Ezek.38 and 39 is on the spot now.
I can see that is about what happens in the end of the tribulation.
But 38 is little confusing; is this in the end of millennium?
What are your thoughts about that?

Because of its parallel in essence and character, I believe the Spirit is applying to the end of the millennium, by way of analogy, only ‘some’ aspects of the battle that even John would have certainly understood to be fulfilled primarily at “the great day of God Almighty” (compare Eze 39:8 with Rev 16:14-17; and Eze 39:4, 17-20 with Rev 19:17-18). So much of the detail simply cannot be made to fit with the post-millennial destruction of Gog and Magog, which I believe is being used as a type and symbol for a post-millennial reiteration of what has taken place before the millennium, but with important differences.

For one thing, the seven months burying of the dead, and seven years burning of weaponry (Eze 39:10, 12-14) does not fit with the sudden termination of the millennium and immediate revelation and descent of the perfected city of God (Rev 19:9-21:2). But perhaps most telling of all is that the Israel that Gog attacks in Eze 38-39 does not yet know the Lord; whereas the Israel that is threatened (but not successfully invaded), at the end of the millennium have known Him a thousand years.

By divine design, we are piecing together a mystery that requires utmost caution and careful attention to detail, and certainly a trembling dependency on the Spirit’s merciful help. Because of Revelation’s post-millennial application of some aspects of the Gog Magog phenomenon, and because Eze 36 that precedes the vision is clearly millennial, as Eze 37 also ends in millennial glory, and not least because some of the language of security in the Land is so strikingly similar to it’s use elsewhere in the prophets, many interpreters conclude that the security of Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26 is the final security of millennial promise.

This can be very misleading, because the security of Eze 38 & 39 is disrupted by the northern invader BEFORE the great day of God Almighty (compare Eze 39:9 with Rev 16:14-17), before Armageddon (Eze 39:4, 17-20 with Rev 19:17-18), and therefore before the surviving remnant of Israel comes to faith and lasting security in the Land, a security that though momentarily threatened, will “never again” be successfully disrupted (2Sam 7:10; Isa 54:14-17; Rev 20:9). Note that in context, the famous ‘no weapon that is formed against you will prosper” is a promise to millennial Israel. In contrast to God bringing the nations down at the time of Antichrist, the millennial promise is clear that the gathering of the nations at the end of the millennium is NOT by God’s hand (in the sense of judgment upon His own people). “Behold, they shall gather together, but NOT by Me …” (Isa 54:15).

No, the security described of pre-tribulational, pre-millennial Israel in Eze 38 is NOT the security of millennial righteousness, because it is not UNTIL Gog’s destruction (the Antichrist according to Eze 38:17) that all Israel (the surviving remnant) will know the Lord “from that day and forward” (Eze 39:22, 28-29). What day? Manifestly, the day of the Lord (compare Eze 39:8, 13 with Rev 16:14-17). On the contrary, this is the false peace of Dan 8:25; 11:23; 1Thes 5:3, and the “covenant with death and hell” of Isa 28:15, 18. It is the delusive false security that will prevail during the first half of Daniel’s 70th week. A correct translation of Eze 39:26 confirms that this is a peace that was sinfully abused and presumed upon, a situation hardly characteristic of redeemed Israel. “After that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, WHEN they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid.

It may well be that when the false peace comes, many jubilant Jews will presume that this is perhaps the beginning of the covenant promise of security in the Land. This will be answered by warnings from the remnant that no peace can last that is based on human agreements and trust in man (Isa 28:14-18 with Rev 11:2; note the eschatological ‘treading down’ of Jerusalem). Those of understanding will protest the vain presumption that lasting security in the Land can never be realized apart form the promised “everlasting righteousness” of God (Isa 45:17, 25; Jer 32:40; Dan 9:24), which righteousness can brook no mixture with the righteousness of man. This is God’s ancient controversy with His people come to its climax, and the presumption of security in Eze 38 is the prelude to the deepest shaking of that presumption that Israel has ever experienced.

What will it mean when, against all odds, what has been so long in coming is here at last, only to be so quickly and suddenly stripped away? (see Isa 63:18; 64:10-12). It is beyond conception the depths of anguish and shock that Israel will feel when lifted so high to be plunged so low, as the great landmarks of the covenant, so long awaited, and so recently restored, are destroyed once again before their eyes. It is then that the great gap between supply and demand will be closed, as the Lord will have His saints prepared to explain these things to an amazed and shattered people (Deut 32:36; Dan 11:33; 12:7).

Only amid such shaking, and in the full light of prophecy, can Israel begin to consider what (with man) has been impossible till now. “In the latter days you will consider it” (compare Isa 42:23-25 with Jer 23:20). It is the fruit of that long awaited consideration that will be life from the dead and exponential blessing to the nations.

O come, O come, Emmanuel
And ransom captive Israel
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear

The post The Timing of Ezekiel 38 and 39 appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

The post The Prince of Tyre and the Everlasting Hatred – [VIDEO] appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Ezek 35:10-15

10 Because thou hast said, These two nations and these two countries shall be mine, and we will possess it; whereas the Lord was there:
11 Therefore, as I live, saith the Lord God, I will even do according to thine anger, and according to thine envy which thou hast used out of thy hatred against them; and I will make myself known among them, when I have judged thee.
12 And thou shalt know that I am the Lord, and that I have heard all thy blasphemies which thou hast spoken against the mountains of Israel, saying, They are laid desolate, they are given us to consume.
13 Thus with your mouth ye have boasted against me, and have multiplied your words against me: I have heard them.
14 Thus saith the Lord God; When the whole earth rejoiceth, I will make thee desolate.

Mic 4:11-12

11 Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, Let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion.
12 But they know not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understand they his counsel: for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor ….

To speak against the mountains of Israel (obviously Jewish covenant claim), is regarded by God as blasphemy. Read it there in the text. Notice how He takes the words that men speak against Israel’s right to the Land as spoken against Himself, even though the nation, so far from attaining to covenant obedience, is a ‘sitting duck’ for the day of ultimate covenant judgment. Notwithstanding, God takes the contempt of Israel’s neighbors very personally. This needs to be probed as so much is at stake in this question.

The above are just two of a considerable number of passages that contain God’s view of the modern question of “divine right” to the Land, currently being hotly debated among evangelicals. As in so many of these examples in scripture, there is a mysterious overlap with a partial fulfillment in history that fell clearly short of of all the stated goals of the prophecy and a future fulfillment that will exhaustively fulfill every detail. This leaves a clear choice in interpretation.

Where there is a conviction that no part of the Scripture can fail of real and literal fulfillment, in conformity with the plain meaning of language and the original author’s intention, this points necessarily to a more complete fulfillment in future. This is particularly seen where the prophecy is set in the context of Israel’s ultimate salvation at the climactic day of the Lord. Where this principle is ignored or rejected on critical grounds, or the language spiritualized on dogmatic grounds, the tendency is to consign such passages to antiquity, voiding them of relevance or application to the modern circumstance.

While of course recognizing a partial fulfillment in past history, the demands of detail and context point necessarily to a future fulfillment that will include all the parts of the prophecy of which history makes no account, most particularly the final and everlasting deliverance of Israel at the Day of the Lord. As much as this has not happened, we conclude that such passages as these do indeed apply to the modern situation.

So much you know. What I want to particularly point out is that God’s great umbrage with the nations in their defiance of the covenant with regards to the Land in particular, is set in passages that presuppose Israel’s pre-millennial condition of covenant bankruptcy. The judgments that come upon the nations at the day of the Lord have particularly in view their view of Israel. That is to say, the attitude of the nations towards a still outstanding and binding covenant with Israel (the everlasting covenant; Ps 105:8-11) is regarded by God as more ultimately a statement of their attitude towards Him.

From the standpoint of His controversy with His people, it is God Himself who brings down the rebellious nations as a rod of discipline. But from the standpoint of the nations, this is high effrontery against the claims of His covenant that is the ultimate provocation of wrath on the nations. Let us not miss the paradox. “Offenses must come but woe to them by whom they come!”

Israel’s vulnerability to the curses and discipline of the covenant notwithstanding, when the nations move against them, a red line is crossed. Significantly, it is with act in particular that His anger comes up in His nostrils, as so many scriptures attests. Tell me if this does not mean that God continues to regard the Land and the people He chose to place there as uniquely His by “divine right”?

Israel’s shortcoming of covenant obedience, which Christians now rightly see as gospel obedience, was never before a final deterrent of entrance into the Land, whether initially with the Exodus or the return from Babylon. The remnant of true regeneration was always only comparatively small as it is today. The only thing that ever cast Israel out of the Land was when the cup of iniquity would come to full, when the iniquity of the Land would reach intolerable proportions.

Furthermore, when Israel went back to the Land, it would be at best a ‘day of small things’. The return would fall clearly short of the promise. Return to the Land was not based on a national repentance. This is to confuse any pre-tribulational return to the Land, whether ancient or modern, with the final and complete return that is indeed based on the post-tribulational repentance of the penitent remnant that becomes the all holy nation born in one day after Zion’s travail.

With the return from Babylon, there would be a time of refreshing in the Land but it was not expected by the prophets of the return (Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) to last. Even the post-captivity prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, who led in the revival, and Malachi would continue to look ahead to an ultimate day of the Lord, the final transition from this age to the next.

However long they would stay in the Land follwoing their return from Babylon (Daniel said 70 weeks of years), whatever the ups and downs, there would remain still ahead an ultimate time of unequaled trouble called, “Jacob’s trouble.” This would include yet another brief and final time of terrific desolation and Jewish flight to places of safety. In the fore-view of the prophets building on Moses, this would be the last installment of the ongoing discipline of the covenant that must follow Israel to the end of the age. As much as the tribulation is still future, Israel’s further desolation is still future.

In all of this, the point most clearly to made for our purpose is that despite Israel’s outstanding exposure to covenant discipline and divine judgment, this by no means detracts from the wickedness and bold defiance of the Word and Spirit of God that becomes explicit wherever presumptuous words and hands of self righteous men are raised against God’s chosen people, the Jews, and against the Land He sovereignly gave to them by divine right, not of a temporal, conditional covenant, but an unconditional, and therefore everlasting covenant. It is His holy and divine work to bring them to that place and He is surely able, but in the meantime, the nations are accountable to know, not only His counsel but His heart towards them. That was the church’s job, but you know the paradox of history.

Let us be very clear: The gift of the Land was never based on any superior righteousness of the Jewish nation (Deut 9:4-5). Quite the contrary, it was given by free and sovereign grace. However, their ability to keep the Land in abiding peace would never be finally secure to them until the whole of the nation, without the exception (Jer 31:34), would all be regenerate “from that day and forward” (Eze 39:22, 28-29). That Israel will exist millennially as an entirely saved nation after the last gentile aggressor has been destroyed at the end of the ‘times of the gentiles’ is made ‘inexcusably’ plain all throughout the prophets (Isa 4:2-3; 45:17, 25; 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; Jer 31:34, to mention only a few).

Although Israel must remain vulnerable to covenant judgment util that day, still, whether in the Land or out of the Land, they are no less set apart and no less beloved, despite their covenant infidelity and enmity against the gospel, so that to look upon them as covenantally insignificant, let alone to lay presumptuous hands on what God has chosen and about whom He has so definitely spoken, is in all the scriptures a precursor to wrath. Antisemitism is a sign of self righteousness and pride that discerns nothing of the true nature of divine election and mercy that is not based on works. Its resurgence is a modern sign of the first magnitude. It is always a portent of disaster and curse upon the nations that embrace it, because it represents something profoundly near to the heart of God that can only be spiritually discerned.

He gave them up for a brief moment, for their sins, yes, of course, but in a deeper sense, for us, for had He brought them in at that time, as He will surely do at the appointed time (Ps 102:13), where would we be? In a mystery, their momentary blindness is an alabaster box of divine sacrifice of unspeakable cost that to sleight or despise is to provoke His profound displeasure.

The post You Have Boasted Against ME appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Do you think Ezekiel 35 is future as well as past?

When we come to many of these kinds of prophecies, we are met with a phenomenon that is unique to Hebrew prophecy. It is the curious blending of a near fulfillment with a distant fulfillment that is much more exhaustive and that coincides with the time of Israel’s ultimate restoration at the eschatological day of the Lord. I believe that is what we have here, though most academic scholars would not warm to the idea with its implications for an abiding divine claim on the Land and its Jewish ‘occupiers’. However, such well meaning political neutrality that disregards an ancient covenant is NOT the perspective that we meet with in the prophets.

Because you have said, “These two nations and countries will be ours and we will take possession of them,” even though I the Lord was there, (Eze 35:10)

Now also many nations have gathered against you, Who say, “Let her be defiled, And let our eye look upon Zion.” But they do not know the thoughts of the Lord, Nor do they understand His counsel; For He will gather them like sheaves to the threshing floor. (Mic 4:11-12)

Such prophecies have their most complete and exhaustive fulfillment at the end of this age. That is why I believe that whatever contemporary fulfillment that parts of Eze 35 may have had in the past, it was at best only partial. There is a manifest repetition of pattern that remains constant, though details may differ in some particulars. We might call it ‘pattern eschatology’, since in both its near and far fulfillment, it remains true to the pattern that is based on covenant election and judgment.

The full and exhaustive fulfillment is necessarily future for the following reasons: There are two very clear time markers: Verse 5, “in the time their iniquity had an end,” and verse 14, “when the whole earth rejoices …” (i.e., the millennium after the day of the Lord).

You will notice that many of the verses of chapters 35 and 36 are very nearly reproduced in unmistakably similar terms in Obadiah, which clearly reaches to the day of the Lord and Israel’s final restoration. Moreover, the prophecy of Eze 35 continues on through ch 36 which is the promise of the new heart that secures Israel’s millennial permanence and abiding security in the Land.

Edom has indeed become a desolation, but this is not the full and final reach of the prophecy. Just as the everlasting hatred (Eze 35:5) persist to the end, so must this prophecy have further fulfillment in a yet greater and more final desolation in the future (Isa 34:5-17), first for Israel and then for the surrounding nations that harbor the ancient hatred for Israel in bold disregard and defiance of the everlasting covenant (Gen 17:7-8; Ps 105:10-11).

As in all the prophets, so here, Israel’s salvation and final judgement upon those who seek her destruction follows immediately after an unparalleled tribulation that has laid the whole Land desolate (Eze 35:12, 15). Hence, we must carefully distinguish between “the desolations of many generations” (Isa 61:4) during Israel’s long absence from the Land, and another very brief period desolation, dispersion, and captivity that is shown to follow closely upon a pre-tribulation return to the Land (cf. Jer 30:3-7; Eze 38:8; Zeph 2:1-2; Zech 14:2; Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21; Rev 12:6, 13-14). This return is not to be confused with the final and complete return that is shown to follow the day of the Lord.

It is interesting that Isaiah shows that the final desolation comes very shortly after the returning exiles recover possession of their temple when it is once again ‘trodden down’ an invader. “The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while: our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary” (Isa 63:18; 64:10-11; Rev 11:2). This sets the stage for the unequaled tribulation that follows immediately upon the Antichrist’s desecration of the temple, presupposing the presence of the temple, as shown by Daniel and Jesus (Dan 11:31; 12:11; Mt 24:15-16, 21; 2Thes 2:4; Rev 11:2).

There is a great paradox concerning the relation of two distinct restorations of the Land in the latter days. The great second exodus of Isa 11:11 must be seen as necessarily twofold. Time does not permit fuller development, but notice that after ‘the desolations of many generations’ (Isa 61:4), the Land is destined to become as Eden. We see this in Eze 36:35. For this cause, many naturally think that Eze 36:35 refers to the present transformation of the Land. It would ‘appear’ so, but Joel 2:3 forbids this presumption.

Taken together, these verses reconcile a tremendous paradox. There are two restorations of the Land to Edenic beauty, one before the tribulation and the other after. Eze 36:35 is millennial as its setting is the goal of the covenant in Israel’s everlasting peace and security in the Land. Not so Joel 2:3. Its setting is definitely pre-tribulational. It is BEFORE the desolation that comes with the final tribulation that climaxes in the day of the Lord. We can see how nearly the language of Joel 2:2 parallels Jer 30:7 and Dan 12:1, clear references to the unequaled tribulation that ends in Israel’s final deliverance with the Lord’s return.

Listen to Joel 2:3: “A fire devours before them; and behind them a flame burns: the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness; yea, and nothing shall escape them.” This is the devastation that comes to the Land by the forces of Antichrist. Yet, in Eze 36:35, the Land has returned again to an Edenic glory, but this is AFTER the national cleansing and AFTER the new heart that secures permanent peace in the Land. .

In other words, as surely as Joel 2:3 speaks of the Edenic state of the Land BEFORE the tribulation, Eze 36:35 speaks of its millennial beauty AFTER the tribulation. You can see the paradox this tends to create. It becomes a kind of ‘optical illusion’ that tends to lead many to conclude that Eze 36:35 has already been fulfilled.

This curious juxtaposition of the two contrasting uses of the analogy of the Land to Eden, both before and after the day of the Lord is very revealing as it so well exemplifies the paradox of the modern return. Here Jews from every land have returned to establish a Jewish homeland and the Land has indeed become like Eden, just as the prophecy of Joel 2:3 requires, but the present transformation is not permanent. Tragically, the ancient enmity still persists; the discipline of the covenant still threatens, and the Land is appointed to another time of desolation by the over flooding forces led by the Antichrist.

The twofold nature of the modern return has occasioned a dangerous optimism that tends to confuse the present return with the far greater number of references that speak of a yet future return that follows the day of Israel’s national regeneration at the post-tribulational day of the Lord, the time of Jesus’ return (Mt 24:29-31; 2Thes 2:1-2, 8).

There is a paradox that can only be accounted for by recognizing two distinct stages in Israel’s return to the Land.  Prophecy is fulfilled in the modern wonder of a Land that has been transformed into an Eden after ‘the desolations of many generations’ (Isa 61:4). Yet, there is another desolation of very brief duration that must supervene between the Eden that exist BEFORE the tribulation and the Edenic glory of the Land that will endure for a thousand years.

It is the paradox of the two stage return of the Jews to the Land. First there is the necessary return that is BEFORE the tribulation and therefore before the nation has come to faith (Jer 30:7; Eze 38:8; Dan 12:1; Zech 12:2-3; 14:2; Zeph 2:1-2). The second stage of return that follows the great tribulation is both final and complete. The short time of tribulation and desolation of the Land will also bring a final ‘scattering’ and ‘captivity’ for its Jewish inhabitants (Jer 30:7; Dan 9:27; 12:1, 11; Joel 3:2; Zech 14:2; Mt 24:16; Rev 12:6, 14). If context be closely considered, the far greater number of the prophecies of return, with only few exceptions, apply to the time when Israel’s enemies are brought low in to final judgment. Of course, this is the Lord’s return to destroy the Antichrist and deliver the penitent remnant of His people, Israel.

Failure to make this distinction between the long and the short is the source of much confusion and hasty conclusions that rob God’s people of critical anticipation and preparation for the degree of desolation and “distress in the Land” that many prophecies depict as underway when the Lord returns to bring the final end to the divinely ordained, ‘controversy of Zion’.

There is one more point in particular that should not be missed. As pointed out from Joel 2:3, the Land that will be made desolate by the invading forces of Antichrist is compared to Eden. In notable contrast to the use of the same term in Eze 36:35, this is very significantly BEFORE the day of the Lord. This means that the Antichrist comes down on a Land that is to be compared to Eden for its beauty.

Interpreters have usually understood such terms as ‘the pleasant Land’ (Dan 8:9) and the ‘beauteous’ or ‘glorious’ Land’ (Dan 11:16, 41) to be nothing more than a title of honor, harking back to Israel’s past (Ps 106:24; Jer 3:19; Zech 7:14). However, in view of Joel 2:3, we see that the land that will be devastated by the Antichrist is a land in full bloom. This is significant for how we see the modern return.

The magnificent prosperity of the Land, and even a tenuous peace with their enemies, with the momentary recovery of their holy places (Isa 63:18; 64:10-11) is no ground for security. It will be the responsibility of the maskilim (Dan 11:32, 33, 35; 12:3, 10) to warn those who prematurely celebrate the return of temple and sacrifice and the deceitful peace that makes it possible (Isa 28:15, 18; Dan 8:25; 9:27; 11:23; 1Thes 5:3). Such a presumption of peace before a final tribulation is a false and dangerous dream that must ignore the very clearest of scriptures from the Hebrew canon (particularly Jer 30:7 with Dan 12:1-2, 11).

Now here’s what’s of special interest to me: In Dan 11:41, a passage that most interpreters agree is AFTER the invasion of the Antichrist (compare Dan 11:36-37 with 2Thes 2:4), Edom, Moab, and Ammon, the territories that make up modern Trans-Jordan, are said to “escape out of his (i.e., the Antichrist’s) hand …”. What does this mean? I think it means two things that should be well underlined, one that is probable and one that is most certain.

Firstly, when we look at Jordan’s current animus against any right of Jewish access to the temple mount, I can well imagine that Jordan will escape invasion by the Antichrist, not only because they pose no military resistance, but according to the scriptures we have just reviewed (and there are many others that imply the same), the people who still harbor “the everlasting hatred” (Eze 35:5) are in full sympathy with what is happening to the Jewish people in the devastation that has swept their Land under Antichrist. This brings me to the second reason that God gives special mention of this territory in Dan 11:41.

I can’t go into all the argument as manuscripts and translation decisions are argued and compared, but suffice it to say that the best evidence, from what I consider the best textual sources and preferred translations, shows clearly that Isa 16:4 should NOT be translated to mean that God is commanding Israel to hide the dislocated daughters of Moab, but quite the opposite. He is commanding the daughters of Moab to hide “His outcasts,” in this case, Jews that are in flight from the face of the Antichrist (‘the extortioner who treads down’). The Septuagint and Masoretic text, among others, confirm this reading.

In keeping with a few lesser known translations, here is how the more popular NKJV translates the passage in its entirety.

1 Send the lamb to the ruler of the land, From Sela to the wilderness, To the mount of the daughter of Zion.
2 For it shall be as a wandering bird thrown out of the nest; So shall be the daughters of Moab at the fords of the Arnon.
3 “Take counsel, execute judgment; Make your shadow like the night in the middle of the day; Hide the outcasts, Do not betray him who escapes.
4 Let My outcasts dwell with you, O Moab; Be a shelter to them from the face of the spoiler. For the extortioner is at an end, Devastation ceases, The oppressors are consumed out of the land.
5 In mercy the throne will be established; And One will sit on it in truth, in the tabernacle of David, Judging and seeking justice and hastening righteousness.” (Isa 16:1-5).

Note that the time could hardly be clearer from the context. It is just before the Messiah sits on the throne in the re-established ‘tabernacle of David” (Isa 16:5). Therefore, this cannot be God commanding Israel to offer refuge and hiding to the dislocated daughters of Moab. Rather, it is God commanding the daughters of Moab to provide shelter to Jews in flight from the Antichrist.

Due to their own sudden displacement through the threat of persecution from their antichrist countrymen, these believing ‘daughters of Moab’ will be at the ‘fords of the Arnon’ (this sounds like the canyon gorge where the Arnon river spills into the dead sea). I believe we have here strong evidence that the displaced daughters of Moab are being divinely charged to permit the outcasts of Israel (“My outcasts”) to dwell with them in the Antichrist time of mutual flight from persecution.

But even beyond the close questions of how this contested text should be translated, there is sound theological reason to reject the majority of translations. Think about it: Would God be commanding Israel, who will be inundated by Antichrist armies at this time, to receive hide wanderers from the one nation that is promised exemption from Antichrist destruction? (Dan 11:41). Or should we expect just the opposite?

To suppose the former would be opposed to a number of scriptures that show the flight of Jews down into the region of Petra in southern Jordan. As this text implies, they will be making their way there through this particular region of Jordan in their desperate flight to the place prepared of God in the ‘wilderness’ (Rev 12:6, 14). This is evident from the several passages that show that one stronghold of Jewish flight and hiding in the wilderness will be the region of Petra in particular. Isa 42:11 shows that the shouts of redemption will go up from “the inhabitants of the rock” (translated ‘rock’ only here. In the only other two instances, it is translated, Petra or Selah; 2Kings 14:7; Isa 16:1), from the ‘wilderness’ of Kedar. This is also the area of the Horites, the people of the caves (‘chambers’; Isa 26:20; Mt 24:26).

We note that a number of passages depict Israel’s last experience under Antichrist as resulting in a return to the wilderness, from whence they return in a kind of ‘second exodus’ after the Antichrist is destroyed by the Lord’s return (Isa 35; 40:3; 42:11; 43:19-20; 64:10-11; Jer 31:2; Eze 29:35-36; Hos 2:14; Mt 24:16, 26; Rev 12:6, 14). In all of these references and many more, the context is the last and unequaled tribulation that precedes Israel’s everlasting deliverance.

Such texts that show another exodus, not only in return from the exile of ‘many generations’ (Isa 61:4), but a yet further, post-tribulational return from a final experience of wilderness flight and hiding. You can see how these texts formed the background for Revelation’s depiction of the flight of the woman into the wilderness (Rev 12:6, 14). Again, this becomes clear only if we make the necessary distinction between the desolations of the long exile and the desolation of the short tribulation at the end.

For example, by comparing such passages as Zech 14:2; Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21; Rev 12:6, 14 with a return passage such as Isa 27:12-13, we can see that when the great Jubilee trumpet of final deliverance sounds (compare Isa 27:13 with Mt 24:31), a remnant, described here as “ready to perish,” begins their return home from the lands of Assyria and Egypt. Of course, the post-tribulational return of the Jews will be from all lands, but here, Assyria and Egypt are specially mentioned. This is significant, because in very recent history, these particular territories have become so terrifically hostile as to reduce their once flourishing Jewish populations to almost nothing. This raises the question, “how did this remnant of Jews get there?” Could the answer be that prospects for Jewish survival will be more hopeful in such hostile territories than to remain inside the Land? That seems to be where the evidence points.

In a context that is undeniably future, Micah 4:6-10 shows that the final redemption comes to a remnant that is “dwelling in the field” that was once Babylon. This is also ancient Assyria, the modern nation of Iraq. Today, this territory is an uninhabited, unsettled area that for generations was a place for the Arabian to ‘pitch his tent’, exactly as predicted in Isa 13:19-22. Can it be that the Arabian will not be the only one pitching his tent in that desolate wilderness during the coming tribulation?

What is of special interest is why the daughters of Moab (the kind of persons that would be inclined to obey the command to hide and render aid to Jews in flight), would find themselves also ‘cast out of the nest, as a wandering bird’? I believe the answer is that Jordanian believers will be under persecution from their fellow countrymen that sympathize with the persecuting policies of Antichrist against the Jews. For this cause, they too will find themselves in need of hiding places.

A sign of their love of the truth will be their willingness, and sense of privilege to prepare for the coming of Jews in flight. This suggests to me that with all believers wherever Jacob is found, Jordanian believers in particular are specially situated and specially called to anticipate and prepare to be a covering and shelter for Jacob in the time of his calamity.

It also occurs to me that this might be the key to the somewhat cryptic command in Isa 16:1 to send the tribute lamb from Selah / Petra to the ruler of the Land, that is to the King Messiah who is about to take His throne on mount Zion (Isa 16:1, 5). Indeed, for Jordanians to hide ‘His outcasts’ in such a dangerous area in the time of Israel’s frantic flight from the Antichrist, is a peace offering of sweet smell, since it could only be done with utmost danger of utmost cost.

Reggie

The post Edom and the Futurity of Ezekiel 35 appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

(2hr:6min)
 

Right Click to Download The Ram and the Goat – Dan Ch 8 (58mb)

Daniel’s vision here in Chapter 8 and provides additional detail to the Nebuchadnezzar’s vision in Chapter 2 and the four beasts of Chapter 7. They all point to a climax that will occur in “the last days.” Reggie Kelly and Phil Norcom lead us through the five visions of Daniel with emphasis on what they mean for Israel and the Church (The Mystery of Israel).

Video of this messages is also available. See Course below

The post Daniel Chapter 8 (audio) appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

I’m wondering if you could solve a mystery for me. Ezekiel 39.26 translates “dwell” in the past tense while NASB (and most newer translations) translate it in the present tense as below:

26 After they have borne their shame, and all their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, when they dwelt safely in their own land and no one made them afraid. (Ezekiel 39:26 NKJV)

26 “They will forget their disgrace and all their treachery which they perpetrated against Me, when they live securely on their own land with no one to make them afraid. (Ezekiel 39:26 NASB95)

I would assume a manuscript issue, but I have not found one yet. Why is the tense of the translated word different here? Is the Hebrew ambiguous or is there another translation decision being made. Curiously the NET notes don’t mention any need of a translation decision in this verse.

How do you handle this particular verse in your Ezekiel 38-39 exegesis or do you even address it?

This is a very important inquiry. I’ve often referred to Eze 39:26 as making a crucial distinction that is very instructive, depending only somewhat on how the passage should best be translated. The question basically reduces to this: Does the safe dwelling of Eze 39:26 refer to the security that will exist during the millennium (Eze 34:25-28), or does it look back to conditions that existed sometime in the nation’s past (1Kings 4:25), or even more particularly to the days just preceding the great tribulation (Isa 28:15, 18; Eze 38:8, 11, 14; Dan 8:25; 9:27; 11:23-24; 1Thes 5:3), i.e., the false security under the Antichrist?

“They will bear their shame for all their unfaithful acts against me, when they live securely on their land with no one to make them afraid” (NET Bible). That is a very poor translation in light of the context. The NASB95 is indeed better, but the context demands a relishing of a glory that comes only AFTER they have borne the shame of acts done during a time of security that is clearly before the day of the Lord.  The translation is best that reflects consistency between the security described in Eze 39:26 and the security described in Eze 38:8, 11, 14. Manifestly, this is a security that exists sometime BEFORE Israel’s national regeneration at the day of the Lord (Eze 39:8, 22-29).

It is important to note that in Eze 38 & 39, Israel’s promised salvation follows immediately upon the destruction of Gog (Eze 39:4). This is particularly clear from Eze 39:4, 8, 22-29. This stands in marked contrast to the post millennial fulfillment described in Rev 20:7-10, since there, Israel has already existed as a redeemed nation for a thousand years.

Since Israel cannot be dwelling securely anytime after the abomination of desolation that starts the 3 1/2 year period of unequaled tribulation, it becomes very plain that the security and prosperity of Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26 must have existed BEFORE the 3 1/2 years of tribulation that ends in the Day of the Lord. Whether this temporal security is speaking of times of relative security in Israel’s past, or the false security that will distinguish the first 3 1/2 years of false peace under Antichrist, is another question. I would lean towards the latter, because the setting and context would suggest that Israel is dwelling securely in what appears an unprecedented material prosperity at the time the Antichrist descends upon a falsely secure Israel. I do not see Gog as an exact synonym for the Antichrist, but the principality of Satan that will become incarnate in the Antichrist, animating him in his obsession to seize the Holy Land (Eze 38:17). He is the the ‘chief prince’ over the gentile world (Eze 38:2, 17) in the same way that Michael, his angelic counterpart, stands as a “chief prince” over the children of Israel (Dan 10:13; 12:1 with Rev 12:7-14).

Fundamental to the eschatology of both testaments is the recognition that the present age is separated from the golden age of covenant promise by a time of unequaled tribulation ending in the climactic day of the Lord. The question then is, on which side of the tribulation do we find the safe dwelling of Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26? Those who put Eze 38-39 at the end of the millennium make much of the fact that the language of dwelling safely or ‘lying down in safety’ is phraseology that is distinctive of the eschatology of the covenant. That is true. However, if the safe dwelling of Eze 39:26 is consistent with the security described Eze 38:8, 11, 14, we must conclude that it is before Israel’s national regeneration, and therefore, before the tribulation for all the reasons that demonstrate a premillennial fulfillment of the war of Gog and Magog, as necessarily distinguished from its post-millennial replication.

Since the return from exile in Eze 38:8 is clearly pre-tribulational, the translation should properly reflect Israel’s past abuse of the covenant gift of safety in the Land. Unlike millennial safety that will be based on the righteousness of the New Covenant, the safety of Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26 has become the occasion for the apostasy to reach its height of expression. That is the paradox. The language of covenant blessing is used to describe conditions that will prevail BEFORE. the national redemption. Ironically, however, it is these very conditions that become the greater occasion for the full manifestation of the nation’s defection, resulting in the judgement of the tribulation. Although the language of safe dwelling is certainly used in many of the prophetic promises of the age to come, it is also not uncommon that the prophets would raise a cry of warning during times of peace and plenty, precisely because the long suffering of God was being tested through misappropriation of the blessing.

Therefore, the safe dwelling and prosperity described in Eze 38:8, 11-14; 39:26 can only have reference to a provisional and probationary security that can be lost through sin, particularly the sin of presumption, in this case a presumption that has come to its height under a false sense of security. It is humanism’s tower of Babel, and tragically, the elect and beloved nation has imbibed that spirit. This is what must come down. This is the spirit of presumption that will be utterly shattered for a final time by “the chastisement of a cruel one” (Deut 32:36 with Jer 30:14; Dan 12:7).

In marked contrast to this tenuous and short-lived peace, the security of millennial promise is guaranteed of eternal continuance. This is because the nation’s chronic tendency to backslide has been forever cured by the coming in of an ‘everlasting righteousness’ (Jer 32:40; Dan 9:24). At that time, the promise of an everlasting righteousness will include, not only a remnant, as in times past, but each and every living survivor of a fully penitent Israel (Isa 4:3; 45:17, 25; 60:21; Jer 31:34; Eze 20:40; 39:28-29; Zeph 3:13). This gracious preservation in the Land does not end with the first or second generation of Jewish survivors, but extends to every child that will be born to Jewish parentage throughout the thousand years of open demonstration and vindication of His covenant with THEM (Isa 54:13; 59:21; 66:22; Jer 31:34; Ro 11:27).

Throughout Israel’s history, times of tranquility and prosperity were particularly conducive of compromise and the loss of covenant vigilance. In some ways, such favorable conditions find out the disposition of the heart even more than crisis. Will such undeserved grace be credited to natural causes? Even worse, will the blessing be seen as reward for a righteousness of the flesh that is presumed to be acceptable? This is the repeated prophetic indictment against the pride of presumption. Ultimate deception is at hand when the outward tokens of covenant mercy are interpreted as divine approval of a righteousness that is NOT the righteousness of God in Messiah. This is the kind of presumption that will not know when it has entered into a covenant with death and hell, as ultimately embodied in the Antichrist (Isa 28:15, 18; Dan 8:25; 9:27; 11:23).

Notice that this security appears to follow a recent return to the Land (Eze 38:8). Is this the return from Babylon or the modern return? Certainly it cannot be the return from Babylon since the events of Eze 38-39 did not soon follow, certainly not in the form of the everlasting redemption that must immediately follow upon the destruction of Gog on the mountains of Israel (Eze 39:4, 8, 22-29). Clearly then, the peace in view in these chapters is one that we must look for before the tribulation, before Gog’s destruction at the day of the Lord (Eze 39:4, 8). And if Eze 39:26 is to be interpreted in harmony with the earlier references to safe dwelling in Eze 38:8, 11, 14, this time of security was the very time that the nation’s offenses increased to the point of ultimate chastisement. From other scriptures we learn that this consummate offense concerns a deadly league with the Antichrist, a league that is broken by the desecration of the holy place in the middle of the week (Dan 9:27; 12:11; Mt 24:15-22; Rev 11:2).

Read this way, Eze 39:26 (compare also Eze 20:43-44) implies that the shame that is past is for sins that reached the threshold of judgment during a time in the past WHEN Israel “dwelt safely and none made them afraid.” Few times since the return from Babylon, and almost no time since the re-establishment of the modern state of Israel, has the Jewish people dwelt in the kind of security that seems implicit in Eze 38:8, 11, 14.

If we are correct in our view that Eze 38:8 is a reference to the modern return, then we can only suppose that the security of Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26 concludes in the deadly league with the Antichrist, called by Isaiah, “your covenant with death and hell” (Isa 28:15, 18; Dan 8:25; 11:23). To interpret this security as a fulfillment of covenant promise (as many will) will be the ultimate illusion, since it will overflow in disaster just 3 1/2 years after it begins (Dan 9:27; 12:7, 11; Rev 11:2).

The prophets would warn continually of the perilous tendency to interpret temporal blessing (‘common grace’) as a seal of divine approval. This illusion will especially abound during the time of the false peace. It is not essentially new. This eschatological climax is in keeping with a pattern seen all throughout Israel’s history. Times of prosperity were often the times of greatest apostasy, threatening of imminent judgment through the agency of invading foreign powers.

Until the everlasting salvation of the New Covenant, any momentary security must be seen as fragile. In fact, Israel’s continued vulnerability to distress and calamity points ever onward to the need for something more absolute and eternal, namely, an “everlasting righteousness” based on better promises, even the promises of the ‘everlasting covenant’ that guarantees an all righteous nation, able to inherit the Land forever, without further threat of lapse and judgment under the conditional covenant.

Such probationary blessing is gracious and not based on Israel’s righteousness (Deut 9:5-6; Ro 9:11). It is the misuse and misinterpretation of His blessing that tests His longsuffering and brings judgment. In the case of the secular, the security refered to in Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26 may be credited to the self-determination of a nation that has raised itself up out of the ashes of the Holocaust with the bold declaration, ‘never again.’  In the case of the pious, the conditions of security may be credited as reward for a kind of righteousness that, according to NT witness, is ‘not according to knowledge,’ (also the presumption of self-determination).

[Note: ‘Torah observance,’ when trusted apart from the righteousness of God in Messiah, is not in its essence too far removed from Islam’s doctrine of ‘submission.’ Both are ultimately works that must be equally rejected by the God whose standard is Jesus and the righteousness of the Spirit through faith in Messiah’s atoning blood.]

It is profoundly to be considered why it is that Israel’s greatest tribulation comes, not when the nation is weak and beleaguered  but when it is strong, at the pinnacle of success, not only exhibiting a coveted national prosperity, but unprecedented religious success (as evident from the re-annexation of the temple with restored sanctuary and sacrifice (Isa 63:18; 64:10-11; Dan 11:31; 12:11; Mt 24:15; 2Thes 2:4). This success will come at the price of a peace league with the Antichrist (Isa 28:15, 18; Dan 8:25; 9:27; 11:23; 1Thes 5:3). It is this very presumption that sells a confident Israel into the final discipline of Jacob’s trouble.

Eze 39:8 compared with Rev 16:17 is absolutely decisive of a premillennial fulfillment at the “great day of God Almighty.” It is “this day,” i.e., the day of Gog’s destruction (Eze 39:8) that ends in Israel’s national regeneration (Eze 39:8, 22-29 with Isa 66:8; Zech 3:9; 12:10; Mt 23:29). In contrast, the abiding security of post-millennial Israel is never more than momentarily threatened by the post-millennial gathering of Gog and Magog. That invasion ends almost as soon as it begins with the fiery dissolution of the present heaven and earth. [Notice how the new heavens and earth are distinguished from the first by the absence of the oceans; “there was no more sea” (Rev 21:1)]. In marked contrast, the post-tribulational destruction of Gog is followed by 7 months of burial and 7 years of burning the weapons to cleanse the Land (Eze 39:9-16), hardly conditions that are compatible with the new heavens and earth of the final perfection.

When a translation is ‘TECHNICALLY’ capable of going either way, context and theological considerations can sometimes decide decisively which translation should be preferred. I believe this is one such instance. For example, the difference of translation between the NKJV and the NASB on Eze 39:26 will naturally reflect the translation team’s most considered interpretation of the larger context. That is virtually unavoidable, simply because translation is not an exact science. I am not a linguist, but a little study of the work of exegetes will expose one to instances where an ‘optional’ reading will be weighed against the larger context, because both are ‘technically’ legitimate in terms of pure linguistics, but only one answers best to the evident intention of the author. When it happens that a translation could legitimately go either way in terms of pure linguistics, this does not mean that the meaning is up for grabs, not if the theological implications of the larger context makes the translator’s choice between options decisive enough, which is what I think we have here.

This passage underscores the great difficulty in distinguishing the order of the modern return, leaving many to assume that the battle of Gog does little more than momentarily threaten Israel’s security, when, in fact, the invasion of Gog begins the 42 months of desolation and persecution that ends in nothing short of the day of the Lord and Israel’s final deliverance at the end of the tribulation (Eze 39:8, 22 with Dan 12:1). This is why we keep pressing the point that God very well intends that we are searching out a mystery where things are not so ‘automatic’ merely on the exegetical and translational level. While the truth will never violate the guidelines provided by a faithfully translated text, arriving at the truth is never automatic to right translation and exegesis alone. We are taught of God that whether by the miracle of revelation or the mercy of illumination, the truth of scripture is uniquely designed to elude the pride of human self reliance.

Even manuscript authority enters into the question, and that too becomes a faith decision. Not so much in the NT, but in the OT, I have found time and again that in close translational questions, the Masoretic tradition comes down most often on the right side of crucial theological considerations. But even within the boundaries of the best evidence and most faithful transmission, there is sometimes a window of latitude whereby a text can be legitimately translated and still show a bias of theological proclivity in the decision. A perfect example is the way that Jews, within the bounds of respected ‘technical’ legitimacy, can translate a text in such a way as to obscure its implications for the rejected and suffering Messiah. You’ll see this as you engage their translation of passages that that make the case for Jesus. It’s not always so easy. That is why the case is best made from the cumulative evidence (line upon line, here a little and there a little).

One final thought: I believe that the security of Eze 39:26, in keeping with 38:8, 11, 14 is instructive of a natural tendency to interpret peace and plenty, even the temporal mercies of divine long suffering and kindness, as a sign of divine acceptance. We see this in Eze 38 & 39. Here Israel has returned from an age long exile (Eze 38:8). This is exactly where we are today. The modern return is a token of covenant favor and promise, much like the return from Babylon. But like that return, the modern return is NOT to final felicity and permanent safe dwelling. Why? Because the great tribulation and the great and notable day of the Lord are still ahead. Until the end of the unequaled tribulation, Israel remains under the threat of covenant discipline (Lev 26; Deut 28-32).

This is what the post-exilic  prophet, Zechariah, understood (Zech 13:8-9; 14:1-2). With Daniel and the other prophets of the post-exilic period, his prophecy demonstrates his understanding that the current return from Babylon falls short of the promise. That is why Zechariah will speak of yet another return that will follow a yet coming day of the Lord that will see another time of desolation and captivity (Zech 2:11-12; 8:7-8, 22-23; 10:8-10; 13:8-9; 14:1-2). This is no less the case with the modern return. Again, it is the axiom of OT eschatology that the ‘everlasting righteousness’ of the ‘everlasting covenant’ does not come for the nation ‘until’ AFTER a last great and final crisis of ultimate travail and tribulation. Until then, Israel remains in a state of covenant jeopardy, under the discipline of the conditional covenant.

We have precisely the same state of affairs in Jeremiah’s vision of Jacob’s trouble. Even after the people have returned from exile at the end of the 70 years, a further tribulation of unequaled divine severity is seen as lying still ahead (Jer 30:6-7). Even after the sacrifice and sanctuary will have been restored, Daniel sees another desecration and destruction by the hand of Antichrist at the end of the 70th seven. Who could have conceived that before this there would be a desecration by the Syrian tyrant in the 2nd century B.C and another by Pompey in 63 B.C., all before the final destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. And now, because of the clear language of the prophecy, we look for another temple and sacrifice that will again be stopped, and the holy place in the temple violated by the Antichrist of the final persecution.

In all of these scenarios, whether from the short exile of 70 years, or the long exile after the Roman destruction, Israel is back in the Land, but NOT to final felicity. The Jewish restoration is indeed in specific fulfillment of the promise made to the Fathers (Jer 30:3). It is NOT, however, the final blessing of peaceful continuance for the simple reason that the full blessing of the covenant cannot be established apart from the ‘everlasting righteousness’ of the ‘everlasting covenant,’ (Jer 32:40; Dan 9:24).

Though the church has received the eschatological blessing as ‘earnest’ and ‘first-fruits,’ it is not fully established with ‘all Israel’ until the promised deliverance at the day of the Lord, which concludes the unequaled tribulation (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1). This is exactly what Daniel’s prophecy is given to show. Only with the destruction of the Antichrist at the end of the 70th seven, will peace in the Land be secure forever, because of a righteousness that is forever. Until then, i.e., until the apocalyptic repentance and regeneration of the nation in one day at the tribulation’s end (Isa 66:8; Eze 39:29 and others), the presumption of security is just that, presumption.

Eze 39:26 teaches the lesson that we see at the end of the millennium, that even under the most auspicious circumstance and conditions, the unregenerate heart is unable to behold the majesty of the Lord (Isa 26:10). Even when God has granted the miracle of the modern return, the unregenerate heart is unable to steward the gift in faithfulness. This is why abiding security in the Land has always depended on more than a righteous remnant. It has waited for the salvation of ‘all Israel,’ since only an abiding faithfulness, not only of the few, but of the nation as a whole can guarantee everlasting continuance.

The nature of the flesh is such that apart from regeneration, peace and plenty invariably tends towards the neglect of God, but if we have correctly interpreted the book of Daniel and the Lord’s Olivet prophecy as future, something more may be in view here. Not only Daniel, but Isaiah’s prophecy anticipates the presence of sanctuary and sacrifice when the Antichrist invades Israel (Isa 63:18; 64:10-11; Dan 12:11) to start the 42 months of Jerusalem’s final desolation (Rev 11:2). This, like the modern return, will be manifestly against all odds. Such unprecedented prosperity and security will surely be interpreted by many as sure and certain evidence of divine vindication and approval. But what if the security that is required for the return of Israel’s holy institutions and landmarks is the result of a peace arrangement with the Antichrist, a ‘covenant with death and hell,’ as ultimate statement of human self reliance? But trust in the Antichrist is just the statement of the nation’s historic trust in itself, and is no different in essence than many other forms of unbelieving confidence in the flesh.

The sudden and unexpected collapse of such a peace with an overflowing flood of destruction by an implacable occupier will be an ultimate revelation of God’s age enduring controversy with His people (Lev 26:25; Mic 6:2). That controversy centers on the ground and source of righteousness whether it be of God or of man, admitting of no mixture. Think about it. The miraculous return from exile followed at long last by the restoration of the ancient landmarks of sacrifice and temple will doubtless be interpreted as an ultimate evidence of divine approval and vindication of a religious zeal that unknowingly substitutes itself for the righteousness of God in Messiah’s atoning blood.

According to the radical and ultimately offensive claims of NT revelation, this righteousness cannot be understood or received apart from the miracle of regeneration (Mt 11:27; Jn 14:17; 1Cor 2:14; Eph 6:19). It is a ‘revealed’ righteousness (Ro 1:17). Although entirely foretold (Acts 26:22; 1Pet 1:11), it existed as a mystery in the writings of the prophets until its appointed time of revelation (1Cor 2:7-8; Ro 16:25-27; Eph 6:19). It remains a mystery wherever the veil remains over the heart (2Cor 3:14-16).

God must severely contend until the revelation of this righteousness has conquered finally and forever the nation’s inveterate humanism, whether secular or religious. It is this deep, resilient, and humanly inescapable confidence in the flesh that the last betrayal will shatter ultimately and forever. The veil now shattered gives way to the revelation and return of their long rejected Joseph, Messiah and Lord (Deut 32:36; Dan 12:7; Mic 5:3-4; Zech 12:10; Mt 23:39; Rev 1:7). Only such a glory decreed could ever account for the lengths to which God will go to bring this people to Himself in such a way that they will never again depart. It is this vision of unspeakable divine glory, together with the knowledge of the cost and rarity of true salvation, that will save us from being offended at the necessary death that precedes resurrection and the suffering that must precede the glory. To know that pattern for ourselves is to know it for Israel.

The law and the prophets point towards this ‘apocalyptic’ (unveiled) righteousness that alone perfectly satisfies and fulfills the law. Any other kind is doomed to disappointment and rejection precisely because it falls ‘short of the glory of the glory of God.’ Though an ultimate offense to natural reason, this divine insistence on spiritual regeneration appears to be the logic of Jesus’ reprimand of Nicodemus, i.e., if a nation is spiritually dead until it is born or raised by the Spirit (Isa 66:8; Eze 36:25; 37:13-14), can it be any different for the individual? (Jn 3:9) Individual salvation under the New Covenant was conceived in terms of the pattern of Israel’s salvation in the coming day of the Lord.

Such a radical transformation assumes a radical death. The betrayal of Antichrist will be an ultimate death blow, not only to the pride of secular humanism, but much more importantly to religious humanism. In that day Israel will learn that the betrayal of the Antichrist is only the betrayal that Israel has always been to its own peace through trust in man. And who, except for the grace of God, is able to escape that fatal tendency? The Antichrist is trusted only because man is trusted. God will have the nation to see that the betrayal of the Antichrist is nothing but their own self-betrayal through confidence in themselves. (Jer 17:5)

If we cannot see ourselves in Israel’s position. If we are not made to cry out, “who is sufficient?” Then we are not being searched and tried by these dread tendencies common to all flesh. That is the point that God makes through Israel. God does not intend a church that can distance itself from Israel in its own estimation, but that sees itself in the mirror of the beloved and privileged nation and and trembles lest it fall after the same example of unbelief. Israel is the saving object lesson of history, not because they are worse than any other nation. God forbid! But because, as David said, “man at his best state is altogether vanity” (Ps 39:5).

It is fitting that the Antichrist is able to come into his place through the confidence of human self trust. The pride of presumption has been the bane of history. It was opened the curse at the beginning and will be broken at the end through the final and unequaled tribulation. In order for mankind to learn the lesson, the elect nation must learn it first and foremost. In the logic of God’s exposure of that most subtle of all lies, it is necessary that Israel’s covenant with death will not be a league between the Antichrist and Israel at its irreligious worst, but at its religious best. It was so when Jesus was rejected and it will be so again when the nation through natural self reliance will betray itself into the hands of the Antichrist.  Anyone who believes that they would do differently in the same circumstance, except for the grace of God, is woefully self-deceived and candidate for the same (Mt 23:30-31). That is why the whole world will be caught by the same trap (Isa 8:14-15; 34:8; Zech 12:2-3; Lk 2:34-35; 2Thes 29-11).

(Note: With Joel Richardson I am very certain that an exegesis of Eze 38-39, particularly in light of the order of Daniel, leaves no room to dissociate Gog from the Antichrist. Duly considered, in the larger context of prophecy, Eze 38:17 is absolutely decisive that Gog and Antichrist are one). Let me know your thoughts on this when time permits.

Reggie

The post Ezekiel 39:26 – Is This “Security” Millennial, or Pre-Tribulational? appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

There wasn’t anything allegorical about the recent events in Israel. These are concrete reality out-workings of the eschatology of the covenant appearing before our eyes. – “Doc”

So true. It’s the age ending conclusion to the quarrel that began in Abraham’s tents. Ezekiel calls it “the everlasting hatred” (Eze 35:5; compare also Eze 35-36 with Obadiah and Ps 83). It is the ancient envy and hatred of Jacob’s election that the Antichrist will be able to exploit to full advantage. Esau’s fury against Jacob is a preview of the rage that the Antichrist will have against what the scripture calls ‘the holy covenant’ (Dan 11:28, 30).

What is little conceived or considered is that the ‘covenant’ that the Antichrist confirms with many for one week (Dan 9:27) is something more than another peace agreement. It is that; but it is more. In what follows, I hope to show that it is an agreement, not only between the Antichrist and Israel (Dan 11:23), but very probably among many nations that will formally recognize, not only Israel’s right to exist as a nation, but also Jewish right of access to the forbidden temple mount.

Currently, the “noble sanctuary” is off limits to Jews. To presume to set foot on the ground held sacred by the Muslim world is, to use their words, to “open hell.” That’s got to change. What will be sufficient to change such adamant and rabid Muslim intransigence on the Jerusalem question, and the even more exasperating question of the temple mount? I’m thinking nothing less than a regional war on a much larger scale than we’re seeing now, though, of course, it only takes a spark to set the world on fire.

Before Jacob’s trouble can begin, there must be a restored sacrifice on the forbidden temple mount in order to fulfill the prophecy that says it will be stopped just 3 1/2 years before the end (Dan 9:27; 12:11). A comparison of the following scriptures will show that the daily sacrifice is taken away at the same time the abomination of desolation is placed in the holy place at Jerusalem (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11).

Note that both Dan 9:27 and Dan 12:11 are especially clear in showing that the daily sacrifice is removed 3 1/2 years before the end. Some commentators, however, see the reference to the “end” in Dan 9:26-27 as limited to the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem. However, in nearly every other reference throughout the book of Daniel, the point of reference for the term, ‘the end,’ is the end of the unequaled tribulation, the destruction of Antichrist, the resurrection, and the saints’ possession of the kingdom (Dan 7:25-26; 8:17, 19; 11:27, 35, 40; 12:2, 4, 6-9, 13). It is common in prophecy for the near type to overlap with the far antitype of the eschatological future. In this view, the 70 A.D. destruction is not the ‘end’ but a type of a yet future desolation of the city that begins with the desolating sacrilege (Dan 12:11 with Mt 24:15; Rev 11:2) and ends in the return of Christ and the resurrection (Dan 12:1 with Mt 24:29).

Rather than connecting the half week of Dan 9:27 with the 3 1/2 years of Dan 12:11, many commentators believe that it is ‘the anointed (Messiah) prince’ who stops the sacrifice in Dan 9:27 while it is the Romans who stop it in Dan 12:11. The second half of the seventieth seven in Dan 9:27 is not considered to be the 3 1/2 years of Dan 12:11. The 3 1/2 years that follow upon the stopping of the sacrifice in Dan 9:27 is thought to be an entirely different event and time from the 3 1/2 years that follow upon the stopping of the sacrifice in Dan 12:11.

In this view, the first half of the week is reckoned from the beginning of Jesus ministry with His baptism of John. Since it is reasonably well determined that Jesus’s ministry lasted 3 1/2 years, the stopping of the sacrifice “in the middle of week” is taken to mean that the atoning death of Jesus rendered the temple sacrifice forever obsolete. The second half of the week is believed to follow the first half in unbroken succession, expiring at some undesignated point 3 1/2 years later in the earliest years of the fledgling church. Some suggest the death of Stephen or the conversion of Paul. In this view, the Roman general Titus is seen as the “coming prince” that destroys the city and the sanctuary (Dan 9:26), but the desolator is believed to be the risen Lord, since the text makes clear that the one who confirms the covenant and puts an end to the sacrifice is also the desolator.

Most conservative scholars are agreed that Daniel’s seventieth week, like the former 69 sevens, is rightly understood as seven literal years, divided into two halves of 3 1/2 years each (Dan 9:24-27). However, when it comes to the interpretation of Dan 12:11, there is a great parting of the ways. In an effort to distinguish the second half of Dan 9:27 from the 3 1/2 years of Dan 12:11, many fanciful and contradictory theories have been offered.

When texts of such similar language and evident meaning can be interpreted so differently, we are made to wonder why. Why aren’t interpreters able to see the plain use that Jesus (Mt 24:15, 21), Paul (2Thes 2:4), and John (Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5) make of Daniel’s prophecy? We believe it is because the evidence points in a direction that is incompatible with prior theological commitments.

For example, if it is accepted that Dan 12:11 is associated with a final 3 1/2 year persecution of the Antichrist, it would mean that Jesus’s reference to the abomination of desolation (Mt 24:15) is future. For many interpreters this is unthinkable, because a future Antichrist that is bent on the destruction of the Jewish people calls into question many strongly held assumptions that are not easily surrendered. A future Antichrist that will rise amidst an age ending crisis over the city of Jerusalem points to a still outstanding covenant election and millennial destiny of those whom Paul calls, ‘the natural branches’ (Ro 11:21, 24-29).

According to the eschatology of the day of the Lord, as conceived and depicted by the Hebrew prophets, this time of unequaled tribulation was seen as the last stage in the discipline of the covenant that ends in a transformational moment of revelation and regeneration of the surviving remnant (Isa 26:16-17; 66:8; Mic 5:3-4; Jer 30:6-7; Dn 12:1; Zech 12:10; 13:1). Never is Israel left to endless exile and the curse of the conditional covenant (Lev 26; Deut 28-32). Rather, in a transformational moment of revelation and repentance, ‘at the end of their power’ (Deut 32:36; Dan 12:7), Israel is brought into the “everlasting righteousness” of the “everlasting covenant” (Isa 45:17; 59:21; Jer 32:40; Dan 9:24). This deliverance is everywhere shown to come at the great transition called the day of the Lord. Jews rightly understood this to be the time of the resurrection of the ‘last day,’ which Daniel manifestly puts at the end of the unequaled tribulation (Dan 12:1-2, 13).

[Note: It is interesting to note with what great inconsistency Dan 12:11 is interpreted by those systems that deny special prophetic significance to natural Israel. One approach is to see Dan 12:11 as fulfilled in the second century B.C. when Antiochus IV desecrated the holy place and persecuted Jews loyal to the covenant. But a type is not an anti-type, as it is often the case in prophecy that a parallel fulfillment on the near horizon is only a type and pattern that points beyond itself to an eschatological fulfillment that will more perfectly match all the literal details of the prophecy, many of which were never fulfilled in the historical type. The other approach is to see the sacrifice as removed by the Romans, but since the sacrifice was not literally stopped until very near the end of the siege, this school of interpretation (‘historicist’) believes that each day should count for year, so that 1290 days becomes 1,290 years. However, there is little agreement among them as to which point in history ends the 1290 years.]

As mentioned, most conservative commentators interpret Dan 9:27 consistently as a literal seven year period, divided into two equal halves at the point where the sacrifice is stopped in “the middle of the week.” It becomes a question of consistency to find Dan 12:11 treated so differently, since it also speaks of the stopping of the sacrifice in connection with the time of desolation. In contrast to Dan 9:27, Dan 12:11 is either spiritualized as purely symbolic of a short time, or else converted into years.

Moreover, the specified time of 1290 days (3 1/2 years; 43 months) does not match the dates for the Roman siege. The sacrifice was not interrupted until only shortly (July 17th) before the Romans entered the temple (August 10th, 70 A.D). The actual siege lasted 134 days, a full four years after the beginning of the Jewish revolt. The events simply do not match. Most importantly, none of the events that Dan 12 associates with the time of the end were realized at that time.

It is better to see that the 3 1/2 years that follows the stopping of the sacrifice in Dan 9:27 is the same 3 1/2 years that follows the removal of the sacrifice in Dan 12:11, and that the sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D constitutes the first of two distinct destructions, the former typical of the latter. This means that the “end” in Dn 9:26-27 looks beyond the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to the abomination of desolation (Mt 24:15) that begins the final 3 1/2 years of great tribulation (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5) that ends in nothing short of Jesus’s bodily return, the resurrection, and gathering of the saints (Dan 12:1-2; Mt 24:29, 31; Acts 1:11; 2Thes 2:1, 8).

It seems most inconsistent to make the half week of Dan 9:27 to end at some undesignated point 3 1/2 years after the cross, while assigning the 3 1/2 years of Dan 12:11 to the Roman sack of Jerusalem. The language of cessation of sacrifice and desolation, common to both passages, would never, apart from prior theological presumptions, lead one to conclude that the stopping of the sacrifice should be seen as separated from the placing of the abomination by 40 years, or by 1290 years, as in the year day theory of the historicist school. The text simply will not bear it, because both in tandem, as two sides of the same event, start the last 3 1/2 years of desolation that arrive at the resurrection of Daniel (Dan 12:1-2, 11, 13).

[Note: Jerusalem did not actually cease from being a Jewish city until after the revolt of Bar Kochba in 132-136 A.D. After that, the Romans changed its name to Aelia Capitolina, forbidding Jews to set foot in the city on pain of death. From that time, scholars began to interpret Jerusalem allegorically of the church, particularly since a literal Jewish Jerusalem seemed now a forgone conclusion. The end of Jerusalem as a city inhabited by Jews, seemed to lend support to the theology of replacement that would make such great room for the vilification and persecution of the Jew by “the arrogant kingdom,” the telling name the Jews would use to refer to the church that they knew in their experience.]

In Dan 9:25-26 mention is made of two princes, “‘Messiah, the prince,’ and ‘the prince that shall come.’ Which prince puts an end to the sacrifice in Dan 9:27? It is hard to over emphasize the importance of this question, as it will greatly determine how we see the end, particularly in relation to the Jewish question.

We believe the question is answered decisively by the simple observance that in every other reference to the desolating sacrilege throughout the book of Daniel, the daily sacrifice is taken away by the one who exalts himself (compare Dan 8:11; 11:31, 36-37; 12:11 with 2Thes 2:4). Conclusion: If it is not Christ but the Antichrist who stops the sacrifice “in the middle of the week” in Dan 9:27, then Daniel’s seventieth week must be future. It could no more have followed the 69th week in unbroken succession than the advent and career of the Antichrist could have immediately followed the death (‘cutting off;’ Dan 9:26) of Messiah.

The “end” in Dan 9:26-27 is consistent with “the end” in Dan 7:26; 8:17, 19; 12:4, 6, 8-9, 13. It is the short time (3 1/2 years), the half week of the unequaled tribulation (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5). It is completely inconsistent to interpret the seven years as literal years divided into two halves of 3 1/2 years each, and then spiritualize the 3 1/2 years of great tribulation to be nothing more than a general ‘apocalyptic’ symbol for a short period of indefinite duration. Yet this is what we see with many commentators.

A comparison of Dan 12:1 with Rev 12:7 will further show the inseparable relation of events. Rev 12 shows that the standing up of Michael at the beginning of the unequaled trouble in Dan 12:1 is to cast down Satan to begin his ‘short time’ of wrath bringing great woe to the earth (Rev 12:12). Clearly, Satan’s short time coincides with the 3 1/2 years of the persecution of Israel and the church (Rev 12:6, 12, 14, 17).

Clearly, Michael’s heavenly triumph coincides with the time that the Antichrist enters the temple of God to place the abomination of desolation (Dan 11:31, 36-37; 12:11 with Mt 24:15; 2Thes 2:4). This observance invites us to consider the relationship between the casting down of Satan and the Antichrist’s defilement of the temple, since the two events stand equally at the beginning of the tribulation.

Many scorn the suggestion that scripture compels recognition of a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Dan 9:24-27. A little reflection should soften the criticism when it is understood that every interpretation must recognize a gap of some length. A gap will either be located between between the death of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem some 40 years later, or it will be the almost 2000 years between the advent of Christ and the advent of Antichrist.

There is nothing inherently incongruous or inconceivable about such a gap. It agrees perfectly with the pattern of the prophetic mystery of Christ’s twofold advent. Until its divinely appointed time of revelation, the gospel was a prophetic mystery concealed in the writings of the prophets (Ro 16:25-26; Eph 6:19; 1Pet 1:11). With the key of the gospel, we can see in retrospect many examples where both advents are combined and blended, without clear distinction. This explains why the Lord’s first coming presented such a formidable puzzle to Israel.

We believe this definite knowledge of the time will be strategic in the church’s intercessory travail for Israel, and will be answered by Michael’s victory over Satan at the threshold of the tribulation. Scripture is clear that it is only with the prior revelation of the mystery of iniquity that day of the Lord can come (2Thes 2:3, 7-8). A comparison of Rev 12:7-10 with Dan 12:1 would lead us to conclude that the revelation of the mystery of iniquity in the final Antichrist is directly related to Michael’s heavenly victory at the threshold of the tribulation when Satan is cast down to begin is ‘short time’ of wrath (Rev 12:12).

Thus, the church that would pray for the coming of the kingdom cannot ignore the cost of that prayer in what must come first. But when our view of His glory is such that we can love His appearing more than temporal ease and blessing, all hindrance will be removed; the Accuser will be cast down, and the kingdom of God will come with power (Rev 12:10).

The last days implies a deep corporate self emptying of the church that is connected to the time and the further opening of the sealed vision of Daniel (Isa 8:16-17; 29:11; Dan 9:24; 12:4, 9). There is a relation between the time of fulfillment and the knowledge of revealed secrets that God has strategically ordained to overcome the hindering powers and to crowd and quicken the church to vital intercession and divine break through in conjunction with His ‘set time’ (Ps 102:13; Dan 8:19; 11:27, 35).

There is a profound philosophy of history contained in the mystery of the seventy sevens. The inferred break between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel is built around two mysteries that both culminate in an incarnation. The first is the ‘mystery of godliness’ (1Tim 3:16) which answers to the mystery of the woman’s seed (Gen 3:15), as realized in the incarnation and atonement of the Messiah. The second is the “mystery of iniquity” (2Thes 2:7), which answers to the mystery of the Serpent’s seed, as realized in the incarnation of Satan in the man of sin.

As the 69 weeks would terminate with the accomplishment of the atonement in Messiah’s death (Dan 9:25-26), the 70th week would be reserved to bring in the time that the mystery of iniquity will be completed in the final Antichrist (2Thes 2:3, 7-8) and Messiah’s return to “finish the mystery of God” (Rev 10:7) in Israel’s deliverance (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1) and the resurrection of the saints (Isa 25:7-8; 26:19; Dan 12:2; 1Cor 15:52-54).

Rather than terminating Daniel’s last week at some vague point 3 1/2 years after the cross, it is better to let Dan 12:11 be our the authoritative interpreter of Dan 9:27. Not Christ but the Antichrist confirms the covenant (Dan 8:25; 9:27; 11:23-24). Not Christ but the Antichrist stops the sacrifice 3 1/2 years before the end.

It seems to us most incongruous to suppose that Daniel could have conceived of an end of the seventy sevens that did not attain to the full promise of the eschatology of the covenant, which guaranteed Israel’s deliverance at the day of the Lord, together with the resurrection of the righteous (Isa 25:7-8; 26:16-17, 19; Dan 12:1, 13). Since this is found only at the end of the unequaled tribulation, it is hard to see the second half of the last seven expiring rather quietly in the first century, 3 1/2 years after the cross.

Furthermore, it is far better to see the “end” that is shown to come 3 1/2 years after the sacrifice is stopped “in the middle of the week,” not as confined to the 70 A.D. destruction by the Romans, but the “end” that follows a future desolation of Jerusalem, which Jesus connects so clearly to the unequaled tribulation that immediately precedes His return (Mt 24:29) and the resurrection and gathering of the church (Dan 12:1-2, 7, 13; Mt 24:31; 2Thes 1:7; 2:1). When such harmony of the evidence is discounted, we are inclined to look for the cause in something other than careful exegesis of the texts within their context.

All is to say that without the Jewish sanctuary and sacrifice situated in the only location sanctioned by scripture, the end cannot be imminent. It may be near, but it is not yet here. Until this particular set of inseparably related events are fully aligned, and until the stage is fully set in such an unmistakable way, we may be sure that Israel will continue to prevail in any conflict that may arise to threaten the nation’s survival.

Significantly, God’s final dealings with Israel begins, not when Israel is in a position of manifest danger, but when the nation is prosperous and secure. According to Eze 38:8, 12-13, Israel exists as a recently restored nation that has grown very prosperous when invaded suddenly and unexpected by the Antichrist. Not only are they enjoying for the first time in 19 centuries the restoration of temple and sacrifice, but they are secure in their expectation of continued peace and safety, assured, no doubt, that the messianic era has either begun or is near at hand. This is the circumstance that prophecy predicts of Israel when the proverbial hammer falls (Isa 28:15, 18; Eze 38:8, 11, 14; Dan 8:25; 11:23-24; 1Thes 5:3). The point that God is making through such an unexpected set of circumstances is something profoundly instructive for how He intends to plead with Israel, much to probe and ponder for us here.

We may ponder what kind of changes will be necessary to force Muslim acceptance of the presence of a Jewish sanctuary and sacrifice on the fiercely guarded temple mount. We notice too that according to Isa 63:18, it appears that the holy places have been only recently restored (“a little while”) when Jerusalem is suddenly ‘trodden down’ by the adversary (Isa 64:10-11; Rev 11:2). This suggests that Israel has only recently recovered access to the the temple mount when the Antichrist invades.

This implies that sometime between now and the time that Israel can freely proceed build and sacrifice on the forbidden temple mount, something seismic has happened to force Muslim acceptance of such an otherwise unthinkable arrangement. How this will come about will be a wonder to behold. Therefore, if we would not be distracted by premature excitement (the ‘false alarms of prophetic speculation’), we must pay close attention to what must be in place before the Antichrist can fulfill all that is written of him.

Not only must the temple and sacrifice be in place, but Dan 11:23 thru Dan 11:31 gives us a definite sequence of events that take place in the first half of the seven years after the peace arrangement but before the abomination. We note that sometime “AFTER the league made with him” (Dan 11:23), he conquers a powerful king to his south (Dan 11:25-26). After the defeat of this king, the conqueror and the conquered sit at one table to plot against the ‘holy covenant’ (Dan 11:28, 30) that pertains to the sanctuary and sacrifice according to the divine grant that appointed this specific place to one elect people as the place of His Name and covenant claim.

Indeed, if reference to the ‘holy covenant’ in Dan 11:28, 30 can be demonstrated to have a future fulfillment, then the whole question of divine right to the Land that is so much debated among evangelicals is decisively answered, since the covenant is called “holy” despite the unbelieving state of those appointed to the discipline of Jacob’s trouble.

[Note: Manifestly, God is holding the nations responsible to understand and revere His covenant with Israel, as it is clear that when the Antichrist presumes to lead his confederacy down to scatter His people (“My heritage”) and divide ‘His Land’ (Dan 11:39; Joel 3:2), a definite line has been crossed, a point of no return, as God’s fury “comes up into His face,” and a full end is declared (Eze 38:17; 39:8 with Rev 16:17). It is made to appear that this great presumption by the Antichrist is counted as the ultimate provocation, but note that it is particularly depicted as an assault against the ‘holy covenant.’ And what is that if it is not the Word of election and covenant that God has spoken concerning this particular people?]

Could the covenant that the Antichrist confirms with many at the beginning of Daniel’s 70th week be the same covenant that the Antichrist will hate, and conspire to destroy? We think so. In any event, the plans of these two kings do not prosper, because the time of the appointed end is not yet (Dan 11:27). Soon after this, the Antichrist (“vile person;” Dan 11:21) attempts another southward advance, but to no avail, as he is checked and turned back by the ‘ships of Chittim’ (Dan 11:29-30).

In biblical idiom, Chittim or Kittim was associated with the maritime coastlands of the northwestern Mediterranean. The prophecy suggests a formidable armada from the west that is able to momentarily check the movements of the one who will very shortly invade Israel with irresistible force (Dan 11:31 with Rev 13:4). This second move south is apparently perceived to threaten the security of the covenant.

In today’s world, the ‘ships of Chittim,’ would seem to indicate a western power such as the U.S. or NATO with a naval presence in the Mediterranean. We may safely assume that the ‘ships of Chittim’ represents a very formidable power, because it is able to turn back the one who will, in a very short time, command a military supremacy that none can hope to resist (Dan 11:31 with Rev 13:4).

The momentary success of the ships of Chittim will greatly reinforce the feeling that the security of the covenant is invincible under the guardianship of such a powerful force, as represented by the ‘ships of Chittim.’ But immediately after he is repulsed in his second southward advance, he begins to have secret intelligence with the other nations that apparently share his hatred for the covenant (Dan 11:28, 30, 32). We may safely assume that this intelligence (plotting) is indeed secret, because Israel, and the nations protecting the covenant, are taken completely by surprise by the invasion. Israel’s ‘presumption’ of security will be at its height when disaster strikes.

In addition to commanding the high ground in future negotiations over Jerusalem and the temple mount, we also may infer on the basis of Eze 38:12-13 that Israel has become the jewel of the Middle-East. This remarkable prosperity will further exasperate and vex the envy of the Antichrist and the cast of nations that will support his designs against the covenant. These are the nations that will seek opportunity to end western dominance over the resources of the region.

Not only Israel, but any nation that has backed the hated ‘Zionist’ state will be equally marked for destruction. Israel’s increasing prosperity exasperate not only Arab hatred, it will also excite the covetousness of the nations from the regions in the north (Eze 38:2, 5-6). It appears that the Antichrist will not only exploit Islamic hatred of the covenant, he may also gain support from nations that will support his plan to wrest the economic advantage from the west and restore it to its place of origin (Zech 5:5-11?).

A case can be made for a twofold destruction of Babylon. This brings harmony to a number of scriptures. The ten kingdoms under the command of the Antichrist will inflict a fiery judgment on the harlot, which in our view is primarily a reference to Jerusalem, but perhaps not only Jerusalem but the western powers that support and guard the covenant that is hated by the Antichrist and his supporters. Such nation or nations would be represented by the reference in Dan 11:30 to the ships of Chittim. The further second stage of the harlot’s destruction includes all of word-wide Babylon at the Lord’s return.

At the middle of the week, 3 1/2 years from the time that the covenant was confirmed (Dan 9:27; 12:7, 11), the invasion of the Antichrist will come in suddenly like an overwhelming flood (Dan 9:26; 11:22). The reversal will be staggering, not only for Israel, but also the nation or nations that pledged to guard the covenant (‘ships of Chittim’ ?) will be caught equally off guard when disaster strikes. That is when I can personally conceive, even expect, that the western powers that have pledged protection of the covenant may simultaneously come under nuclear attack against our major population centers and infrastructure. Whether that will be, one thing is very clear: The formidable western naval power that successfully repulsed the Antichrist such a short time before will be helpless to stop him.

Towards the end of the tribulation, it appears that some of these great powers such as China (“tidings from the east;” and “kings of the east”) and possibly some part or all of Russia or perhaps a western power (“king of the north”) will come against the Antichrist. This is little considered but very clear in the last verses of Dan 11 that describe a final ‘Waterloo’ for the Antichrist just before he is destroyed by the breath of the Lord.

The question is, were either or both of these super powers involved in a supportive role at the time of the Antichrist’s initial invasion of Jerusalem at the beginning of the tribulation? Daniel makes clear that a mighty nation from the north, another from the south, and “the kings of the east” will be pushing against him with great fury (Dan 11:40, 44; Rev 16:12-14) when he comes to his end in Dan 11:45.

Still, I don’t see anything so far that leads me to expect that the present crisis will necessarily lead immediately into the particular peace arrangement that will permit Jewish re-annexation, or even access to the temple mount. I would expect something more extreme, but anything is possible. If, however, this crisis escalates into a regional war that shakes things up and re-positions and re-shapes the current policy of accommodation by the secular state, then we can’t rule out that possibility. Things have the potential to change radically, almost overnight, as we saw in Russia.

A strategic and decisive victory for Israel (all the more if it proves very costly), coupled with the impressive prosperity that prophecy anticipates before the tribulation (Eze 38:12-13), would put Israel in a much more advantageous bargaining position requiring compromise from the Muslim world that would never be considered under the present circumstances. It suggests, not a complete subjugation of the Arab world, but a great and unprecedented advantage sufficient to induce compromise that would not, at the moment, be even remotely entertained. It is in such a climate and circumstance that I think we will see the confirmation of the covenant / peace arrangement that we’re looking for, but not until. We will know it’s the one because it will be attended by initiatives to restore the sanctuary and sacrifice on the temple mount.

This brings the further question: Is it possible that Jews will gain access to the temple mount before the last 7 begins? Or will this be a sign that we are in the last seven? I believe the latter. Here’s why: According to inferences based on what we consider the most credible interpretation of Dan 8:11-14, the regular sacrifice that is taken away in the middle of the week (see Dan 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) has only recently been restored (‘possessed but a little while;’ Isa 63:18) when it is removed to begin the final 42 months of the prophesied desolation of Jerusalem (Isa 63:18; 64:10-11 with Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Mt 24:15-16; 2Thes 2:4; Rev 11:2), also called, ‘the time of Jacob’s trouble’ (compare Jer 30:7 with Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21).

We believe that the 2,300 day prophecy of Dan 8:12-14 comprehends the entire time from when the sacrifice is re-started until the end. Dan 9:27 with Dan 12:11 is clear in showing that from the mid-point of Daniel’s 70th week, there is 1290 days from the removal of the daily sacrifice to the end. The 2,300 days covers the longer period from the start of the sacrifice to the end.

In order for the sacrifice to be stopped 1290 days before the end, certainly it must first be started. We believe the purpose of the prophecy of the 2300 days is to show us that the sacrifice that is removed in the middle of the week has been only recently restarted very shortly after the covenant has been confirmed. If this is true, it greatly defines the nature of the covenant and how it can be distinguished from any other peace arrangement. I’ll come back to this, but this is much more than just one more peace arrangement in the Middle-East.

If the seven years is reckoned as an equal 1260 for both halves of the period, we have a total of 2,520 days. 2300 from 2,520 leaves 220 days. This would imply that the 2,300 days begins with the renewal of the sacrifice about 7 months and 10 days after the covenant was confirmed. However, the mysterious extension of days in Dan 12:11-12 prevents us from any such precision. Interestingly, the 1260 days, the 42 months, the time, times, and half of time of Dan 7:25; 12:7; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5, all seem to be reckoned from two nearly simultaneous events, one in heaven and one on earth. They are the abomination of desolation, which includes the removal of the daily sacrifice (Dan 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Mt 24:15), and the standing up of Michael in Dan 12:1 and Rev 12:7 at the beginning of the last 3 1/2 years of unequaled tribulation.

[Note: This correlation of events has been far too overlooked by commentators. It should not be missed that in Dan 12:1 Michael stands up at the beginning of the unequaled troubled. The same sequence is seen in Rev 12 where Michael prevails to cast down Satan to the earth. This results in Satan’s ‘short time’ (Rev 12:12), which is manifestly concurrent with the persecution of the last 3 1/2 years (Rev 12:6, 14-17). There can be no doubt that the same time is in view in both places. The standing of Michael to cast down Satan is clearly the heavenly event that is the catalyst for the earthly event of the abomination in the temple at Jerusalem. Both set in motion the unequaled tribulation that precedes Christ’s return.]

The difficulty in calculating the precise time that the sacrifice will start lies in the mysterious extension of days that we find in Dan 12:11-12. 1290 days is 30 days longer than 1260 days and 1335 is 45 days longer still, for a total of 75 days. What is the significance of this mysterious extension of days? We are not told specifically. We may, however, suppose such things as the time that the penitent remnant will go apart to mourn, or the cleansing of the sanctuary or dedication of the new temple (whether understood literally or symbolically, as this is a notable stumbling block for many). In any event, it is a time of special blessing of new beginnings for the newly regenerate nation.

It seems clear to me that none of the three terminal points (1260; 1290; 1335) can be the exact time of the Lord’s return, for the following 3 reasons:

1) Jesus said the exact day and hour of His return was unknown even to Him, at least during the time of His self-emptying on earth. Furthermore, I believe it is altogether possible that he had the mysterious extension of the days in Daniel specifically in mind when He gave that caveat.

2). Not only the 1335 but also the 1290 days appear to take us to a time beyond the the Lord’s return to destroy the Antichrist. This we conclude, because the Antichrist’s persecution of Israel and the saints is limited to 42 months (Dan 7:25; 12:7; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5), whereas the 1290 days is 43 months, and takes us to a point that seems a little beyond Christ’s return to destroy the Antichrist. Hence, the 1290 and 1335 are points of special significance in the earliest days of the millennium.

3). Nor does Jesus return at the end of the 1260th day. At the end of the 1260 days the two witnesses are killed and their dead bodies lie in the streets of Jerusalem for an additional 3 1/2 days. In the same hour of their ascent in the sight of their enemies, the ‘second woe,’ which is the 6th trumpet, is declared as past with the announcement that the ‘third woe,’ which is the 7th trumpet, is coming quickly. We may only wonder how quickly. Thus, it seems clear that the Lord’s return is somewhere between the 1263.5 days that conclude the 6th trumpet and the 1290th day. However, in view of the limitation of he Antichrist’s persecution of the woman and the saints to only 42 months, we must expect the Lord’s return at the seventh trumpet (Rev 10:7; 11:15-18) to come somewhere nearer to the expiration of the 1260 days than to the 1290th day, which amounts to 43 months.

[Note also that even so late as the 6th bowl of wrath, and just before the “great day of God Almighty,” which is clearly the seventh bowl (Rev 16:14-17 with Eze 39:8), we see the Lord interjecting between the 6th and 7th bowl these fateful words: “Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.” (Rev 16:15). In 2 Pet 3:10, 12, the day of the Lord is equated with the day of God, the only other place the day of God is mentioned in just those words other than here in the book of Revelation. It is ‘that day’ that Peter says will come as a thief, and here in Rev 16:15, after the 6th bowl but before the 7th, the Lord is warning that He is coming as a thief. Should we not understand that it is on “the great day of God Almighty” that He returns as a thief?]

All is to say that in order to calculate the 2,300 days of Dan 8:12-13 accurately, we would have to know the precise end-point for the event identified as the ‘cleansing of the sanctuary.’ From that point, counting backwards, we arrive at the starting point of the sacrifice. This means that the sacrifice that is started at the beginning of the 2,300 days is taken away approximately 3 1/2 years before the end, which “end” is shown in Dan 12:2, 13 to coincide with the time of Daniel’s personal resurrection at “the end of the days” (Dan 12:13). [It is exceedingly hard to understand the lengths to which some commentators will go to interpret such language as being satisfied by events that passed with the first century.]

As I see it, the precise day that the sanctuary will be cleansed, like the exact day of the Lord’s return, is deliberately veiled from us. We are not definitely told what happens at the end of the 1290th day or the 1335th day. We may speculate and infer but since the scripture does not say explicitly, we are not able to say precisely when the sanctuary is cleansed. It would be most reasonable to suppose that since the 1290th day is a further point, somewhat beyond the day of the Lord’s return, that it is the day that the sanctuary is cleansed. Perhaps so, but it is not definitely stated.

The full time from 1260 to 1335 is 75 additional days. That’s about 2 1/2 months. Given the additional terminal points beyond the 1260, and not knowing which, if either, of those specified days definitely mark the cleansing of the sanctuary, we can only say that sometime between 8 and 10 months after the covenant has been confirmed, the sacrifice will definitely be started again.

This does not require the completion of a temple (though, of course, in the modern world a temple could rise very quickly). We know this, because no sooner did the returning exiles under Zerubbabel return to the site of the altar, but they immediately began to offer sacrifice while work on the temple was only beginning. Furthermore, we know that the Greek word that Paul uses for the temple signifies its inner sanctum. This is in perfect keeping with Jesus’ mention of the inner room of the sanctuary called ‘the holy place.’ Therefore, a fully completed temple is not necessary for the prophecy to be fulfilled.

If we are correct that a restored sanctuary and sacrifice will be at the heart of the “holy covenant” (Dan 9:27 with Dan 11:28, 30, 32) that the Antichrist will ‘confirm’ (not create but ‘make firm’) with many (not necessarily ‘many’ Jews, but more probably many nations), then we will know when the seven years has begun regardless of who we may have thought the Antichrist would be or where he comes from. By this we will be able to distinguish it from any other peace arrangements along the way.

Even if we are ignorant or incorrect of exactly who the Antichrist is or where he comes from, we will nonetheless know with certainty that the seven years has begun. We will at least know that the Antichrist is among those heads of state that ratify the treaty that confirms Israel’s right to the appurtenances of the “holy covenant.” We will also know that “after the league made with him” (Dan 9:27; 11:23), the Jews will shortly begin to offer sacrifice again and evidently begin to build the temple that will house the ‘holy place’ that he defiles in the middle of the week.

If the language of scripture and historical precedent be given priority over conspiracy theory and speculation, this ‘holy covenant’ will certainly have to do with Jewish right to the Land and the city of Jerusalem, and particularly the temple mount. From the start, the Antichrist both hates and plots against the very  covenant that he confirmed with many (Dan 9:27; 11:23). This is the paradox. On one side, the treaty is a covenant with death and hell. It is unholy in that it trusts in man for its security. On the other side, it is holy in the sense that it recognizes, or rather pretends to recognize, Israel’s legitimacy and restored rights to temple and sacrifice. This is what the Antichrist will conspire against, first with a conquered king to his south (Dan 11:27), then with other nations who share a mutual hatred of the covenant (Dan 11:27-28, 30, 32).

I say that his intelligence with them who hate the covenant is “secret,” simply because scripture is clear that until he comes in suddenly “with the arms of a flood,” both Israel, and no doubt the western powers that are protectorates of the covenant (ships of Chittim), are unsuspecting of this sudden and overwhelming show of force (Dan 11:31 with Rev 13:4). At this point, Israel is basking in the presumed security of divine favor.

With the recent successful interdiction of the Antichrist’s southward initiative by the ships of Chittim, Israel will feel that the peace is more secure and invincible than ever and will securely dismiss the warnings of the prophetic witness that will be coming to them from within and without (Isa 28:11-12, 14-15). However, within whatever time may be considered to pass between Dan 11:30 and verse 31, a great shift of power has occurred.

Within a short time after he has been frustrated by the western armada, the Antichrist is able to secure the further backing needed to mount an irresistible invasion force against Israel.  Not only this, but a case can be made for the view that sometime after Dan 11:30 but before Dan 11:31, this beast has been resuscitated from a mortal wound to become the full incarnation of Satan, “with ALL power and signs of deceptive wonders” (2Thes 2:9). This is when the whole world wonders when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is (Rev 17:8).

It will be a demonic miracle, something much more deceptive and immediately compelling than the re-emegence of an empire, or an illusion of technology, as sometimes interpreted. It will be the ‘revelation of the mystery of iniquity’, which must be accomplished before Christ can return (2Thes 2:3, 7-8).

We believe this happens in immediate connection with Michael’s eviction of Satan in Rev 12:7-14, as also implied in Dan 12:1. It is then, upon the event of this supernatural empowerment from Satan (Dan 8:24 with Rev 13:2), that the Antichrist proceeds to enter the temple, claiming divine honors (Dan 11:36-37 with 2Thes 2:4). The Lord help you and give you grace to see the connection and the essence of things, as you search the scriptures to prove whether these things be so.

Yours in common waiting for the consolation of Israel, Reggie

The post Distinguishing The Peace We Are Looking For appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

I’m looking at how Ezekiel 11 opens with the inviolability of Zion (“the protective caldron”) and then the glory begins moving slowly from the temple, finally leaving the city to rest on the Mount of Olives. Then I came across a note that, according to rabbinic tradition, the glory rested on the Mt. of Olives for 3 1/2 years hoping for repentance before it finally left.

Is Ezekiel seeing through the crisis of 586, the last 3 1/2 years when the glory shields a newly rebuild temple for a while, then finally leaves the city over to destruction for 3 1/2 years? The 3 1/2 years and the fact that Jesus re-enters the city (the glory coming back) from the Mt. of Olives seems to point to a greater fulfillment than what Ezekiel would have imagined.

I do notice the remarkable parallel to those of the coming time who will reassure their compatriots that it is time to build houses in Jerusalem, believing the day of reckoning to be a long way off if at all. Significantly, those who will be slain will be called, “their slain.” God lays responsibility for their death at the feet of the false prophets that promised sanctuary in the city marked for destruction when they should have been warning them to flee. Sound familiar? Of course, in the modern context, the time for flight assumes that one has discerned the time. It will not be critical to flee Jerusalem before the approach of the signal events, so there are both similarities and differences in that respect. For Ezekiel’s hearers, the time was immediately at hand.

In my view, the temple that will be built will not host the glory, not even in the sense of forebearance. Though built again, it remains a house left desolate. The glory will fill the latter house, whereas this house is given to be desecrated and burned Isa 63:18; 64:10-11), because of the iniquity of the Land.

Though we know that none can escape the power of self delusion apart from the powerful drawing work of the Spirit, still, God justly holds Israel accountable to know better, though such knowledge would indeed be a miracle of grace. That is the paradox of covenant responsibility. But it is also why we must uphold the judgment of scripture that the final discipline is as much aimed at the religious iniquity of a Christ rejecting religious humanism as the secular sins of the impious.

It is particularly religious Judaism that is manifestly reaching its pinnacle of success when the proverbial rug is pulled out from under a religious confidence that has now reached to heaven by reason of its apparent success, to the momentary chagrin of the prophets that have warned of imminent judgment. For a moment, it will appear that all the apocalyptic doomsayers will have egg on their face.

On the one hand, it is the presence of the holy temple of God in a miraculously restored and preserved modern Israel that makes the invasion of Antichrist so much more especially provocative of God’s wrath. On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that the final discipline comes just when it appears that Judaism’s progressive view of religious man has been vindicated by God Himself through the amazing circumstance of a regained temple and sacrifice, ‘against all odds’. Significantly, it is just then that the final discipline comes to bring down and purge away this false approach to righteousness forever.

It is contrary to our humanistic approach to ethics to regard the filthy rags of a righteousness that has its source in man as equal, if not indeed greater than the common filth of human depravity for the principal cause of divine provocation. Therefore, the end of the covenant is the bringing in of an “everlasting righteousness” that is nothing of man. That is the great divide between eternal life and eternal death and the greatest point of divine contention. Wouldn’t you say? Lord grant skill and wisdom to use the acknowledged parameters of the covenant to crowd men and women to Christ.

Reggie

The post You Have Multiplied Your Slain In This City appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

You mentioned “According to Isa 28 and a number or scriptures, Jewish religious success in the Land will be at an all time high when the Antichrist strikes unexpectedly.” Isa 28 speaks of the covenant with death made by the leaders of the nation, but where does it talk about good prosperity and success during that period?

The short answer to your question as to why I expect Israel to be in a state of “euphoria” when the tribulation begins is because they are dwelling in a false security that is based on a seemingly successful negotiation with the Antichrist. For this cause, it is Israel in particular who is saying, “peace and safety” when disaster strikes.

In evident result from a false peace covenant (Dan 9:27; 11:23), and as part of the negotiations of that peace, it appears that Israel regains access to the forbidden temple mount, a circumstance nearly impossible under the present circumstance. From Isa 63:18 it appears that the Jews have only recently recovered their holy places when the Antichrist invades the city.

I discuss another reason for Israel’s relaxed guard and unpreparedness in an article I wrote called, “The Ships of Chittim.” There I show that an apparently very formidable western naval power will turn back a preliminary southward advance by the Antichrist very shortly before he invades Israel with irreistable force (Dan 11:30-31). No doubt the success of the ships of Chittim in turning back the Antichrist from his southward advance will make the security of the covenant seem invincible. Since we know that the abomination of verse 31 starts the last 3 1/2 years (Dan 9:27; 12:11), this intervention by the ships of Chittim must be very near the end of the first 3 1/2 years.

Before coming to Isa 28 specifically, I call your attention to Eze 38-39, which is undeniably eschatological. Before the redemption of Eze 39:22-29 (clearly the post-tribulational day of the Lord; see Eze 39:8 with Rev 16:14, 17), the attention of the northern invader is turned to a people only recently regathered from a long exile of “many days” (Eze 38:8). He has taken notice of the new nation’s fetching prosperity (Eze 38:10-13). Notice that the moment of invasion finds the recently restored nation in a state of presumed safety.

That this security is not the security of the millennium is made clear by the fact that Israel comes to the knowledge of God only AFTER the destruction of Gog’s armies. This is the day of the Lord (Eze 39:8, 22, 28-29). In contrast, when Satan is released at the end of the millennium to once again gather the forces of the nations, Israel has known the Lord for a thousand years. Thus, the context of Eze 38-39 is clearly pre-millennial. Evidently, John’s post-millennial reference to Gog and Magog envisions a symbolic reiteration of the great gathering of the nations to Armageddon and the great day of God Almighty (Rev 16:14-16). It appears that a further release of Satan to seduce the nations to attempt another futile assault against the camp of God’s elect is to show the resilience of a hidden depravity that only requires to be stirred by Satan. This confirms the words of Paul concerning the natural man, who is not inclined to behold the majesty of the Lord, even “in the Land of uprightness” (Isa 26:10).

So what peace is this in Eze 38:8, 11, 14? In strictly historical terms, it is the peace that Israel has enjoyed at times of relative security. This must not be confused with millennial security, as assumed by many scholars, because Eze 39:26 shows clearly that during this time of security, the nation’s sin is only increased. Therefore, the security envisioned here is BEFORE the righteousness that comes to Israel at the day of the Lord (Eze 39:8, 22, 28-29). The prophets show that every penitent Jewish survivor that enters the Land will all know the Lord and all their children after them and none will ever depart again from everlasting righteousness of the New Covenant (see Isa 4:3; 45:17, 25; 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; Jer 31:34; 32:40; Eze 39:22, 28-29 etc.)

Therefore, the peace that is in view in Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26 is manifestly a false peace. This sounds very much like the language Paul uses to remind his Thessalonians that the sudden destruction of the day of the Lord is preceded by a bold declaration of “peace and safety” (1Thes 5:3). This is the deadly presumption that is presupposed in Israel’s “covenant with death and hell” in Isa 28:15, 18.

In Daniel, we see a deceitful peace arrangement with the Antichrist (Dan 8:25; 9:27; 11:23-24) that ends in an appalling act of desecration at the temple mount (Dan 11:31; 12:11; Mt 24:15; 2Thes 2:4). Israel’s everlasting deliverance immediately follows the unequaled trouble of the last half of Daniel’s final week of years (Eze 39:22, 28-29; Dan 12:1, 7, 11; Rev 11:2). It is the false peace arrangement that apparently permits Jewish access to the temple mount and the recovery of the ancient institutions of the temple service (inferred from such passages as Isa 63:18; Dan 9:27; 11:23, 31; 12:11 with Mt 24:15-16; 2Thes 2:4; Rev 11:2).

This scenario agrees very well with mention in Isaiah of a “covenant with death and hell” (Isa 28:15, 18). Now the question: Is this future? Most certainly. Partial fulfillment in the contemporary setting of when the prophecy was given can never be assumed to exhaust it of a fuller and more complete eschatological fulfillment. That is a principal characteristic of prophecy that can be demonstrated in many places. To deny this notable feature of prophecy is to side with the liberal view that prophecy can fail. To affirm it is to acknowledge that prophecy is indeed “here a little and there a little,” in the searching out of an eschatological mystery, as practiced by the people of Qumran (‘pesharim;’ see Wikipedia article) and the NT writers occupation with ‘mystery’ (Mt 11:25; 1Cor 2:7-8; Ro 16:25-26; Eph 6:19; 1Pet 1:11) in keeping with Jesus’ message of the hidden presence of the kingdom.

You rightly grant that a dual fulfillment is reasonable but not certain. I would like to move you to certainty on the basis of the following considerations:

Without doubt, the still coming, still imminent, day of the Lord has been partially realized in the contemporary invasions of the past. However, we notice that prophets of later generations continue to use the same language of imminence to describe the still future day of the Lord. So long as Israel continues in apostasy among the nations, the day of the Lord is not yet, and the curses of the covenant will continue to threaten the nation’s peace until the end. This ultimate and final fulfillment of the day of the Lord is uniformly placed at the end of a final time of national travail. Daniel is more specific, as he places it at the end of a never to be repeated unequaled tribulation that will once more center on Jerusalem.

At different times, particularly the destructions and deportations inflicted first by Assyria and later Babylon, the judgments of that coming day did indeed fall in measure upon Israel. The same can be said of Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. None of these historic calamities exhaustively fulfilled the prophets’ vision of the day of the Lord. This is how later prophets could continue to apply the language of earlier prophets to a later threat, also spoken of as imminent on the contemporary horizon.

It is significant that later prophets did not hesitate to employ the same language of imminence that earlier prophets had used to describe the day of the Lord that threatened the earlier generation facing the Assyrian threat. The pattern was the same. Daniel would postpone Israel’s hope to the end of a further period of 70 sevens. This is why we expect a future “time of Jacob’s trouble” of unequaled tribulation (Jer 30:7 with Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21) that will accomplish to being Jacob to the end of his power (Deut 32:36 with Dan 12:7). This time ends with the day of the Lord and the final deliverance of the long estranged covenant nation (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1 with Mt 23:39; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7).

That Isa 28 anticipates a more ultimate eschatological fulfillment is made certain by the language of verse 5. “In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people, …” This is the common language of the prophets for the ultimate transition from this age of Israel’s estrangement to the day of ultimate covenant fulfillment and vindication in the sight of all nations. The reason this is not so decisive for some commentators is because their system of eschatology does not lead them to expect the literal fulfillment of all that the prophets declare concerning Israel’s post-day of the Lord exaltation to theocratic headship over the nations of the millennium.

In the order of its eschatological application and more complete fulfillment, we see the overwhelming flood (Isa 28:2, 15) of the northern invader (“a mighty and strong one;” Isa 28:2, 15) and the trampling down of Jerusalem (Isa 28:18) to be looking beyond the proto-typical Assyrian to the anti-typical Antichrist of the last and unequaled tribulation. That a yet further treading down is to be accomplished upon Jerusalem is made clear in the New Testament no less than the OT (Mt 24:15-16, 21; Lk 21:24; Rev 11:2). Unlike Isaiah’s reference to “the desolations of many generations” (Isa 61:4), this time of desolation will be of very brief duration (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11; Rev 11:2; 12:6, 14; 13:5).

As mentioned, this will begin after Israel has returned “after many days” and have become prosperous and secure (Eze 38:8, 11-14; Dan 11:23-24). This is precisely what arouses the envy of the northern invader (Eze 38:10-13). As an aside, you may note that Gog is called a “chief prince” (Eze 38:2-3; 39:1) in the same way that Michael the archangel is called “one of the chief princes” in Dan 10:13.

As Michael did battle to remove the “prince of Persia” in Dan 10:13, 20, he will cast down Satan in the middle of Daniel’s last week, so that Satan’s full fury is released upon the earth for the last 3 1/2 years. This is why Eze 38:17 particularly, together with the relation of the Magog invasion to the false security of the first half of the week and the time that the battle ends with Israel’s national repentance at the day of the Lord (Eze 39:8, 22, 28-29), leads me to believe that Gog is Satan who will be incarnate in the Antichrist to fulfill the mystery of iniquity (2Thes 2:7).

This is just some of the evidence to that effect the invasion of Gog is the invasion of Antichrist who with sudden, unexpected, and irresistible force (Dan 11:30-31; 1Thes 5:3; Rev 13:4) will flood Israel with overwhelming armies. With this, Israel’s ill-fated covenant with death and hell will be broken and the continual sin of placing trust in man will be once more violently exposed.

This last in a long line of gentile aggressors will proceed to enter the temple of God at Jerusalem to place the appalling sacrilege that signals the beginning of desolations that will continue throughout the 42 month siege of the city (Mt 24:15-16; 2Thes 2:4; Rev 11:2). At the end of the 42 months, Jesus returns to destroy the man of sin (2Thes 2:8), gather together His elect (Mt 24:31 with 2Thes 2:1), raise the sleeping saints (Isa 26:19, 21; Dan 12:2; 1Cor 15:23, 52, 54) and to turn ungodliness from “Jacob” (Zech 12:10; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7).

The gentile assailants of history do not exhaust the demand for future fulfillment, since some of these were seen, even by later prophets, as types of a final gentile aggressor that will descend on Jerusalem. Unlike all past invasions that left the people of the covenant in the grave of continued exile, this brief time of unparalleled world affliction will end in resurrection (Eze 37; Hos 5:15; 6:1-2) to final and enduring inheritance, a very different outcome indeed.

The language of Isa 28:12, 16 presupposes that it is the gospel itself that will be expounded to Israel by gentile witnesses (Isa 28:11). This is not merely God communicating to Israel though the foreign invader. This speaks of a prophetic witness denouncing to the scornful leaders in Jerusalem that they have entered presumptuously into an ill-fated covenant with the Antichrist. Rightly understood, this final covenant with death is just the climax and final cure of the habitual tendency of man to trust in himself. The time of probation is now expired, and in love, God must remove the false support. He can no longer tolerate this common tendency in the people of the election, particularly when this presumption is so flagrantly opposed to the clear word of all the Hebrew prophets of old.

Whether secular or religious, it is this inveterate humanism that God must oppose. Confidence in the flesh has been the bane that has exposed the covenant people across the centuries to the curses of the law recorded in Lev 26 and Deut 28-32. The reason apostate Christendom has not suffered similar things is simply because God is not in covenant with the false church that lives only in name. Only that which is the object of God’s special election is exposed to the discipline of the covenant, as also the special malice of Satan (Amos 3:2; Ro 11:29 with Jer 32:42).

The testimony that is being presented to Israel in Isa 28 is the gospel itself, as it is only the revelation of the gospel can adequately answer to the language of verses 12 and 15 (Is 28:12, 15). This is not the ‘milk’ but the meat of the Word that is coming to Israel through foolish gentiles line upon line, here a little and there a little from their own Hebrew scriptures (Isa 28:9 is clearly the background of the milk versus meat language for doctrinal maturity, as employed by the writers of the NT. I believe this is the “meat in due season,” of which Jesus spoke in the Olivet prophecy).

This will be an apologetic of compelling evidence from the prophetic writings such that will make its rejection all the more culpable by those who lightly dismiss it. Part of the offense will be that it comes to them through unqualified gentiles, since that is precisely what is meant by the idiom of the stammering tongue (Deut 28:49; Isa 33:19). So I do not see this Isaiah’s language to be exhausted by God’s pleading with Israel only through a fierce gentile invader, but He speaks to His people through witnesses of a foreign tongue through a line upon line prophetic testimony from the scriptures (this is doctrine; Isa 28:9; 29:4).

The line upon line, here a little there a little testimony of Isa 28 is manifestly the equivalent of Isaiah’s sealed instruction described in Isa 8:14-17 and sealed vision of Isa 29:11. This is the doctrine that the ‘wise’ (Heb, ‘maskilim) who instruct many during great tribulation because a sealed vision has been unsealed at the time of “the end” (Dan 11:32-33; 12:3-4, 7-11; Hab 2:3).

This sealed vision is nothing else than the OT mystery of the gospel that was revealed by the Spirit in the writings of the New Covenant. It comprehends both comings. It is much more than the Antichrist time. It includes the hidden wisdom of the cross, at which not only Israel, but the principalities and powers stumbled (Isa 8:14-15; 28:16; Mt 21:42; 1Cor 2:7-8; Ro 9:32; 1Pet 2:6, 8). It is the so-called ‘messianic secret’ that Jesus guarded throughout His ministry until the appointed time of revelation and full disclosure after the resurrection (Mk 9:9). To increase the offense, this decisive testimony comes to Israel through a “not a people” so to move them to jealousy, and a “foolish nation” so to provoke them to anger (Deut 31:17-18; 32:21; Eze 39:23).

Notice too that at the very time the “teaching” (torah) is being sealed and ‘bound up’ among a band of disciples (Isa 8:15; Mk 4:11), while the face of God is being hidden from the larger nation (Isa 8:16). So there is a notable relationship to be observed between the sealing of vision and prophecy (Dan 9:24) and the time that the face of God is no longer hidden from the nation as a whole (Eze 39:29).

According to Ezekiel, the exilic experience of the hiding of God’s face ends forever with the day of the Lord. “So the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their God from that day and forward. And the nations shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them … Then shall they know that I am the Lord their God, which cause them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there. Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God” (Eze 39:22-23, 28-29).

This means that mystery that was opened to the disciples of Jesus after His death (Messiah to be ‘cut off’ at the end of the 69th week; Isa 53:8; Dan 9:26) will be revealed to the penitent survivors of Israel at the end of the unequaled tribulation. This is the mystery behind Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy (Dan 9:24-27). The anointed Prince (Messiah) is ‘cut off’ at the end of 69 weeks; Isa 53:8; Dan 9:26. The “prince the shall come” (Antichrist) is destroyed at Messiah’s return at the end of the 70th week (Dan 7:11; 9:27; 11:45; 2Thes 2:8; Rev 19:20).

With Messiah’s post-tribulational return, all Israel will know the Lord their God “from that day and forward” (Jer 31:34; Eze 39:22; Mic 5:3-4; Hos 5:15; 6:1-2 with Zech 12:10; Mt 23:39; Ro 11:26; Rev 1:7). With the finishing of the mystery of God (Rev 10:7) at the end of the Daniel’s 70th seven, there is not a Jew living in the Land for whom the vision and the prophecy will be sealed (Isa 59:21; 60:21; Jer 31:24). It is sealed no more. The Spirit is poured out and the face of God will never again be hidden from any Jewish inhabitant of the Land (Eze 39:22, 28-28 with Jer 31:34). “From the day and forward,” the “everlasting righteousness” (Dan 9:24; Jer 32:40) of the New Covenant has come, not only for a small remnant, but for the ‘all Israel’ (the preserved third; Zech 13:9), as an entirely regenerate nation (Isa 4:3; 54:13; 59:21; 60:21; Jer 31:34), born in one day (Isa 66:8; Eze 39:8, 22; Zech 3:9; 12:10; 14:7; Mt 23:39; Rev 1:7).

So I see what I would call a ‘consummate apologetic’ of defense of the gospel coming to Israel. The context shows this to be after the false peace covenant, but before the final treading down of Jerusalem, i.e., the first 3 1/2 years. Included in the general testimony of Jesus will be specific denunciation of the pact with the Antichrist.

Notice how the transmission of this warning and prophetic witness depends on doctrinal maturity (“weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breast;” Isa 28:9). Is this not the maskilim of Daniel’s prophecy that have understanding of the sealed vision? Paul said that his gospel was “according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began,” and that the gospel now made manifest is to be “made known by the scriptures of the prophets” (Ro 16:25-26, also Mt 13:35). Paul was always interested to demonstrate that the gospel he preached, though a mystery in the past, was “none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come” (Acts 26:22). This was the apostolic ‘modus operandi’ in the evangelizing of both Jews and gentiles.

Though compelling enough to make their dismissal without excuse, the testimony that keeps coming ‘line upon line, here a little, there a little,’ will nevertheless be treated as gibberish and dismissed as unintelligible non-sense, not because it is not a formidable demonstration from the Hebrew scriptures, but because the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit, since the many-sided wisdom of God is hidden from the pride of carnal confidence, particularly religious humanism (Lk 10:21; 18:9; Ro 10:2-3).

But when the overflowing scourge will bring the final desolation and treading down of Jerusalem (Isa 28:18; 63:18; Dan 8:13; Lk 21:21-24; Rev 11:2), the message that was despised and dismissed will speak; it will reverberate for 3 1/2 years of terrific attrition. It will be continually reiterated by a people who will share the same experience of wilderness flight and refuge. It will be a powerful witness to Israel when they will see that the anticipation and preparation of the believing remnant will be because they listened to Jesus (Mt 24:15-16, 21), Israel’s rejected Messiah.

The church that will choose to suffer with Israel will go far towards manifesting the true from the false. Now in flight from the face of Antichrist, Jews everywhere will be caused to reflect on an increasingly confirmed prophetic warning that has come to them in the weakness and foolishness of gentile witnesses that have been “weaned from the milk” (Isa 28:9). In such an eschatological context, we may think of Jesus’ charge to those in responsibility for His household to give them “meat in due season” (Mt 24:45). I can well conceive that this meat is the revelation of the mystery of thee gospel that was spoken of in the OT as Isaiah’s, Daniel’s, and Habakkuk’s sealed vision (Isa 8:14-17; 29:11; Dan 12:4, 9; Hab 2:2-3).

Finally, I may be wrong, but it appears that the drunkenness that the prophet speaks of can be shown in other scriptures, particularly ch 29 to be spiritual. However, it may well also be literal, since those who see the terror of the vision without the refreshing that the gospel brings to the justified (Isa 28:12, 16) will seek to anesthetize themselves with strong drink.

I must close for now, but I hope you will prayerfully consider the above evidence for a better view of Isa 28 than we tend to find in most commentaries on Isaiah. You can see that Isa 8, 28, 29 was background for Daniel and the apocalyptic perspective of the NT.

Yours in the Beloved, Reggie

The post When They Say “Peace and Safety,” Then Comes Sudden Destruction appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Reggie,
I woke up this morning meditating on these verses in Zech. 14:1,2.

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

My thinking has always been that this capture of the city of Jerusalem takes places immediately before the Lord’s return [“the day of the LORD”]. But it now appears to me that it could be speaking of what actually happens “in the middle of the week.”

Two Questions:

1. Would not this disaster take place before Antichrist “sets up” the abomination?
2. When does Antichrist “enter the beautiful land” and accomplish this taking of the city?

Bro. Phil

I share full agreement with your observation here, Phil. The prophets quite typically envision the day of the Lord as the climax of a larger crisis that is revealed in Daniel to extend for the entire last half of the 70th week (i.e., the final 3 1/2 years of Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5). That is why Daniel says, ” and unto the end of the war, desolations are determined ” (Dan 9:26).

This means the war that begins at the time of the abomination continues for 42 months unto its end at ‘the great day of God Almighty’ at Armageddon (Rev 16:12-17). In other words, Armageddon is the climax of the war that began 42 months earlier. A comparison of Dan 11:40-45 with Rev 16:12-17 will show the development of that war from its inception in Dan 11:31 till its end in the destruction of the AC in Dan 11:45.

According to Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26, the Antichrist (definitely him; see Eze 38:17) comes down from the north (Dan 8:9) like a flood (Dan 9:26 with Dan 11:22) at a time of seductive false security for Israel. There is no way that one can put the battle of Eze 38 & 39 at the end of the tribulation. It certainly does end there (Eze 39:22-29, especially Eze 39:8 with Rev 16:17), but that is not where it begins. The Eze 38-39 invasion of Israel begins at a time of false security, which we may reasonably suppose is the result of the false peace covenant that Israel enters into with the Antichrist (Dan 9:27; 11:23). ((Though the language is similar, it is important that the interpreter not confuse the security of Eze 39:8, 11, 14 with the millennial security of the restored nation. Eze 39:26 is clear in showing that Israel’s sins increase during the time of this security. This stands in marked contrast to the continuous and undisturbed security that the prophets speak of as following the coming in of the everlasting righteousness at the day of the Lord — Jer 32:40; Dan 9:24 –.)) (see footnote). Evidently, Eze 38 begins with the invasion that desecrates the temple and starts the 42 months trampling down of Jerusalem and ends at Armageddon. The entire time of desolation is conceived as belonging to a single war (Dan 9:26). That’s what you’re correctly seeing here in Zech 14, Phil. It’s the comprehensive overview of the last war that ends in the day of the Lord.

There is no evidence that the Jews are welcoming the Antichrist, as some teach. He comes with force (Dan 11:31). He prevails militarily and overruns the city. According to Daniel 11:31-45, this begins a conflict that extends into the nations, but is ongoing till its end at Armageddon.

I also very much agree with your statement, ” I cannot imagine Antichrist quietly coming into Jerusalem and setting up the abomination. The security in and around Jerusalem’s old city and their holiest place is impenetrable at this point. An earlier battle of some sort must already have taken place before he sets up the image!” Exactly true. The AC enters suddenly and without warning (1Thes 5:3) at a time of security (Eze 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26; Dan 11:24). He then proceeds to the temple for the desecrating act that marks the beginning of the end. Forty two months later, the war that begins with the Antichrist invasion of Jerusalem ends with his destruction (Dan 11:31, 45; 12:11; 2Thes 2:8; Rev 11:2; 13:5; 19:19-20).

Although Satan’s ‘little season’ of Rev 20 is symbolically identified with Ezekiel’s battle of Gog and Magog, there are marked differences that demonstrate the necessity to distinguish between two similar events that bound the thousand years at both ends. This has confused many interpreters. There are many literal details that could be pointed out that plainly will not fit with a strictly post-millennial fulfillment. I will mention only one that is very clear. The invasion of Eze 38-39 clearly ends with the day of the Lord deliverance of Israel (see Eze 39:22-29). “So the house of Israel shall know that I am the Lord their God from that day and forward.” But when Satan is released for a little season at the end of the millennium, Israel has known the Lord for a thousand years. Hence, we conclude that Eze 38-39 and Rev 20 describe two symbolically parallel events that are distinct and must not be confounded.

Reggie

[Followup Question from another reader]
Hi Reggie,
Interesting. Then Ez.38f ends in Armagedon 42 months later, and this victory as described in Ez and Rev. is the day of the Lord. Then the Gog and Magog invasion and the wars of the Antichrist are not two different events, one having to occur before the other. Do you have more teachings on that on your website?
Thanks, J

I’ll have to check if there’s more on Ez 38-39 on the website, but I do recall sending an answer on this question to a Jewish brother who just might still have it. I can ask him and forward that on to you. It will probably be a little more detailed than what you saw in that recent exchange. It’s just one more of many such things that merit work I’ve not had opportunity and time to invest in writing a more complete apologetic for that view of those chapters.

There’s a lot out there on those chapters that is way off track. Time and grace permitting, I hope sometime to get to a more complete apologetic on those chapters. I know this: From ch 39, verses, 21-29, one could hardly wish for a more glorious theology of Israel’s day of the Lord redemption, which is shown to come with the end of the hiding of God’s face, which significantly coincides with the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit after a final assault on a newly regathered nation, only “recently” restored from the many generations of the long exile (see Eze 38:8 with Zeph 2:1-2).

This amounts to some powerful evidence against the popular replacement view that the church has now become the “new” Israel and the so-called, “redefined” people of God, with nothing left over for the natural branches except that some might come back into the church at some undefined time and manner. On the contrary, the time is clear (day of the Lord) and the manner is clear (a surviving remnant receives repentance in one day at the sight of the One whom they pierced. With this comes the pouring out of the Spirit and the end of God’s hiding His face from Israel “forever.” Thus begins the millennium). What could be clearer?!

Taken in context with other scriptures from other prophets that show the perfect correlation between the end of the hiding of God’s face with the pouring out of the Spirit at a still future day of the Lord (e.g., Deut 31:17-18; 32:20; Isa 8:17; 32:15; 44:3; 54:8; 59:21; 64:7; Zech 12:10 with Joel 2:28-32 etc.), there is much that needs to be “unpacked” in those chapters. It means that what has come to us already, as first-fruits, will yet faithfully come to them at that time (“in that day”), when “at once,” a nation will be “born in a day” (Isa 66:8; Eze 39:22; Zeph 3:9; 14:7).

Give greetings and love to all my brothers [there], Reggie

The post Unto the End of the War, Desolations are Determined appeared first on Mystery of Israel.