RSS Feed

[Archives]

"God is not the kind of father who casts off sick and erring children; if he were, he would have no children."
- Martin Luther

Our Fine Contributors

Archives by Contributor

by Jamey Bennett

Part 1 - Not A Snowball's Chance This Will Ever Happen!
Part 2 - Soon, Near, & Hey, I'm Here
Part 3 - The Great Tribulation of the 1st Century
Part 4 - Gaps & Monkeyshine Exegesis

The invasion of Gog and Magog, described in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is another example of a text that dispensationalists misuse to support a futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy. In Duncan's first appendix,³⁴ he argues against several dispensational alternatives for the timing of the battle portrayed. Rather than placing the battle on the prophecy chart before or during the tribulation period (as most dispensationalists do), he places it toward the beginning of the millennial reign of Christ. Duncan says the battle "must be yet in the future,"³⁵ but is this really reasonable? Is the battle described in such a way as to suggest a future fulfillment? What Duncan fails to consider is the possibility that the invasion has already happened, a conclusion that fits much better with the text itself.

Dispensationalists such as LaHaye and Jenkins have portrayed the battle with modern weaponry, placing it (potentially) in our near future. Apparently, when they read Ezekiel 38 and 39 they see missiles and bombs and tanks and guns; somehow I missed all of those elements in the text. What did strike me, however, were the clear descriptions of ancient weapons, perfect for an ancient battle. DeMar observes:³⁶

• The invaders were after precious metals, livestock, and other "booty" (38:13).
• "All the soldiers were riding horses (38:4, 15; 39:20)."
• The soldiers carried swords (38:4).
• The soldiers carried spears, clubs, bows and arrows (39:3, 9).
• "The weapons were made of wood (39:10)."
• And because they were wood, "Abandoned weapons served as fuel for 'seven years' (39:9)."

Every one of these elements fits perfectly in line with an ancient battle, not a contemporary or future battle. As DeMar points out, "swords, not jet fighters, are the weapons of choice."³⁷ Additionally, the "Israelites 'take wood from the field' and 'gather firewood from the forests' (39:10)." DeMar rightly asks, "Where are the forests in Israel today?" The dispensational scheme on Ezekiel 38-39 just does not fit with the Biblical data.

But doesn't the Bible say this takes place "in the last days"? "In many cases, the Hebrew word often translated 'last days' means nothing more than 'in future days,' 'a later time,' or 'in days to come'."³⁸ Likewise, the phrase "in the latter days" is used multiple times in the Scriptures for things that have undoubtedly been fulfilled.³⁹ The fact is that Gog and Magog fit the profile of fulfilled prophecy, and futurizing it only does the church a disservice.

Notes
34. Duncan, Appendix 1, pp. 1-13. Duncan says "Scholars have done an excellent job of identifying the land of Magog with modern day Russia" (1). The fact is, this was refuted long ago. For a recent discussion, see DeMar's End Times Fiction, pp. 5-13.
35. Duncan, Appendix 1, 1
36. DeMar, End Times Fiction, 4
37. DeMar, End Times Fiction, 13
38. DeMar, End Times Fiction, 9
39. See DeMar's discussion in Last Days Madness, pp. 366-367.

To post a response, you must be a valid Wittenberg Hall user.
Please sign in, or click here to create an account.

Forgot your password?
 

Send some feedback