanswered by any, so get used to being ignored.
Likewise, while I am not a purebred Dispensationalist, It is certainly a fallacy, born of confusion, if one cannot see the "times" and "seasons" which are so foundational to the Scriptures. Dispys come awfully close to seeing the "seasons" within their method, and thereby, I am happy to stand with them.
To believe the replacement theorists, one must deny the prophecy, and ignore about half of the Old Covenant.
Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Those who deny the words of Yahweh do not understand that *none* of His words return to Him empty.
THANKS.
I don’t know of any Dispy who’d disagree with either of those—certainly not the ‘analogy of faith’ that all Scripture is congruent.
The 2nd one about the clear is never trumped by the unclear . . . more than plausible, though I wouldn’t treat it as a doctrine of the faith, per se.
God’s perspective on clear and unclear are probably a bit different than ours.
correcting missed plural . . . perspectiveS
THANKS.
I don’t know of any Dispy who’d disagree with either of those—certainly not the ‘analogy of faith’ that all Scripture is congruent.
The 2nd one about the clear is never trumped by the unclear . . . more than plausible, though I wouldn’t treat it as a doctrine of the faith, per se.
God’s perspectiveS on clear and unclear are probably a bit different than ours.
No, that's NOT what I mean by "fundie".
Fundies are naive and hold an overly literalist understanding of the Bible.
For instance "..This obscure doctrine [Chiliasm] was probably known to but very few except the Fathers of the church, and is very sparingly mentioned by them during the first two centuries; and there is reason to believe that it scarcely attained much notoriety even among the learned Christians, until it was made a matter of controversy by Origen, and then rejected by the great majority. In fact we find Origen himself asserting that it was confined to those of the simpler sort [naive fundies]."(Wadington's History, Page 56).
<>
The heretic Cerinthus -- a contemporary of the Apostle John -- was a millenarian also known as a "chiliast".
Justin Martyr (A.D.150)
CHAP. XI.WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
“And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid.” (First Apology of Justin Martyr, ch. 11)
“Chiliasm found no favor with the best of the Apostolic Fathers... “ (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, v. 25 - 36 ).
Eusebius (A.D.325:
) “This same historian (Papias) also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of His doctrine and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments. (Book III, Ch. 39)
Epiphanes (315-403:
) “There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St.John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense.” (Heresies, 77:26.)
Etc., etc., ad infinitum.
I’m a Bible-Literalist AND I beieve that the metaphores in the Bible are literally metaphores. I believe the similes in the Bible are literally similes, because I believe words like “as” and “like” literally. Parables are literally parables, too. Many times, Bible-literalism is criticized simply because the critic wants a natural explanation for everything supernatural. Or does he really want an explanation at all-—God hides things from the wise-guys. God created natural elements and supernatural elements as well. All of these are referred to in Scripture, and the two are equated by critics to their own confusion.
THANKS MUCH.
What a monster that would make God. But we do know better, and we do know that the believing Jews of that time, who met the faith and obedience requirements of God at that time, were saved and we will see them in Heaven. Praise God for His compassion and faithfulness!
AMEN.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
In a bit of a rush or I’d repost with formatting and colors. LOL.
LUB
Considering YOUR definition of a “fundie,” you have no right to call me that. You know nothing. I can assure you that I am neither naive nor “overly literalist,” so when the Scripture says “hand of God,” unlike Benny Hinn (a wacko) I do not believe it means that God is literally using a physical hand. However, the Bible is literal in many places and, unlike liberals and those who have tried to diminish scripture, I believe that there is a literal Hell, there was a literal Noah, that there is a devil and so on.
In a bit of a rush or I’d repost with formatting and colors.
If you can't say it in flat ASCII, work on it until you can.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
You need to address this to the other guy too then. He made it personal first.
Among these is that when I have warned one Freeper in a sidebar, all those involved in the sidebar should consider themselves warned as well.
This is based on the principle that two wrongs do not make a right.
As you KNOW, I didn't call you by ANY name (fundie or otherwise).
I said it was a fundie "teaching". At this point in your understanding, you want to believe that teaching -- a teaching you did not come up with on your own since it dates back, and was viewed as a heretical belief, clear back in the first century:
"Then is it Jacob the patriarch in whom the Gentiles and yourselves shall trust? Or is it not Christ? As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race" (Justin Martyr, *Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew* "Christ is the King of Israel, and Christians are the Israelitic Race" Ch. CXXXV, c. A.D. 150).
As I quoted before, the "obscure doctrine of Chialism/Millennarianism] was confined to those of the simpler sort." [per Origen](Waddington's History, pg. 56
Read 2 Peter 3 alongside of 1 Corinthians 3.
Premillennialism is destroyed by these Scriptures.
Yes, indeed. However, I have noted in other notes from the moderators that the message is always sent to the “perpetrator” of the violation. The other individual on here called me a fundie and then explained his definition of it, which was a personal attack. He knows nothing about me but I was hasty and left off the “about me” in my response post.
And for whatever it’s worth (and this was the regular moderator), I had a poster on here write something extremely sexually vulgar on here to me. I am a woman and the poster was a man. I notified the moderator and nothing was done and the disgusting and filthy remark was left on here. Lovely.
I guess my point is that you “moderators” tend to sometimes get on people for very minimal violations while others who make what I consider fairly egregious offenses are left to roam.
Enough said.
Vulgarity and profanity are not allowed on the RF - whether directly or by reference. If that happens to you on the RF, ping me.
Likewise, here on the RF we can and do hold posters to a higher standard, e.g. not "making it personal" by reading the other poster's mind.
"Open" RF threads can be particularly offensive because posters argue for/against in a town square format. The other thread types "prayer" "devotional" "caucus" and "ecumenical" offer safe harbor for anyone uncomfortable with the town square format.
I haven’t hired you as my style coach, supervisor, editor, kibitzer, sounding board, commentator, graphics designer, critic, opinion spewer, . . .
and likely never will.
However, feel free . . . I’m sure many find such pontifications amusingly absurd.
I totally get that. Like I said, I was only defending myself against attack. Meanwhile, I have probably hit the abuse button a max of about three times in about eight years because I know people can be “passionate,” and for the most part, this is a good place. I get way worse attacks from my liberal friends on facebook. Good day.
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.