Someone suggested that we create a separate thread for this discussion, so here it is. Peter referred to this as “futurism gone wild” and to be honest, I don’t know how else we should take this passage. As always, I await enlightenment.
Here’s the deal. I view the Revelation as the completion of OT prophecy. As such, it MUST deal with the establishment of something bigger than the 1st century. As Joel has pointed out by his constant reference to Ezekiel 38-39, to interpret the Apocalypse in a narrow preterist light is to totally ignore the fact that it makes blatant reference to events prophecies centuries before which have not come to pass.
Consider the events of Ezekiel 38-39.
1. God will draw an invading armies composed of many nations, marked as the descendants of the sons of Noah (Japheth - Magog, Meschah, Tubal, Gomer, Togarmah; Ham - Cush, Put; Shem - Persia)
2. The invading army will attack all over the world and bring them into domination (Sheba and Dedan in Africa, Tarshish in Asia Minor)
3. Gog will lead an invading army into Israel, arousing YHWH’s anger
4. As Gog’s armies descend on Israel from the north, they will be destroyed through a divine intervention.
5. They will strike each other with their swords, and they will be weakened and die.
6. The people of Israel will use their weapons for firewood and the burial place of the army will choke up a valley - being renamed Hamon Gog (the hords of Gog).
7. It will take 7 months to bury the dead.
The entire reason for this invasion is a demonstration that although Israel went into exile, they are still YHWH’s chosen people. This is explained at the end of chapter 39:
“I will display my glory among the nations, and all the nations will see the punishment I inflict and the hand I lay upon them. From that day forward the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God. And the nations will know that the people of Israel went into exile for their sin, because they were unfaithful to me. So I hid my face from them and handed them over to their enemies, and they all fell by the sword. I dealt with them according to their uncleanness and their offenses, and I hid my face from them.
“Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will now bring Jacob back from captivityj and will have compassion on all the people of Israel, and I will be zealous for my holy name. They will forget their shame and all the unfaithfulness they showed toward me when they lived in safety in their land with no one to make them afraid. When I have brought them back from the nations and have gathered them from the countries of their enemies, I will show myself holy through them in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the Lord their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind. I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign Lord.” (Ezekiel 39:21-29, NIV)
I think I am safe in saying that nothing like this has occurred in history, pre-Roman or post-Roman. Therefore, I would have to say that the great battle of Revelation 20, which is clearly marked as the same event, has not yet occurred.
I know that I am probably reading this too literally for some of the participants in this discussion, but be that as it may, it seems pretty straightforward to me.
Ezekiel 38-39
Erik - your summary, as ever, is excellent. The ability to summarise has to be a key qualification for pastors. From a literal point of view, and as part of a futurist ‘package’, it probably works. There are hints of a final world conflict centring on Israel in Revelation - Armageddon, and the onslaught on the “camp of God’s people, the city he loves” in Revelation 20:7-9, where Gog and Magog make their guest reappearance.
Eschatology is addicted to drawing together loose threads and making watertight systems, however. So what of Ezekiel 38-39? You are certainly right, that there are details in the prophecy, which if taken literally, have yet to be fulfilled. The questions raised over such a literal interpretation might be these:
1. What precedents are there in Ezekiel for literalist interpretation of his prophecies? Should we take the ‘eschatological temple’ of 40-43 literally? Should we take the description of the river in 47 flowing from the temple into the Dead Sea literally? I personally don’t - and see these events as having their fulfilment in Jesus.
2. If we take Ezekiel literally in 38-39, what perspective does this give us on contemporary events in the middle east? The foundation of the modern state of Israel becomes a fulfilment of biblical prophecy as part of the package, with a national, ethnic restoration of the Jewish people in Israel.
3. What actually is the purpose of biblical prophecy anyway? Was it ever intended primarily to be prediction of future events - especially events over 2500 years after the prophecy?
A literalist understanding of Ezekiel 38-39 creates the problem, for us, of turning the clock back on biblical history. Jesus has already done away with the ethnic, racial divisions which were part of the old covenant. The process of redemption now for Israel (the Jewish people) has been summarised in Romans 11:25-26 - ethnic Israel has experienced a hardening (in part); the gentiles are being included in the people of God; the gentiles now offer the gospel to the Jews, making them envious (Romans 11:11) by having received what was first offered to the Jews, but largely rejected by them. Romans 11:26 sums up the whole process - “And so (“heutos”; “in this way”) all (a representative portion of the nation throughout history) will be saved,”. There is no suggestion of a future, national, apocalyptic redemption - quite the opposite.
Another problem in taking Ezekiel 38-39 literally is that it sets up an interpretive grid for seeing the national reestablishment of modern Israel also as fulfilment of prophecy, making God complicit in injustice (the contemporary injustices done to indigenous Palestinian people - Christian and Muslim). True biblical prophecy is not about mechanical fulfilment of predictions, but about the establishment of God’s righteousness and justice. Peace, according to the prophets, can only come when there is justice and righteousness. Where is this issue addressed in the literalist interpretation of Ezekiel 38-39?Complicity in injustice immeasurably complicates the possibility of engagement with Palestinians and the occupants of the Middle East generally, and encourages an unhealthy dualist interpretation of history - the ‘spiritual’ interpretation, which runs counter to people’s actual experiences in the real world where ‘justice’ is a real issue.
A further problem is that literalist understanding of Ezekiel 38-39 accepts the continuing validity of one aspect of the Mosaic covenant - the continuation in God’s purposes of national, ethnic Israel, but denies another - the operation of the covenant conditions in relation to Israel. The covenant conditions required a return of Israel to her God if there were to be restoration to the land. There has been no such national return. Modern Israel is a secular state, where nationality is based on racial considerations, not religious requirements. The final twist is that the NT understanding of what a national turning to God would mean precludes a return to Old Covenant requirements in favour of fulfilment of New Covenant realities!
The race issue is at the heart of the justice issue in Israel; it’s not that there are no race issues anywhere else in the world, but the segregation of people on the basis of race, the hostility and fear, is extreme in Israel. The parallels with the whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa are not far-fetched. So when Israel is held up as a sign of the fulfilment of God’s purposes in the world, those who are on the sharp-end of these supposes ‘purposes’ (including Palestinian Christians) can only wonder.
When the early church grappled with Jew/Gentile problems, the issues raised went to the heart of the gospel. The consensus, aided in large part by Paul, was that the the law, with its requirements entailed on the recognition of an ethnically distinct Israel, was now superseded - part of a system which was fading, and had been eclipsed by Christ and the provision of the Spirit. How odd now to be reconstructing what Paul was so adamant about tearing down.
In fact the outstanding feature of the New Testament is its silence about the future of the land of Israel - with the exception of one or two highly ambiguous verses. The silence is the greatest embarrassment for those wishing to accord a place in eschatology for national, ethnic Israel.
Christians owed and continue to owe a debt to the Jews, through whom the messiah Jesus came. The gospel is “first for the Jew, then for the gentile”. We have been grafted into the olive tree, not the other way round. The Jews are loved because of the patriarchs. But for all the reasons given above, I struggle with seeing contemporary or future events concerning Israel as the fulfilment of biblical prophecy, and that would include seeing Ezekiel 38-39 as having a literal future fulfilment.
I have raised a number of problems I see in a literalist interpretation of Ezekiel 38-39. To suggest how the prophecy might be interpreted will have to be the subject of another discussion. Should we pray for Israel and ‘the peace of Jerusalem’? More than ever! Let’s also pray for the church in the middle east, whose very survival in these times is an issue.
Eric,ThanksPeter,Once
Eric,
Thanks
Peter,
Once again, you have the choice of submitting to the text and dealing with the results intellectually or demanding that the text submit to your view of Israeli morality and politics. You’ve obviously been reading all the negative stuff, but not any Israeli-positive stuff. Do not fear you will not become a right-wing extremeist. I will not turn this into a debate about the morality of Israel etc. But presently much of your perspective is highly skewed to one extreme. Again, The old proverbs say one man is guilty uniil the other side is cross-examined. Or he who answers a matter before he hears it (both sides) it is his folly and shame. I would again enocurage a couple books to help you balance your perspective out. Alan Dershowitz The Case for Israel. Phyllis Chesler The New Ant-Semitism. Beyond this, you can go live there for a while. I have a very close friend who is married to a Christian Arab Israeli. You could likely stay with them. (They do quite well).
Good Questions
Peter, I’ll post a longer, detailed post in a bit concerning your excellent questions about literalism.
In the meantime, let me throw this one point out. Contrary to preceding generations, I do not think the “reestablishment” of the state of Israel is necessarily eschatological. After all, this isn’t the first time it has happened, and who is to say it is the last. The obsession of early 20th century commentators (and their successors like John Hagee) on “righteous” Israel does not line up with the people who order ethnic cleansings and assassinations with the flippancy that I tell my daughter to turn the channel on the TV.
The Israel that appears on the maps of our modern world is not the Israel of prophecy. There may be a certain, tenuous religious link, but that’s it.
Just a quick one
Joel, Erik, thanks for your responses. I’m neither left nor right wing on Israel, and try to read as widely as possible, so will look out for the books you mention. “Whose Promised Land?”/Chapman is a good book by someone with personal experience of the middle east, and it doesn’t have a drum to beat. I believe the actions by Sharon and Olmert have become a genuine attempt to move towards peace with the Palestinians, but creating in the process more difficulties. I believe Abbas wants a rapprochement, and Hamas may have to go the same way. But the injustices are like open sores (eg the barrier; the Ariel settlement) and will not go away. Where is the prophetic voice speaking into these situations?
I meant to mention another issue in relation to understanding biblical prophecy, which is to do with the effect of the NT and the coming of Jesus bringing a radical relativity to the OT in general and its prophecies in particular. This raises the issue of continuity/discontinuity between Old and New. Futuristic interpretations of OT prophecy do not allow, to my mind, sufficient relativity to Jesus and discontinuity because of him. The centrepoint for biblical prophecy is the coming of Jesus and his death on the cross. Once prophecy starts to develop independent agendas of its own, I get uneasy. So I don’t think it is interpretively sound in Isaiah for instance to interpret ‘bearing fruit for all the world’ as referring to modern Israel’s citrus industry, or ‘then shall the desert blossom as a rose’ as hydroponics, or to apply texts about return from exile to Zion as contemporary aliyah. In this respect, we have ‘Sinnim’ being interpreted as ‘China’ and in Ezekiel 38-39 we have ‘Rosh’ (Hebrew ‘head’ or ‘prince’) as ‘Russia’, Meshech as Moscow, Tubal as Tashkent etc.
I am very conservative in my understanding of the authority of scripture and the canon, so I don’t think I am letting my intellect (for what it is) play games with the texts. I genuinely want to understand what these texts mean, and how they best make sense, especially in the light of a Jesus who came to fulfil them.
My Hurried Non-Answers to Your Questions
To be perfectly honest, I have never considered not taking Ezekiel literally. I must admit, however, that most conservative, evangelical interpretations of the book are sadly lacking in their comprehension of the book in its entirety. I have not taken the time to really study the book in depth because it is such a complex book.
Literalists should not discount what Peter is saying here. There is a certain amount of latitude in OT prophecy for non-literal hyperbole. It is the nature of the genre. At the same time, I often apply Ockham’s Razor to Scripture - entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessiatem - to intrerpreting Scripture. Whenever possible, I try to take things literally.
Of course, that creates a situation in which my understanding of what CAN be taken literally governs what IS taken literally. In the end, I guess we are all subjective to a certain point. Good thing God will set us straight one day!
I gave up trying to draw parallels of prophetic events to contemporary events. To me, it is an exercise in futility. Take for example the insanity that ensued as the year 2000 neared. Despite the fact that our calendar doesn’t even begin with the “actual” birth of Jesus (a date that we cannot, and probably should not, try to fix), Christians went nuts trying to prove that the end of the world was coming. Scripture was misinterpreted in some of the worst displays of Biblical ignorance since the Middle Ages.
It was, in no way, an isolated incident either. When Israel became a nation in 1948, my grandparents thought “the end is near!” but nothing happened. In 1987, Harold Camping wrote an absurd book called Eighty-Eight Reasons Jesus Will Return in 1988 and people once again went nuts.
This foolishness has led me to simply accept things as they are. My grandfather, wisened by the years, once told me, “Live as if Jesus is coming today, but work as if he won’t come for a thousand years.” That’s good enough for me. I don’t look for signs of his coming, even though I consider myself a pre-millennialist.
As I’ve posted previously, I think prophecy is a complex matter and often sees multiple fulfillments. I know not everyone agrees with me, and that’s ok. I base this on examples I have cited before and will not return to for the sake of time (I should be working on the message for this coming Sunday!) Prophecy does point to the coming of Christ, but as a pre-millennialist, I see two comings. (Let’s not argue that one for the moment). So, while prophecy points to his earthly life, it also points to the future kingdom which I see being established in both the OT prophecies and the Apocalypse.
different approach?
I hope this comment here is not off the subject, but the introduction you use ‘I view the Revelation as the completion of OT prophecy’ makes me think not. A few years back, I was listening to a lecture of Heidelberg theology professor Klaus Berger (a name well known in German theology and I think rightly so) responding to some people in the audience trying to match political events with relevation prophecies. To my big suprise he agreed with them. But later in a side sentence or two I understood where he came from. He mentioned the quotation that is said to originate from Aristoteles, along the line of ‘today’s youth has no manners and is not educated’ that this saying has since ever been true for all genereations until this day. The experience is the same for all older generations. So also the experience with the Antichrist is real now for us as it has been for the early christians with rome, for example. Every century brings a new challenge to the followers of Christ, a new ‘Antichrist’ that has to be overcome by the faithful. I thought that was a very interesting approach and I wonder if this contributes to this discussins about the relationship of Ezekiel and Revelations.
Hmm...
Yes, the spirit of Antichrist is certainly active in our world, just as it was in the time of the apostles. Antichrist, especially in John’s epistles, is a spirit…a power at work. While we (meaning futurists) see this spirit culminating in a single world ruler, the spirit is nonetheless present in every age of the church.
Exactly. A spirit that
Exactly. A spirit that trancends the ages, yet culminating in the one Antichrist specifically mentioned in 1 John and also discussed in Ezekiel 38-39 as Gog. “Are you not the one of which I have spoken in former times through my phrophets?” Gog is coming. Let us not be found drunk or asleep as the pagans. : >