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.

Notice the mutual language of Isaiah and Jeremiah concerning the yoke and burden that departs off of Israel’s shoulder at the day of the Lord when the final oppressor is destroyed. This is attributed to the Assyrian in Isa chapters 9 & 10, but particularly in Isa 14:25. However, in Jer 30:8, 14, the same language is applied to a yet future ‘cruel one’ who is destroyed in the day of Israel’s deliverance (Jer 30:7). Daniel will later show this to be the unequaled tribulation that ends in Israel’s salvation (Dan 12:1 with Mt 24:21; Rev 7:14).

It should be clear that Jeremiah, even from his limited standpoint, could not have had in mind the king of Babylon. Rather, he sees this last oppressor as a more distant figure who descends on Israel after they have returned to the Land and recovered their holy house (Isa 63:18, 64:10-11). Even from the limited foreview of Isaiah and Jeremiah’s standpoint in history, the final tribulation (Jacob’s trouble), was seen to be the final desolation and ‘treading down’ of Jerusalem (Isa 28:18). This is a constant theme in the eschatology of the prophets (Dan 8:13) and is carried forward in the NT (Rev 11:2). I find it especially impressive that Isaiah represents the final destruction as taking place shortly after Israel has only recently recovered possession of their holy house (Isa 63:18; 64:10-11) when it is once more trampled down.

Jeremiah knew that Jacob’s trouble takes place well after the return that would be decreed by Cyrus, the liberator. That is why he is is taken aback with such astonishment to see a returned Israel in its greatest travail (Jer 30:5-7 with Mic 5:3; Isa 13:7-9; 26:16-18; 66:8). Even after the Jews have returned, and even after they have recovered their holy place, this is not to final felicity, but to further tribulation, even one that eclipses all others. This stands in such seeming contradiction to the glories that would have naturally been expected in connection with most of the prophecies of return. It is little wonder why those returning under Ezra and Nehemiah were surprised and disappointed at how far short their experience of return fell of their understandable expectations.

It is not too different today. The order of return in relation to the day of the Lord was and remains a mystery for this very reason: Most of the prophecies of return imply an immediate deliverance unto final glory, but there are a select few that contemplate a preliminary return in unbelief (short of the righteousness of the New Covenant) that expect further covenant discipline before the final redemption (see Jer 30:3, 6-7; Zeph 2:1-2; Eze 22:19-22; 38:8 with Dan 12:1, 11; Mt 24:15-16, 21; 2Thes 2:4; Rev 11:2). Significantly, these few prophecies (there may be others) represent a return (in unbelief) that has only recently occurred when the final tribulation comes. Perhaps it is because Jeremiah had not himself fully understood or expected this order in the return that explains why he is so stricken and taken aback with such an astonishing vision of a yet further and unequaled tribulation, even after an initial return (Jer 30:3-7 with Dan 12:1 etc.). This is the same astonishment and wonderment that many feel today when they are confronted with the prospect of such a judgment that includes even a short exile of flight into the wilderness of the nations (Mt 24:16 with Rev 12:6, 14). Why, they ask, would God so miraculously return His people to their ancient homeland, as a nation among nations, only to deliver them once again into the hands of their enemies?

Remember too, Jeremiah would have known Isaiah’s earlier prophecy that Babylon would be judged by the Medes and succeeded by the great king Cyrus, whom God calls by name. So certainly Jeremiah sees the final climax of Jacob’s trouble well beyond the limits of the 70 years and the dominion of Babylon. They are back in the Land when Jacob’s trouble begins. Interestingly, they are only “recently” back in the land from the long exile when the final tribulation comes (see Eze 38:8). In Isa 63:18, the final desolation and treading down of Jerusalem comes at a time when the Jews have only recently recovered their holy places (see also Isa 64:1–11). For Daniel, the unequaled tribulation is spoken of as 70 7’s beyond the first return, but with no express anticipation or mention of yet further exile of ‘many years’ (Eze 38:8). The long exile following the Roman destruction and banishment would extend for “many generations” (Isa 61:4), but this is only hinted at and not easily detected by those living before the Roman exile. Nor would we expect that Zechariah and the other post-exilic prophets would have seen a further exile, other than the short tribulation spoken of by Daniel. According to the literature between the testaments, the Jews looked for a tribulation that would be inflicted by Rome, but expected it to last no more than the very brief period (the 3 1/2 years) described in Daniel’s prophecy. All of this combines to make the modern return of Israel all the more a puzzlement to those who have difficulty conceiving that the present state is destined to pass into a time of further desolation before the full and complete return that accompanies the Lord’s return.

As much as we know that Jeremiah had Isaiah’s prophecy ready to hand, it is clear that he would have seen Jacob’s trouble as occurring only sometime AFTER the liberator, Cyrus, had decreed the return from Babylon. This pushes the fulfillment to at least sometime beyond the end of the 70 years. Since he would not have known Daniel’s later prophecy of the 70 weeks, it is interesting to consider how far beyond the return that Jacob’s trouble would have been imagined. We cannot assume with many commentators that the king of Babylon is the “yoke of the cruel one that is broken off of Israel’s neck” (Jer 30:8, 14), because the return envisioned is after the return but before Israel’s deliverance. But for our purpose here, I’m wanting us to underscore the fact that Jeremiah uses nearly the same exact language of this final oppressor that Isaiah uses for both the Assyrian and the king of Babylon. This demonstrates an awareness that the prophets had of an implicit typology of a final Antichrist that went beyond their contemporary situation. Many recognize and acknowledge this in hindsight, as belonging to the nature of prophetic revelation. That is, of course, obvious, but I’m saying that the evidence makes plain that the prophets themselves had to have been fully aware of this in their own day. How else can Isaiah speak beyond the Assyrian to the king of Babylon and beyond Cyrus to a final oppressor that Jeremiah will also put beyond the captivity, and Daniel will put at the end of a long line of oppressors. But Isaiah and Jeremiah show this understanding in their own prophecies before Daniel makes it so clear.

The post-exilic prophets also show their awareness that the present time of partial blessing will at length give way to a further crisis that ends in the day of the Lord. Then will ‘all Israel’ be saved, and then will ‘all Israel’ return, with none left behind (Eze 39:28). Zechariah is very clear concerning this further crisis and subsequent world wide return. How commentators can content themselves with a post-Babylonian fulfillment of the return prophecies when the post-exilic prophet Zechariah sees beyond to the greater return at the day of the Lord is simply without excuse. There was no thought among the prophets that the present return was anything more than a ‘day of small things.’ At best it was a down payment, an ‘already’ of partial fulfillment that leaves a ‘not yet’ of much greater glory to come in connection with the final and complete return that comes only AFTER the day of the Lord.

This amazing overlap and repetition on themes that the prophets themselves realized went well beyond their own contemporary circumstance, opens our eyes to an amazingly rich and varied typology that is consistent and definite. We see this in how the prophets would apply the same language of finality to a succession of oppressors, all bearing the same diabolical image. I personally believe this pre-understanding underlies Daniel’s vision of the succession of gentile powers reaching to the final Antichrist, what Paul will call the “mystery of iniquity.” It is a generic and organic phenomenon that moves through history to its climax in the final “man of sin.”

This is especially clear in Paul’s reference to the Assyrian / Antichrist in Isa 11:4, whose destruction starts the millennium. He quotes the Septuagint, which renders Isaiah 11:4, not as the destruction of the “wicked” (plural) in general, as might appear from our translations, but the Septuagint has “the Ungodly One.” To show that an individual is in view, the Septuagint uses capital letters. We see this in some translations of 2Thes 2:8 to show dependence on the Septuagint and also to show Paul’s interpretation and application.

Clearly, according to Paul, Isa 11:4 is the personal Antichrist whom the Lord destroys by the Spirit of His mouth at His premillennial return (compare Isa 11:4; 30:31; 31:8; Dan 8:25; Rev 19:15). This means that Isa 31:8 is most certainly the AC who is destroyed by nothing less than the sword of the Lord’s mouth, and Daniel is well aware that this is speaking, no less, of his ‘little horn / king of fierce countenance.’ Isaiah’s close association of the Assyrian in Isa 14:25 with the king of Babylon (if they are not indeed identified as the same), and Daniel’s awareness that Isaiah’s “Assyrian” is to be identified with the little horn that rises up in a northern region that was one of the four kingdoms that came out of Alexander’s divided kingdom (Dan 8:9). This may hold a further clue to the territorial aspects of the origins of the Antichrist, as one who begins as a little horn (kingdom) that swiftly comes to much greater prominence and power during a time of tranquility (Dan 11:24) through a ‘league’ that is made with him’ at that time (Dan 11:23). Interestingly, his rise comes through “a small people” (Dan 11:23). I still think it worthy of our consideration if this might have something to do with the Palestinian problem.

When we get time, I want to show how parallel the same language for the Assyrian is for Ezekiel’s vision of Gog and Magog as well. Surely, it is profound puzzle of interplay of type and anti-type that weaves itself all through the prophets to focus on the last gentile aggressor as the composite fullness of all the historical types. Unfortunately, commentators tend to satisfy themselves quite short of the goal and implications of these prototypical figures by attributing to past history a fulfillment that falls far short of the attendant details. The destruction of a final gentile oppressor in everywhere bound to the great transition of the day of the Lord, and for the prophets there is nothing in history that counts as the day of the Lord if it falls short of the comprehensive fulfillment of the covenant in every detail.

Any would be fulfillment that stops short of that great transition can NOT count as sufficient fulfillment! Why isn’t this more clear? The answer is what it must mean for a literal restoration of the nation of the natural branches. No other solution treats the plain language of scripture as the infallible Word of God. A past fulfillment that is anything more than a partial earnest on what is yet to come at a future day of the Lord (Christ’s second coming) is a futile effort to try to “save” the apparent failure of prophecy by positing the untenable solution of spiritual interpretation. The effort is one that makes Jews and liberals to blush at the lengths the replacement minded interpreters are prepared to go to defend their view of the inerrancy of scripture while denying the day of the Lord salvation of Israel (the natural branches). It is a question that will not go away, and one that the events of the end will utterly expose, even as the present return has been counted as an event of prophetic non-significance, an accident of history, the natural evolution of Jewish longing and resolve, etc. Such a view cannot be merely an issue of hermeneutics. There must be an underlying moral component that is going virtually undetected by the prophets of the church.

Another thing an overview of the prophets will address is the problem of how the day of the Lord can be at once represented as ever imminent, yet preceded by clearly foretold events. This has puzzled many. It is interesting to me how the different prophets, some living centuries apart, would present the day of the Lord as always “near” or “at hand,” despite the manifest passage of significant periods of time between one prophet to another. This shows an ever present imminence of the judgments of that great day that does not assume a strictly chronological imminence. This suggests a distinction between ‘chronological’ imminence, which cannot be true until after certain foretold events have taken place, and an ‘existential’ imminence, from which all persons stand at an equi-distance. In this sense, the day of the Lord is always impinging on the present, since the judgments of that day, like the blessing of that day, are subject to be realized in a partial or first-fruits fashion at any given time when the covenant has been grossly neglected or truly honored (knowing, of course, that it can only be truly honored through Christ). The NT reflects this awareness of the ever present imminence (the ‘at hand-ness’) of a day that is obviously preceded by knowable signal events (2Thes 2:3 etc.)

Reggie Kelly, Nov 2013 {edited by Samuel Clough}

The post The Way the Prophets Understood Prophecies of the Antichrist 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.

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.

… if God is the biblical God, and Israel is his text book to the nations, it is not possible they can ever win [a great military victory] while in their unbelieving condition. If they can [win], everything I have ever learned goes out the window. Art always had it right when he pointed out our view of Israel finds us out as a people who also still put our hope in our own flesh.

Your use of the word, ‘win’, gives opportunity for an important distinction that is too often overlooked. Obviously, we are not saying that Israel may not have some temporal success through diplomacy or even war. They have before, and prophecy shows that they will again before the final judgments come that will prepare Jacob for that great change that comes at Christ’s return (Mt 23:39; Ro 11:26).

In fact, we believe there will be a time of jubilant euphoria when it will appear that peace has finally come to the region. This will be the result of the deadly peace that will last only 3 1/2 years before the great tribulation begins with the desecration of the holy place by the self exalting Antichrist. That is why we say that the real test of the heart towards the Word of God will be seen, not in how we interpret Israel’s present perils, but her future success.

Will we believe that because Israel wins in battle or diplomacy that the issue of Jacob’s trouble has been settled, that it is now shown to be obviously past, and no longer a future necessity of prophecy and divine foreknowledge? That will be the question.

The real test is how we interpret what appears to be the blessing of God on Israel’s return. Has God’s ancient covenant contention (Lev 26:25) abandoned its jealous resolve to bring Israel back under the “bond of the covenant” (Eze 20:34-37)? It is a question of how we read the covenant. It will show either an inherent humanism or a prophetic perspective of necessary crisis and apocalyptic intervention. At the heart, it is two opposing world views. It has nothing to do with a lack of love or priestly identification with the struggling and beloved Jacob nation.

It is really the same test of the heart that inheres whenever we see a beloved child outside the bond of the covenant in known or willful disobedience. As parents, we rejoice in every good thing. We wince at the dread prospect of pain, and pray for the preservation of that precious life until the hoped for day of salvation. But as believers, we also know, that as certainly as that child is foreknown of the Father, a time of “Jacob wrestling” must come.

We so much wish it would not require such a deep and traumatic divine dealing, but the degree of rebellion will determine how deep the Spirit must go to get at the root, and only the Father knows ‘what it will take’. Only a parent can know this fear and this pain, but a believing parent is willing for anything of temporal distress, rather than that child should perish eternally.

I believe we must see Israel in much the same way. The hard Word of God concerning Israel is hardest to bear for those who love her the most. That is why it is only the vision of the unveiled glory that comes in no other way that sustains us in our prayer and expectation through all the things that must come. If we are not prepared, then we will be deceived in one way or another, but the antidote for deception has always been, “But take ye heed, Behold, I have foretold you all things” (Mk 13:23).

I also think we have to see Israel’s return as something more than the necessary first stage towards God’s final dealings with them in the Land. It is true, though too little considered, that such passages as Zeph 2:1-2 speak of a preliminary “self-gathering” that is unto final crucible in the Land. That, however, is not the only purpose of Israel’s return.

Though somewhat difficult to interpret, Ezek 38-39 is clear that it is God who has brought the nation back from the “many generations” of the long exile (Ezek 38:8). If the context is carefully examined, the returning exiles prosper and increase in wealth, so much so, that their prosperity excites the attention and covetousness of the northern invader.

But this does not mean that Jacob’s trouble (i.e., the great tribulation) does not still stand between this momentary prosperity the time of last peace based on regeneration (Ezek 39:29). On the contrary, we see Gog and his hordes coming down to ravage the newly returned nation.

It is particularly noteworthy that according to Ezek 39:26, this present return back from the generations of estrangement from the Land does not end in the everlasting righteousness of covenant promise. Instead, Israel’s sins increase during this time of safety. This is paradox indeed, but it completely explains many of the mysteries concerning Israel and the order of the modern return versus another return that is complete and everlasting.

To appreciate this point, we need to see that Israel’s national deliverance does not come until the end of the great tribulation, which is the day of the Lord (Ezek 39:8). The final deliverance happens only after the destruction of Gog [which I see as the Antichrist, or more precisely the demonic prince, Satan, that will be incarnate in the AC (see Ezek 38:17).]

With his (Gog’s / Antichrist’s) destruction (Ezek 38:17), we see all the promised glories of the millennial age that follows Israel’s post-tribulational, day of the Lord, deliverance (Ezek 39:8, 22-29). So it is clear that this is not speaking about a war that only happens at the end of the millennium (though that will repeat something of the same in essence). In such case, Israel would have already known the Lord for a thousand years, whereas in Eze 39:22-29, Israel has been newly regenerated. On the contrary, Ezek 38-39 speaks of the great day of God (compare Ezek 39:8 with Rev 16:14-17) that ends in Israel’s final salvation and final regathering of the penitent remnant, ‘to the last man’ (see Ezek 39:28). This final and everlasting return is, of course, much to be distinguished from the partial return of the events leading up to 1948.

So where is the tribulation of Jacob’s trouble in Ezek 38-39? Many have supposed that the war of Gog only threatens Israel, that the northern foe comes down, only to be suddenly destroyed on the mountains of Israel, much the same way that the Assyrian was met with a plague that saved Jerusalem at the time of Hezekiah. This is incorrect. In all the prophets, Israel knows the Lord in penitent revelation of Him whom they pierced, after the time of unequaled distress of ‘Zion’s travail’ (Isa 13:6-9; 66:7-8; Jer 30:6-7; Dan 12:1; Mic 5:3; Hos 5:15 – Hos 6:1-2).

This is the well known day of the Lord. It is the time the Deliverer comes out of Zion (Isa 59:17-21; Ro 11:26). It is the time that Ezek 39:22-29 is fulfilled. But Daniel and Revelation shows that this day does not come until after a 3 1/2 year period of unequaled distress. Therefore, we must conclude that Ezek 38-39 is comprehensive of the last war in all of its stages. It begins with the initial desolation of Jerusalem by the Antichrist and the ten kings, and continues to Armageddon. Here’s the evidence for this statement:

The pre-millennial war of Gog and Magog begins at a time when Israel is dwelling safely. Clearly, this is not Israel’s millennial peace, but the false peace that much precede the day of Israel’s greatest discipline (Isa 28:15; Dan 8:25; 11:23-24; 1Thes 5:3). Obviously, such safety and security would not be possible anytime after the tribulation has begun. But note also, the war does not end anytime short of Israel’s salvation at the day of the Lord. “Until the end of the war, desolations are determined” (Dan 9:26).

So it is clear that the battle begins with the violation of the covenant and the invasion of the armies of Gog, and it ends with Christ’s return at Armageddon (Rev 16:14-17). Then will be the seven months of burying the dead bodies, and the seven years of burning the weaponry, which certainly doesn’t fit with some earlier time, let alone after the millennium.

The war that ends the age comes in two installments. First, the Antichrist sweeps down upon Jerusalem. At the end of Jerusalem’s 42 months of continual treading down (Rev 11:2), the armies of the earth gather at Armageddon (Dan 11:40-45 with Rev 16:12-17). This ends the war that ends the age, but it anticipates another war of like kind at the end of the millennium. What Rev 20 is interested to show is that there is a post-millennial repeat of the same thing in essence. [Note: Unless Ezek 38-39 can be harmonized with Rev 20 in this way, many clear scriptures become forfeit of real and literal fulfillment. This would be unique and contrary to a host of parallel OT passages in the OT that assign a post-tribulational, day of the Lord fulfillment to these events, not to be confused with its post-millennial counterpart, which is very different in several important details.]

So Ezek 38-39 clearly must include the 42 months of Jerusalem’s final desolation. The armies of Gog will indeed have a momentary and short-lived success in the conquest of Jerusalem that will result in terrific suffering and world upheavals without parallel in history (Mt 24:21-22). As in all the scriptures that describe the end of the Antichrist, this war ends in all the glories described in Ezek 39:22-29. The time is clear.

But here’s what I said all this to say: God has brought Israel back, not only for the time of Jacob’s trouble, but for a necessary preliminary time of “divine probation”. God is using this to make all things clear if we will only listen, not to part, but to ‘all’ that He says on this matter. We know and agree that a mighty divine providence has, against all odds, brought the Jewish people back from the centuries of exile (Ezek 38:8). This has significantly come after Israel’s worst Holocaust, since the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century. This is very significant, both prophetically, and to demonstrate the tender heart and amazing patience and pleading of God, even to an unbelieving people.

He has granted them the Land for a moment of opportunity, even blessing, but this is not to be confused with the return that will accompany the day of salvation. This return was known of God to be a further test of the heart, not only of Israel, but of all the nations in their long history with the Jew in the midst. That is why He has left them constant reminder through the hatred of their enemies that nothing is yet over or resolved concerning His ancient covenant contention and the claims of righteousness. Israel is being pressed to consider that something is still profoundly in contention, but for those who ignore this call, there is coming the greatest delusion of all time.

Israel is being called through the Holocaust and the constant attrition of the relentless conflict over the Land and Jerusalem, to consider the claims of the covenant, which only have their end in Christ. But due to the sin of the natural heart, this ‘probationary return’ of Ezek 38:8 does not result in the kind of searching that ends in the revelation of Messiah. Rather, during the time of this momentary prosperity and relative peace, Israel’s sin has only increased. This is what we read in Ezek 39:26, which is a real key.

This will be particularly true during the false peace of the Antichrist (which, if you’ll carefully observe, is not millennial peace, but a misuse of a peace that is prior to the millennium). So, although the orthodox will offer sacrifices again, it is folly to suppose that these are acceptable to God, since their offering is part of the immediate chain of events that lead to the disaster of Jacob’s trouble. It will be the ultimate provocation of their long slighted God.

So here is the order I see: First, God pleads with His deeply chastened nation through the Holocaust. Then He brings them back, against all odds, miraculously delivers them from their enemies, and grants them prosperity and and the opportunity of a new beginning. Of course, the mercy and blessing of God is misinterpreted to strengthen the slogan, “never again”, through natural might and vigilance.

Still, the present return, though fatally mixed with secular self reliance, is ordained to show the patience and kindness of the Lord. This has many purposes, not least to raise up a Jewish remnant of faith in the Land that will be in strategic positions of witness for the time of the ultimate crisis.

The probation will soon end. The time of pleading through patience and prosperity will be over. The Land will be invaded and overrun by an implacable enemy. This will come at precisely the time it looked like Israel’s troubles were over and true security could be finally celebrated as here to stay. This will test many hearts, but it will be short lived.

Then God will plead with Israel again, but this time it will be in the wilderness, where the greater number of those that will survive have fled into the surrounding countries, but that’s another topic. That point is this: It is not entirely correct to believe that the only reason God has permitted the Jews to return is to prove their presumption or set them up for final crucible. He is dealing with presumption, and crucible will come, but there is much more. He is jealous in how and when it comes. He has determined to first plead through blessing and patience. Though its end will be terrible before it will be glorious, there is tender kindness to be seen in the present return.

It is sure and certain that though He bear long, He will at length arise. His grace will prevail to the highest glory. Just as God was able to ‘get His man’ on the Damascus road, He is able to get His nation, not only back to the Land, but back to His heart, as their Joseph reveals Himself to them in the great day of the uncovering of all things.

Yours in His precious service, Reggie

The post Seeing Jacob in His Struggle – with a Father’s Heart appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

It’s this comment from ‘How soon is “The Time of Jacob’s Trouble?”’ that I’m asking that you clarify a-bit more than “north takes notice.”

Quotation from the previous article ‘How Soon Is the “Time of Jacob’s Trouble?”‘
“When looking at the scriptural language of prophecies such as Ezek 38:8 and Zeph 2:1-2, it is apparent that a preliminary return of the Jews to the Land in unbelief has only lately occurred when the invader from the north takes notice of the revived prosperity of the land. Notably, this return comes before the final redemption, but ‘after’ what is presented as a ‘recent’ ingathering from an age long dispersal (”brought back from the sword after many years”).

From the language of Ezek 38:8, it doesn’t appear that the invasion of Gog and Magog can be too long distant from the time of the preliminary regathering in unbelief mentioned here and in Zeph 2:1-2. From the context, it appears that the Jews have only lately returned to the Land from what has turned out to be centuries of exile (“brought back from the sword and gathered out of many people”) when “the chief prince of Meshech (the fearful foe from the north) takes notice of the flourishing prosperity of the fledgling new nation. I was showing the short space between the two events, as evidence that the invasion of the Antichrist (Ezek 38:17) cannot be too far distant from the time of the return of the prospering new nation.

As certainly as the tribulation (‘Jacob’s trouble’) is future, then Zeph 2:1-2 implies a recent ‘self-gathering’ of Jews to the Land in preparation for the calamity of the great day. This is the return we have witnessed in the 20th century. Therefore, despite the present state of Jewish unbelief in Christ, it is no less full of prophetic significance, as the necessary prelude to a world crisis over the Jerusalem question (“the controversy of Zion” Isa 34:8; Zech 12:2-3) that ends in Armageddon.

Here’s how it would have looked to an Old Testament believer: Jer 30:3 is clear in showing that the initial return from Babylon will not accomplish the final redemption. The prophecy of a yet future “time of Jacob’s trouble” would have come as an unexpected disappointment to the Jews returning from Babylon, because a superficial reading of the prophets had led many to associate the promise of return with the long expected golden age of national redemption.

This helps to explain Jeremiah’s personal astonishment when he sees the great anomaly of a yet future time of unequaled distress, as coming AFTER the return from Babylon (compare Jer 30:3, 6-7), but before the salvation of the great day. In Jeremiah 31:2, a yet future wilderness experience is contemplated before the time of ‘rest’ and before the covenant of the new heart in Jer 31:31-34.

Daniel’s prophecy helped to preserve the faith of the returned exiles by explaining that the unexpected delay is according to a pre-determined time schedule that would extend the exile for a yet further period of 70 times 7.

Therefore, it is a mistake to assume that because Jews have returned to the Land to become a nation (Dan 12:1), that this is the final return. On the contrary, the final return comes with Israel’s deliverance at the end of Jacob’s trouble (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1). Unlike the preliminary return in unbelief, it is permanent and to the last man (Isa 11:11-12; 27:12-13; Ezek 39:28 et al).

Before the great age long dispersion that began with the events of 70 A.D., many apocalyptic sects among the Jews were looking for the one who would bring the final desolation of Jerusalem. They had read the prophecies (Isa 63:18; 64:10-11; Zech 14 et al). A comparison between Jer 30:7 and Dan 12:1 will demonstrate that the tribulation ends with two things in particular:

1) The deliverance of the saved remnant of Israel.

2) The resurrection of the righteous.

Anyone reading Daniel could see that the great tribulation would begin with the abomination of desolation and the removal of the sacrifice by the self exalting ‘man of sin’ (Dan 11:31, 36-37; 12:11). That much was clear, as we can see in Jesus’ and Paul’s reference to these same passages (Mt 24:15; 2Thes 2:4).

Writing after the exile, Zechariah mentions nothing of another dispersion, but he certainly contemplates a Jewish presence in the Land when describing the distress that precedes the day of the Lord. So unless the prophecies are to be spiritualized, something had to give. Somehow, the Jews had to be a nation again in the Land (Dan 12:1). That’s where we are today. We have come full circle. The early church lived and labored under the shadow of an imminent destruction of Jerusalem. We’re there again. The only difference is the church for the large part is sound asleep (Mt 25:5).

Of course, the expectation of the early church concerning Jerusalem was fulfilled, as also foretold by Jesus. However, with the destruction of Jerusalem, there came the crisis of what scholars call, “the delay of the Parousia” (coming). Although Jerusalem was destroyed, Jesus did not return to destroy the Antichrist “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (Mt 24:29; 2Thes 2:8), as expected. Furthermore, Daniel’s people were not delivered and the dead did not rise (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1-2, 13; Ro 11:26).

As I see it, unless prophecy has failed, we are left with one of three choices:

1) Spiritualize both Christ’s return and the resurrection (preterism) by putting the tribulation (“Jacob’s trouble”) in the past

2) Interpret the tribulation as extending from 70 A.D. to Christ’s return (historicism)

3) See the tribulation as both literal and future. This, of course, requires a preliminary return of Israel to the Land in unbelief.

It is this last choice that gives such significance to such passages as Ezek 38:8 and Zeph 2:1-2, because the implication is that Israel has been only recently restored to nationhood (Dan 12:1) before the tribulation that ends in the deliverance of the day of the Lord.

Clearly, Ezek 38:8 describes a return that is shortly followed by the great and everlasting redemption described in Ezek 39:22-29. Nothing in the past has answered to the language of these highly descript prophecies that fulfill the covenant promises and mark the end of Israel’s long night of exile. If they are not to be spiritualized and taken over by the church, they are clearly future. The question is when?

According to Dan 12:11, the abomination and the removal of the sacrifice (Dan 11:31; Mt 24:15) marks the beginning of the last 3 1/2 years (compare Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7, 11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 12, 14, 13:5). This is the great tribulation and the finishing of the ‘mystery of iniquity’ for which the return of Christ is awaits (2Thes 2:3-4, 7-8).

Since every other reference to the abomination of desolation mentioned in the book of Daniel is performed by the king who exalts himself (Dan 8:11; 11:21, 31, 36-37; 12:11), it becomes clear that it is not Christ but “the prince who shall come” of Dan 9:26 who takes away the sacrifice in the middle of the week (Dan 9:27).

This means that there is a gap between the 69th and 70th week. The first half of Daniel’s last week begins when the Jews enter a covenant with death and hell (Isa 28:15, 18) with the self-exalting ‘man of sin’ (Dan 8:11; 11:36-37; 2Thes 2:4). The chronological order of events leading to the abomination mentioned in Dan 11:31; 12:11 begins in Dan 11:23 with the words, “And AFTER the ‘league’ made with him, he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up and shall become strong with a small people. In time of security he shall come …”

This is the time of false security that Paul has in mind in 1Thes 5:3 that is a prelude to ‘sudden destruction’. It is the false security that exists in Israel (Ezek 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26) just before the invasion of Gog, who is none other than the last great oppressor spoken of by “all” the prophets of Israel (Ezek 38:17). His destruction ends in the glorious redemption described in Ezek 39:22-29.

Contrary to the objections of some, there is nothing out of character for a gap to exist between the different stages of prophetic fulfillment. So surely as the advent and career of Antichrist is future, we are forced to recognize a gap between the time of Rome and the end.

By the same rule, there is a gap between the Grecian kingdom and the actions of the final Antichrist in Dan 8 and 11 where the Roman period is passed over in prophetic silence. This same characteristic of prophecy can be demonstrated in a number of passages where the near and the far overlap, and where the two advents of Christ are sometimes combined without clear distinction in the same passage. This phenomenon belongs to the mystery of Christ twofold coming, which occasioned great puzzlement, so that many stumbled. It is the same today.

How long then is the gap? We can’t know the time as certainly as we will know it when the door of the last seven years closes tightly shut behind us. We will know it when Israel enters into a deceitful “league” with the Antichrist (Dan 11:21, 23). It must be a league that guarantees Jewish rights to the temple mount. In the meantime, there is evidence to suggest that the time between Israel’s rejection of their Messiah and their return to faith is about 2,000 years. I’ll show how this might be reckoned.

The analogy that is intimated in prophecy is Joseph’s self-disclosure and reunion with his estranged brethren. We see this in two of the pre-exilic prophets to the northern kingdom, Micah and Hosea.

In Mic 5:1-5, the famous Christmas prophecy, we see that with Israel’s rejection of the Messiah (“they shall smite the ruler of Israel with a rod upon the cheek”), God surrenders Israel to an age long judgment. “Therefore (because the ruler was smitten), He (Yahweh) shall give them up …”). But for how long? “Until the time when she who travails has brought forth (Jacob’s trouble), then shall the remnant of His brethren return … and they shall abide: for now shall He be great unto the ends of the earth.” Now there’s a “gap” if I ever saw one! It perfectly explains the plight of Israel from the cross till the end of the tribulation.

Hosea describes the same long time of temporary divine desertion (the age long hiding of God’s face). In Hos 5:15, God says He will depart and return to “my place”. (Hos 5:15). Such momentary abandonment is never permanent. Once more, it is “until they acknowledge their offense” (not only ‘guilt’ in general, but a singular consummate transgression or offense).

This long awaited acknowledgement comes with God’s re-visitation “after two days.” All throughout the third day, the long estranged nation will “live” in His sight.

If we are correct to understand the third day as the millennial reign of Christ over a resurrected and restored Israel, then we may reckon the two days from the cross (most say about 30 A.D.). This was also the time that “a door of faith” was effectually opened to the Gentiles. But most significantly, it marked the time that Jesus said, “your house is left to you desolate. Behold. I say to you, you will not see me again “until” you will say, ‘blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord.”

This is the time that “they shall look upon Me (in analogy to Joseph) whom they have pierced and mourn for Him as an only son and be in bitterness for Him as a firstborn….” (Zech 12:10).

It is ludicrous to deny the presence of a gap in the history of revelation. The mystery of Christ cannot be explained apart from it. There are many examples where a gap is implied if prophecy hasn’t failed.

I call it, “the glory of the gap,” because it is at the heart of the hidden mystery of God that was fully foretold in the prophetic writings (Acts 26:22; Ro 16:25-26; 1Cor 2:7-8; 1Pet 1:11).

At the end of the seventieth week the sealed vision will be revealed to Israel “in one day” (Isa 66:8; Ezek 39:22; Zech 3:9), as it was once revealed to the church of the first fruits at the end of 69th week.

Well, that’s how I see the time element. I hope in the future to write on the tremendous use that I believe God intends to make of the set times to evict Satan and bring the church to its final fullness in preparation for Israel’s resurrection.

One final thought: If we know that the 69 of Daniel’s weeks of years have been literally fulfilled, then it follows that God will be just as specific concerning the times that are left to be fulfilled. Certainly those living after the abomination and the revelation of the beast will know they are in the throes of the last persecution (Satan’s “short time;” Rev 12:12). Therefore, if that much will be certainly known by some at that time, what is the scriptural basis to say that it is not possible to know we are nearing the time of Jacob’s trouble at the end of the second millennium? reggie

The post How Soon Jacob’s Trouble? (Followup) appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

All of the below underscores many things that are missing from the consciousness, not only of the secular but the religious, not only Jewish but Christian. This prominent rabbi is correct in his reading that the whole world will be against Israel in the days just preceding the final redemption. That in itself is an advance on what you will typically find in Christian scholarship, since even historic pre-millennialists tend to place these events at the end of the millennium. But how many consider that this is not simply the “world against us,” but God Himself (“the quarrel of my covenant;” Lev 26:25)?

It is God Himself (Ezek 38:4) who is putting hooks into the jaws of this ruling principality (Gog; see note ((Note: I believe on the basis of Ezek 38:17 that the name, “Gog”, may be a reference to Satan himself. Notice that Gog is called a “chief prince” (Ezek 38:2-3’ 39:1) just as Michael is called, “one of the chief princes,” in Dan 10:13. In any event, I am far more inclined to see Gog as a demon prince over the nations opposed to the ‘holy covenant (Dan 11:28, 30, i.e., contempt against Jewish divine right to the Land) than merely the name of a country or region, as suggested by those who see a phonetic and etymological connection between the Hebrew word, “Rosh,” (meaning chief), and Russia. What is especially significant about Ezek 38:17 is that there is only one figure about whom “ALL” the prophets of Israel have spoken continually, and that is the final aggressor, who, though described by many names throughout the OT, is known by Christians as the Antichrist. This means that this sudden and unexpected invasion of the Land at a time of comparative security or ‘tranquility’ in some translations (Dan 11:24 compare also Ezek 38:8, 11, 14; 39:26; with 1Thes 5:3) is led by none other than the Antichrist. Though many nations may support his advance in addition to the ten kings, we know that the ten kings are without doubt found among the specific nations that Ezekiel includes in his list in Ezek 38:5-6. In order to see that the nations mentioned here are indeed ‘specific’, and not merely symbolically inclusive of the entire world of the gentiles, as proposed by many commentators, it is significant that some nations are conspicuous for their absence, as for example, Egypt. Normally, Ezekiel is quite prolific in his frequent mention of Egypt all throughout the prophecies of the book, but here Egypt is not mentioned. This is explained when we see that in Daniel, Egypt is not annexed by conquest until sometime later in the tribulation period that began with the abomination of Dan 11:31 (see Dan 11:42). So, although the kings of the East and a host of nations join in the fray at the end, at the point of initial invasion, Israel is dwelling securely when this particular band of specified nations attack. Notably, many of these nations, including modern Turkey, are dominantly Islamic. This means that whoever the Antichrist is, and from wherever he comes, one thing is certain: He has the Islamic world behind him, and Daniel explains the motive of their alliance as a common defiance of the holy covenant (Dan 11:28, 30).)) below) that presides over the nations of the gentiles, particularly those that are banded against the people and land of the covenant (Dan 11:30-31, 39; Ezek 38:8, 18; Joel 3:2). It is much like the passage in Rev 17:17 where it is said of the ten kings, “For God has put in their hearts to fulfill His will, and to agree, and give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.”

The world will be against Israel because God is against Israel’s sin. The good news is that He is so especially and particularly against Israel’s sin, precisely because He is so much for His own purpose in election and grace. Though He loves His Jewish elect in whom Christ will be formed at the set time (Ps 102:13; Jer 31:33; 32:40; Gal 1-:15-16; 4:19), it is even more particularly for the sake of His own name that He can never permit His covenant promise to fail through their natural impenitence and unbelief (compare Num 14:11-21 with Ezek 36:22, 32). They will be turned.

But this great love and covenant privilege is also Israel’s greatest culpability. The same is true of the Christian. Because He has known them in a way He has chosen to know no other nation, He will not spare. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities (Amos 3:2). It is the same for the Christian (Heb 12:6-7). It is a rule belonging to the very nature of covenant that the greater the opportunity for blessing, the greater the severity when that privilege is slighted. God will employ the bitter hatred of the enemy to minister corrective discipline or final judgment where the divine pleading is fatally resisted.

It is the paradox of God’s sovereign over-ruling of evil to accomplish His own purpose in grace (“you thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good;” Gen 50:20). Here, Gog thinks an evil thought (Ezek 38:10), but God has planned from all eternity to use that evil thought to bring an end of Israel’s long night of exile by His sovereign employment of Satan’s hatred to bring Jacob to the end of his power (Deut 32:36; Dan 12:7).

Unfortunately, many assume that Israel will only be “buffeted” (their words) by the descent of the armies of Gog (The one Christians call Antichrist, the rabbis call Armillus). Not only Jews, but many misguided Christians read Ezekiel’s vision to imply only that the enemy comes down but does not prevail. On the contrary, the enemy does prevail; he prevails for forty two months of unequaled ‘divine’ severity (Isa 28:19-20; Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1; Mt 24:21; Rev 11:2).

Reggie

The post Gog’s Assault in the Purposes of God appeared first on Mystery of Israel.

Dear Reggie,
Do you place Ez. 38 in the timeline as outlined in Dan. 11? Or do you see this event as happening before this? Any insight you can share on this would be appreciated.

Thankfully, this is one I believe I can answer in a short space, but to make the full case, would take more time than I can grab just now. You frame the question very well. I believe that a comparison with other scriptures will show that Ezekiel’s vision of the war on the covenant is comprehensive of the entire tribulation from the time the covenant is broken until Armageddon.

We see from Daniel and elsewhere that the war has two stages. There are two assaults on Jerusalem at both ends of Jacob’s trouble. Gog’s war on the recently regathered inhabitants of the Land (Ezek 38:8) covers the whole time of the Jerusalem’s desolation from the breaking of covenant to Armageddon.

Remember that Israel is dwelling securely when Gog comes down. At no time beyond the abomination could Israel be said to be dwelling safely (Rev 11:2). Note that this could NOT be the security of post-millennial Israel. It is the deceptive security that follows the presumptuous ‘league’, or ‘covenant with death and hell” (Isa 28:15; Dan 8:25; 9:27 11:23). This is further proven by the reference made to this particular kind of security described in Ezek 39:26. It is a security in which Israel’s sins only increase. This is not true of Israel’s millennial security. I believe this is the “time of tranquility” described in Dan 11:24, which follows upon the league made with ‘vile person’ in Dan 11:23. In other words, here is the false security of the first 3 1/2 years of Daniel’s seventieth week.

The contrast between this security and millennial security is enormous. At the end of the millennium at the time of Satan’s momentary release, Israel has been abiding in the everlasting righteousness of covenant promise (Jer 32:40; Dan 9:24). The security that Israel enjoys in the Land throughout the millennium is based on the transformation that began at the day of the Lord (Isa 66:8; Ezek 39:22-29) and is guaranteed of unfailing continuance unto children’s children ((Isa 54:13; 59:21). They shall “all” be holy “from that day and forward” (Isa 4:3; 60:21; Jer 31:34; 32:40; Ezek 39:22).

No, it is manifest that whatever the nature of this security, it is one that has only increased Israel’s presumption. So this cannot be the security of post-millennial Israel, as some scholars suppose. Rather, the comparatively “recent” return of Ezek 38:8 is the necessary preliminary regathering to the Land that ends in Jacob’s trouble and the great day of God (compare Rev 16:14-17 with Ezek 39:8).

But also notice that Gog is not destroyed until the day of Israel’s national salvation (Ezek 39:17-22; Rev 19:17-18, 21). This means that Gog arrives when Israel is dwelling securely and continues his assault throughout the entire 42 months of great tribulation (Rev 11:2). Of course, this means that Gog is either the Antichrist or the spirit of Satan that incarnates him. This seems very clear from Ezek 38:17, since there is only one of whom ‘all’ the prophets of Israel spoke ‘continually’.

So the battle happens in stages. First, the Antichrist with his ten nation confederacy sweeps down like a flood (Dan 9:26; 11:22) on Israel and places the abomination (Dan 11:31). Then, towards the end of the tribulation, many nations revolt against the Antichrist. This is the time in view in Dan 11:40-45 and Rev 16:13-14) when all nations begin their advance on Jerusalem. Dan 11:44 seems clearly to indicate that these nations are coming against the Antichrist. At the news of their advance, the Antichrist then “goes forth with great fury to destroy and utterly annihilate.” [This I believe is the catalyst of the great nuclear holocaust which many scriptures graphically depict (Isa 13:13; 24:6, 15, 19-20; Ezek 39:6; Joel 2:30; Zech 14:12). Apparently the Lord’s return arrests the process of man’s self destruction (Mt 24:22: Rev 11:18).]

Therefore, I hold the view that Ezekiel 38-39, like Zech 14, is a comprehensive view of both aspects of the attack on Jerusalem. First, the attack of the ten nations directly allied with the Antichrist, who is able to utilize the support, if not completely command, the armies of the nations listed in Ezek 38:3-6. Towards the end, there is another descent of the world’s armies, this time against the Antichrist who has made his seat in Jerusalem. This later mobilization of armies is shown by a comparison of Dan 11:44 with Rev 16:12-14. However, even if the nations are initially advancing against the Antichrist, they will meet instead the returning Son of God (Rev 19:15 with 2Thes 2:8; where Paul cites the Septuagint translation of Isa 11:4).

One may ask, how do we reconcile a mobilization of nations against the Antichrist in Dan 11:44 with the “war on the Lamb” of Rev 17:14; 19:19? I believe the answer lies in the inherent defiance this represents against the Word of God. Even if the nations descend upon Jerusalem in this later stage with the initial motive of throwing off the yoke of Antichrist, still, this exercise in futility is regarded as an attack on the Lamb, because it is in defiance of an everywhere preached prophetic testimony that has manifestly been ignored by the nations. An attack on Jerusalem, even if it is to cast off the oppressive yoke of the Antichrist, is no less an attack on the Lamb, because it is in clear defiance of the the prophetic Word of God.

Reggie

The post Gog (Ez 38) and the King Who Exalts Himself (Dan 11) appeared first on Mystery of Israel.