Ezekiel 38

[Guest]

Ely, although I can't answer your question about the ammilinialist view, because Sean, Steve, and others can do a better job than I can.

I'm in the middle of the book, Epicenter by Joel Rosenberg where he lays out a tremendous case for Putin rising up as a potential dictator in Russia but I still fail to see any real scriptural backing to render him being 'Gog' of 'Magog'. We should watch him closely as a country. Joel goes to great pains to explain how he fills the bill.

On page 81, he explains this senerio on Capital Hill when he was asked to breaks out the original text, Ezekiel 36-39, where he opens the scriptures for them. This is a scary situation since he would be influencing those individuals that make our foriegn policy.

Anyone else find this disturbing?

Michael

Hi Sundoulos,

I share your concerns. I read the last book in the series "Eziekial Option". So much of the american christian culture has bought into this idea that we are now live in the last days, and they seem to have a heavy infulence on our politians.

I posted part of Joel's blog on another forum regarding the same subject. Time magazing did an artical about his influence. Here is a little part of the artical for you.

BUSH'S END OF DAYS
Rolling Stone
Current issue

Every administration has its share of loonies sneaking in through the backdoor -- the Reagans had an astrologer, and Nixon had, well, Nixon. But a certain White House Bible group speaker may hold the answer to one of the most vexing unanswered questions of the Bush years: Does the president believe in the biblical "end times" prophecies? The speaker was Joel C. Rosenberg, a Jewish convert to Christianity, former adviser to Bibi Netanyahu, and author of the best seller The Ezekiel Option, among other doomsday-themed books. Rosenberg said he's "been invited to the White House" to explain the Middle East "through the lens of biblical prophecies," and that that administration staffers told him, "A lot of people here are reading your books." The plot of The Ezekiel Option -- so compelling to the Bushies -- involves a devout U.S. president standing with Israel and bravely taking on the Antichrist and his minions in the battle of biblical Armageddon. "Serious questions need to be directed at the White House," says Karl Frisch of Media Matters for America. "If Rosenberg is saying he was invited into the White House because they believe his books are coming true, are those the people shaping the policy there?"

In a later blog Joel plays down his influence. you can find his blogs at the link below.

http://www.joelrosenberg.com/

Robin

[Guest]

I'm a partial preterist (for the most part), but I see Ezekiel 38-39 as still referring to the future. I think John did too, because he tells us so in Revelation chapter 20. Here John pretty clearly says that the whole "Gog and Magog" saga is to be set at the end of the Millenium/ Church Age:

Revelation 20:7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

I never understood why many futurists saw Ezekiel 38-39 as a reference to something occuring at the outset of the Tribulation, when the only direct reference in Rev. to the Ezekiel passage, is here at the end of the Millenium just before the final judgment.

But, likewise, I'm not sure why most amillenialists and preterists look for a past fulfillment of this passage. It clearly doesn't fit as just another description of the destruction of Jerusalem, because Ezekiel 38-39 has a "happy ending for Jerusalem". Anyway, can it be denied that John is saying the event must happen at the end of the Millenium.

As a preterist, I'm divided on whether "Jerusalem" in Ezekiel 38-39 and "the camp of God's people, the city he loves" in Rev. 20 are to be seen as the physical land of Israel, the Church, or both.

Incidentally, I see Zechariah 12 as another parallel passage of the "Gog and Magog vs. Jersualem" theme. That passage may actually hold out some hope for the physical nation of Israel, though I'm undecided on that.

Also, I see this "fire came down from heaven" as the second coming of Christ, which I've noted some of you agree with and others don't.

Thoughts? Is there some reason I've never heard anyone take this position?

[Guest]

I never understood why many futurists saw Ezekiel 38-39 as a reference to something occuring at the outset of the Tribulation, when the only direct reference in Rev. to the Ezekiel passage, is here at the end of the Millenium just before the final judgment.

Interesting, Anochria, that you have heard of futurists who placed these events at the beginning of the Tribulation period. I have been a futurist since I was 15 years old, and am now nearly 70, but have never heard any futurist place the "Battle of Gog and Magog" in the Tribulation period.
Even the pre-tribbers which I have heard or read on the subject, place it after the Millenium.

[Guest]

Paidion,

I should clarify. What I remember hearing from a couple different future sources was that Ezekiel 38-39 would have a dual fulfillment. Yes, it would occur at the end of the millenium, but it also would be fulfilled typologically at the beginning of the Tribulation with the invasion of Israel by the Soviet Union.

I'd hate to be a perpetrator of internet hearsay, but I feel pretty convinced that this was the kind of statement being made by folks like Hal Lindsay in the late 70's, early 80's. I also seem to recall J. Vernon McGee espousing this at one point.

Again, don't quote me on that (correct me if you can please). I'll try and dig it up if I can. Still, I'm certain that the concept was being floated 20 years ago before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The theory went like this:

1) Russia invades Israel (remember all the speculation about "Rosh", etc..)
2) Russia is somehow utterly defeated by "fire from the sky", which was, strangely, seen as a reference to the Antichrist (!) intervening on behalf of Israel.
3) The antichrist's intervention is then used as a way to set up a "7 year peace agreement" with Israel (and the rest of the world)

Please tell me some others of you heard this theory back in the day!

Still, I'll retract my statement that "many" futurists hold to that.

[Guest]

OK, I did some quick research.

Hal Lindsey and J. Vernon McGee did hold the view I am claiming they did (that the Gog and Magog episode happens before or during the Tribulation)

Tim Lahaye and Thomas Ice apparently do not hold this view.

Here are some websites/ web articles I found very quickly to back up what I'm saying:

http://www.konig.org/wc163.htm

http://www.scholarscorner.com/eschaton/millennium.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=1MpTQF ... eR1DifrUN8

[Guest]

OK, I did some quick research.

Hal Lindsey and J. Vernon McGee did hold the view I am claiming they did (that the Gog and Magog episode happens before or during the Tribulation)

Tim Lahaye and Thomas Ice apparently do not hold this view.

Here are some websites/ web articles I found very quickly to back up what I'm saying:

http://www.konig.org/wc163.htm

http://www.scholarscorner.com/eschaton/millennium.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=1MpTQF ... eR1DifrUN8

anochria, Your understanding of what some futurists hold to is long standing. When I was growing up and even as an adult this is the way I was taught. It does not mean they had it right but that was the teaching, so hang in there and don't let anyone who may not have heard it that way make it so in your mind. It is typical across the board that the variations of dispensational teaching abound.

[Guest]

Thanks for those links, Anochria. And thanks for making me aware!

This is the first time I have ever encountered this teaching among futurists. Of course, I have not been following pre-trib teaching much since I became post-trib about 45 years ago.