Conference: 1995 Pre-Trib Study Group
 |
Reviewed by Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
The basic,overall purpose of the book is to defend the traditional dispensationalinterpretation of Ezekiel 38:39. As a result of the fall of the Soviet Union,the question has been raised in many circles as to whether this traditionalinterpretation can still be maintained. While some have abandoned thattraditional interpretation, the author does not and insists that the traditionalidentification of Russia is correct. Some adjustments will need to be made inlight of the new reality, but, by and large, Russia is seen as the leader of aconfederacy invading Israel. One of the adjustments is that in place of seeingthe invasion as an allied Communist invasion, it should be viewed largely asbeing a Moslem invasion with Russia, nevertheless, as the head of the alliedforces.
Inthe Forward and in the Introduction of the book, the basic purpose of the bookis stated and concludes that Ezekiel 38 and 39 are now more possible as aresult of the new reality than ever before.
Inchapter one, "The End of an Empire," the author surveys the recenthistory of the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Islam. Key to theauthor's argument are the two major problems in the world today resulting fromthe fall of the Soviet Union (p. 2). The first problem is that "the fallof the Soviet Union has left Russia with a devastated economy and a humiliatednational ego. With the current rise of nationalist fervor, Russia is moredangerous than ever before." The second problem is that "the fall ofthe Soviet Union has also left a great power vacuum in central Asia and theMiddle East, and this vacuum is being filled by a militant fundamentalist Islam."For the author, it is these two issues that have actually set the stage for"the great invasion of Israel in the end times." Later (p. 9), theauthor presents his view as to the content of the invasion and he sees theEzekiel passage as predicting "a great Russian-Islamic invasion ofIsrael." According to the author, the "Russian republic will beinvolved, but a great impetus for the invasion will be provided by Islamicnations." In chapters two through six, the author deals with the questionof the "who" of Ezekiel 38-39. Some of these identifications are thesame as in other dispensational works, while others are different, largelybased on the new reality. In chapter two, "Gog and Magog," the authordeals with the identification of this area. Magog is largely identified throughthe Scythians as referring to present-day central Asia, which includes thefollowing nations today: Kazakstan, Kirghizia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan,Tajikstan (all of which are Moslem today), and the Ukraine (the only non-Moslementity). The author states:
The names listed in Ezekiel 38:2-6 have beenidentified with many nations including the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe,Germany, and several different African and Arab nations. However, most of theidentifications of the names in Ezekiel 38:2-6 have been based on eitherspeculation, simply quoting someone else who agrees with the author'sconclusions, or by twisting the locations of the names to fit the currentscenario to sensationalize the prophecy (p. 13).
The author's warningagainst sensationalism is well warranted, especially in dispensational circleswhich take prophecy seriously, but often have the tendency to sensationalizeand use what I would call "newspaper exegesis." My problem is thatoften in the book the author, himself, seems to base much upon current eventsand, therefore, might be guilty of the very issue that he accuses others of.Gog is identified as a personal ruler and not a nation (p. 17). The authorstates that the name "Caucasus" means "Gog's fort" and thatthe word Caucasus is derived from two words: Gog and Chasan (p. 18). Ipersonally do not know if this is true and it would have been helpful if someevidence could be given that makes a study of the word etymologically. Theauthor's footnote merely quotes a book by Louis Bauman which I do not think, byitself, would prove the point. (Is this a case where the author is quotinganother who would agree with him?) I am not saying that the etymology is nottrue, but only that I am not convinced of it; and it would have been helpful ifit could have been evidenced from primary sources rather than merely quotinganother writer - who probably did not speak Russian either - to prove thatpoint.
Chapterthree is entitled, "Is Rosh Russia?" The author equates Rosh with theSarmatians whom the author claims were also known as the Rasapu, Rashu, Ros,and Rus (pp. 32-39). They settled from the Caspian Sea to the Russian Steppesinto modern Ukraine and Russia and, therefore, are to be identified with Russiaand the southern republics.
Inchapter four, "The Wounded Bear," the author largely deals with thecurrent events in Russia, focusing on Vladimir Zhirinovsky (pp. 46-54). Much ofthe chapter is spent on this man and the author of the book certainly sees himat least as a type of Gog, if not possibly Gog himself. Here is where thedanger of using current events sets in. The author lists 13 "terriblefacts about this rising star in Russia." The tenth point states that"for Zhirinovsky, the year 1994 is the key year." He quotesZhirinovsky as saying that his party "may definitely come to power in1994." But here we are, at the end of 1995, about to enter 1996, and thishas simply not happened. Therefore, the book is already dated. I would again,in light of all this, caution against this kind of "newspaperexegesis" based upon current events. I believe Bible prophecy should beexpounded like any other area of theology of Scripture and systematized. Wherethere is clear fulfillment (such as the re-establishment of Israel, etc.), itshould be identified. But we should be careful not to predict possible futurefulfillments of a specific prophecy in writing until it has actually come topass; only then can we be certain. I believe too often it is this kind ofspeculation that has given prophecy a bad name. This section is largelyspeculative on Zhirinovsky. To be sure, the author never clearly says thatZhirinovsky is the Gog of Ezekiel 38-39. He does, however, state that while"it is obviously much to early to know if this man is Gog of Ezekiel38-39," Zhirinovsky "certainly has many of the characteristics thatsuch a leader will undoubtedly possess" (p. 53). I think we should avoidthis kind of identification even when it is only tentative. If Zhirinovsky getsassassinated in the near future, or dies of any other cause, much of thischapter becomes moot and dated, not to mention totally irrelevant.
Chapterfive is entitled, "Let's Talk Turkey." To the author, modern-dayTurkey covers four of the places identified in Ezekiel 38: Meshech, Tubal,Togarmah, and Gomer. Obviously, the author rejects some early interpretations(i.e., Meshech = Moscow; Tubal = Tobolsk; Gomer = Germany). After discussingwhy these identifications are no longer feasible, the author makes the followingcomments: This case serves as a clear example of why Bibleprophecy should not be interpreted in light of current events, but rathercurrent events should be interpreted in light of the Bible .. . . We must becareful not to sensationalize prophecy or to try to force it into the mold ofcurrent events (pp. 60-61).
I fully support thisstatement. My problem is that the author, himself, seems to often base thingson current events and intends to sensationalize prophecy, as his discussion ofZhirinovsky seems to show.
Chaptersix, "Muslims, Muslims, and More Muslims," goes on to identify Persiawith modern Iran; Cush with Sudan; and, Put with Libya. Of course, there is noproblem with the identification of Persia with Iran. While Cush could certainlyinclude Sudan, it must also incorporate a great part of what is, today,Ethiopia. The major problem is identifying Put with Libya since the normalHebrew word for that country is Lub. It would probably be wiser to connect Putwith Somalia.
Chapterseven, "Pyramid Power," focuses on Egypt. Of course, Egypt is notmentioned in the Ezekiel 38-39 passage. However, the author connects theinvasion with Daniel 11:40-45, which he sees as speaking about the sameinvasion, or at least the same timing.. In that passage, there is the mentionof "the king of the south," which in the context of Daniel 11 iscertainly Egypt, a point with which all are in agreement. The author findsevidence that the two passages speak of the same invasion in that in thispassage both "Libya and Sudan are mentioned in conjunction with her."The author then adds: "Notice that the nations Egypt is allied with areSudan and Libya, two of the nations involved in the invasion of Ezekiel 38-39.If these passages are describing the same invasion, then Egypt will clearly bea key player in this invasion" (pp. 88-89). In the context, Egypt isidentified as "the king of the south," so there is no problem withthat identification. For Sudan, the Hebrew again says Cush, which might beSudan or might be Ethiopia. However, in this passage, the word for Libya is thestandard Hebrew word for that country, Lub. The author does not deal with thedifferences in the Hebrew name and does not ever clearly try to show why Putand Lub are the same country. However, the differences in the Hebrew wording bythemselves would imply different countries. Lub is, indeed, Libya and that isthe correct identification in Daniel 11. However, the Put of Ezekiel 38-39 isnot Libya, but Somalia. The only common country mentioned between Ezekiel 38-39and Daniel 11 is Cush. There really is not enough evidence to prove that theinvasions are the same.
Theauthor presents four reasons why he believes that the events of Ezekiel 38-39and Daniel 11:40-45 are the same events and "are parallel to one anotherwith each supplying details that the other one omits" (pp.89-90). Hisfirst argument is that the Daniel passage refers to "the king of thenorth." What the author does not do is trace the usage of this termthroughout Daniel 11; in all previous references to that term in that chapter,"the king of the north" is always Syria. The author is a bitinconsistent in his handling of the passage. He clearly identifies "theking of the south" as Egypt, for that is the way that term is usedthroughout Daniel 11. The inconsistency arises in that "the king of thenorth" always refers to Syria throughout Daniel 11 up until this sectionof Daniel, where the author would apparently make this the exception to therule. Consistency demands that "the king of the north" of Daniel40-45 also refers to Syria. The "north" of Ezekiel and the"north" of Daniel are two different geographical territories. Again,the only point of similarity between the two passages is the mention of Cushand that is insufficient to make it the same. His second evidence is that"the northern invader is allied with a southern bloc of nations," andhere he again uses Sudan and Libya as common ground. As was already shown, theonly common ground is Cush (whether it is Ethiopia or Sudan) and otherwisewhile Lub is mentioned in Daniel, it is not mentioned in Ezekiel. His thirdline of evidence is that "the general time period of both of thesepassages is identified as 'the latter days,' or Tribulation period."However, the term "latter days" need not be limited to just theTribulation. It is a general term for the last days which could include thedays preceding the Tribulation, as well as the days following the Tribulation.While the author concludes his third argument by saying, "clearly, thesepassages must be describing the same invasion because two invasions of thismagnitude could not occur in such a short period of time in the same generalarea," this is too dogmatic a conclusion based on the evidence. TheEzekiel passage describes conflict only within Israel. Daniel describes a muchwider conflict which does include an invasion of Israel, but also includesconflicts in Africa and in Mesopotamia. Furthermore, to claim that "twoinvasions of this magnitude could not occur in such a short period of time inthe same general area" is merely an assumption and there is no reason toassume that it could not happen. The fourth argument is that "prophets whowere contemporaries frequently developed similar or identical themes in theirwritings." For that reason, the author concludes that the invasiondescribed by Ezekiel and Daniel must be the same. However, this is conjectureand there is no reason to assume that because two prophets were contemporary,therefore, they spoke of the same time.
Chaptereight, "Hooks in the Jaws," largely deals with specific conditionsthat must be in place preceding the invasion. These include that Israel must beregathered in unbelief (pp. 94-96); Israel must be resting in security (pp.96-98). The places called Sheba and Dedan are identified with Saudi Arabia,identification largely accepted by all (pp. 100-101). The place called Tarshishis identified with Spain, a far more accurate identification than England.However, the author goes on to expand the meaning of Tarshish to refer to"all of the western nations." This, in turn, is identified as"the end-time empire of the Antichrist." This chapter contains quitea few presuppositions which are assumed to be true and then used to drawcertain conclusions.
Chapternine, "When Gog Meets God," deals with the supernatural destructionof the invading force as described by Ezekiel 38-39. When the author discussesthe burial of the dead, for some reason he places the burial site in the Landof Moab, east of the Dead Sea (pp. 113-115). However, Ezekiel 39:11-12 clearlysays that a burial ground will be given "in Israel," and the Land ofMoab is outside the Land of Israel. The author concludes what he does becausethe burial place is said to be "east of the sea." However, normallyin biblical language, "the sea" refers to the Mediterranean and so,therefore, what is east of the sea would be the land of Israel. It simplycannot refer to Moab, which is clearly outside the Land of Israel. Furthermore,the major purpose of hiring people to look for the remains is for the cleansingof the Land. This is a reference to the fact that in the Mosaic Law, bodiesthat are left unburied render the Land ceremonially unclean. This would onlyhave reference to the Land of Israel and not to territory outside the PromisedLand, such as Moab. The author merely assumes that "the sea" refersto the Dead Sea, though normally it would be the Mediterranean. From thatassumption, he simply ignores that the text clearly says that the burial placewill be in Israel, and, so, instead puts it in Moab.
Inchapter 10, "God's Glorious Purpose," the author points out that thereason for this invasion, from the divine side, is for the glory of God, toredeem a sinful people, and to prepare for the final restoration of Israel. Allof this is consistent with the statements of the text and context.
Probablythe most crucial chapter is chapter 11, "Timing is Everything," wherethe author discusses the "when" of this invasion. The purpose of thischapter is to deal with the various views as to when this prophecy will befulfilled. The author presents arguments against those views he rejects andarguments in favor of the view he holds. The author lists six different views.On four of these views, the reviewer, of course, would agree with him. Theauthor's own view is that the event takes place in the middle of theTribulation. The reviewer's view is that it takes place before the Tribulation.Therefore, this review will only deal with those two positions.
Beforedealing with the author's view and the reviewer's view, in that order, onecomment should be made about the author's critique of the pre-trib view (pp.127-128) The author states that this view must be rejected because "thisview nullifies New Testament teaching of the imminence of the Rapture."The author, of course, is merely making an assumption that those who hold to apre-tribulational view of the invasion automatically hold to a pre-Rapture viewof the invasion and, therefore, would not believe in imminence. That is farfrom the truth. The doctrine of imminence simply means that nothing has toprecede the Rapture, not that things cannot happen before the Rapture. Forexample, it is clear that for a seven-year covenant to be signed, which beginsthe Tribulation, there would have to be a restored Jewish state. This requiresa Jewish state to exist before the Tribulation, before a covenant could besigned that would begin the Tribulation. It is obvious, then, that arestoration of Israel would have to be pre-tribulational. This is not the sameas saying pre-Rapture since the doctrine of imminence would simply mean that noone could know which one comes first: the Rapture or the re-establishment ofIsrael. Only by virtue of fulfillment do we now know that the establishment ofIsrael came before the Rapture. By the same token, those of us who hold to apre-tribulational position on this invasion are not saying it will also happenbefore the Rapture. The Rapture is, indeed, imminent and, therefore, nothinghas to precede the Rapture, though things may. Those of us who hold to apre-tribulational Russian invasion are not saying it will automatically comebefore the Rapture. The point is, if both events are pre-tribulational, onlyafter one or the other happens will we know which comes first. The Rapturecould come today, or could happen after the invasion. But, again, it is wrongto assume that because something is pre- tribulational, it must, therefore,also be pre-Rapture.
Theauthor gives his own arguments in favor of the mid-tribulational view (pp.137-142). The author presents his basic scenario of the invasion, which can besummarized as follows (p. 137): Israel is living in peace because of thecovenant with the Antichrist, but the Gog and Magog invasion shatters thispeace. The Antichrist then counterattacks with his own invasion of Israelwhich, in turn, paves the way for his worldwide rule. (However, in the Ezekielpassage, Gog and Magog are destroyed without any counter invasion.) Thisscenario is again based upon the assumption that Ezekiel and Daniel are talkingabout the very same thing, but there is no real exegetical evidence for thisand overall the descriptions are quite radically different. Again, the onlycorrelation mentioned between the two passages is Cush, and that is simplyinsufficient grounds.
Theauthor then presents "four central arguments in support of thisview," but goes on to list five. His first argument is that "Israelis pictured in these chapters three times as 'living securely'." The authoradmits, however, that this argument is not unique to his view and by itselfwould not argue against a pre-tribulational view since that is also a time thatIsrael could be living in security, keeping in mind that the word for"peace" is never used. The second argument is that "the purposeof God's destruction of the invaders is to provide a sign to both the nationsand Israel." He then goes on to say: "This purpose is in harmony withother Tribulation judgments that are meted out by God to show the Gentiles andJews that he is sovereign." However, this purpose need not be limited tothe Tribulation and other acts of God during all periods of times would havethe same purpose. Certainly, a divine act of judgment before the Tribulationcould just as much serve as a sign as it could if it was in the Tribulation.Furthermore, the Ezekiel passage clearly states that the purpose is for God tobe sanctified in the eyes of many nations and in the eyes of Israel, resultingin salvation. However, of the specific judgments of the Tribulation, thisspecific purpose is not stated. Rather, what is stated is that the nationsexperience the wrath of God. Furthermore, Revelation goes on to say that withthe Tribulation judgments men do not repent, but either try to hide from God orcontinue worshipping demons. That is not the response of the nations and Israelin Ezekiel 38-39. The third argument is that "this passage correlates withthe invasion of the king of the south and the king of the north in Daniel11:40." We have already seen that there is little ground to identify thesetwo invasions as being one and the same and the author sees too much commonground than is warranted by the text. Egypt and Lub are not found in theEzekiel text, and none of the nations found in the Ezekiel text are found inDaniel with one exception, Cush. That is simply not enough common ground tomake the identification that dogmatic. Furthermore, to be consistent withDaniel 11, "the king of the north" must refer to Syria. Therefore,the argument that the same nations are involved is simply not warranted. Thefourth argument is based upon Ezekiel 38:17 which mentions that other prophetshave spoken of this invasion in the past. The author admits that no otherprophecy specifically mentions Gog and Magog prior to Ezekiel. The author triesto find such references in the mention of "the Assyrian" in Isaiah31:8-9 and Micah 5:5. Also, a possible reference is Joel 2:20, which mentions"the northern army." That these passages are speaking of the same invasioncould be seriously questioned. Furthermore, how could Gog, the leader of Magog,be referred to as "the Assyrian"? Even if we assume that all theseidentifications are correct and they all speak of the same invasion, that stilldoes not rule out using the same arguments for some of the other views of thetiming of this event. The author's fifth argument is that "the invasion inEzekiel 38-39 may be linked with the casting of Satan from heaven in Revelation12 near the middle of the Tribulation period." However, this is largelyconjecture and there is no real implication of any cause and effectrelationship between the casting out of Satan in Revelation 12 and the invasionof Ezekiel 38-39. To hold, this argument presupposes that the mid-trib view isthe correct view. This is probably the weakest of the arguments.
Fromthere, the author goes on to consider three main objections to his ownposition. The second is largely speculative as the author tries to answer theobjection that in the Ezekiel passage the attack is not against the Antichristbut against Israel. The author's basic answer is that because Israel and theAntichrist are allied in covenant, Gog and Magog's invasion of Israel isautomatically an attack on the Antichrist. Furthermore, again connecting theinvasion with Daniel 11, the author argues that Daniel emphasizes one facet ofthe invasion while Ezekiel emphasizes the other facet and, therefore, they maynot necessarily be contradictory. For the reviewer, that is neither here northere. The real issue and problem with the view has to do with the seven monthsof burying the dead (the first problem), and the seven years of burning theequipment (the third problem). His solution to the first problem is to againconnect the invasion with Daniel 11:41-43, where he points out that "afterthe Antichrist invades Israel he immediately initiates a southern campaignagainst Egypt, Libya, and the Sudan to consolidate his authority. It could bethat it is during his brief absence that the Jews will bury the dead."However, this "brief absence" will have to be seven months long, notlikely in the overall chronology of the second half of the Tribulation.Furthermore, it again presupposes that Ezekiel and Daniel are talking about thesame thing and, therefore, the attempt is to solve the problem in Ezekiel bygoing to Daniel 11, which offers very little support that the invasions are thesame. As will be shown later, in the middle of the Tribulation the Jews happento be fleeing the Land and they would not have time to bury their own dead, letalone the dead of the invaders. He then addresses the third problem, i.e., whywould they burn the weapons when they will need them at that time during theperiod of persecution, he answers: "However, it is also true that theseJews who will flee into the wilderness will need firewood for fuel during theTribulation, and it is likely that the abundance of despoiled weapons willprovide a ready source for them." In addition to what will be said laterabout this issue, two points can be made here. First of all, according toMatthew's description of Israel's flight (24:15-22), when the Jews must flee,they do not even have time to take so much as a coat. It is not likely thatthey will burden themselves with firewood as they are fleeing. What the authordoes not specifically deal with is the fact that it takes seven years ofburning the weapons. Since the second half of the Tribulation is only 31/2years long, that would mean they would have to burn the weapons for about 31/2years into the Messianic Kingdom. The nature of the Messianic Kingdom - and therenovations that will take place - just simply does not allow for thisscenario. The major problem that all views face is what to do with the sevenmonths of burial and the seven years of burning, and this view does notadequately deal with this very issue. More will be said on this point after wefinish surveying the last two chapters of the book.
Inchapter 12, "Setting the Stage," the author portrays the Last Daysevents as being comprised of the world being "divided into four greatspheres of power." He first mentions "the king of the north" andonce again identifies Daniel 11 and Ezekiel 38-39 as dealing with the very sameinvasion. He identifies this as Russia, along with the former Asian republicsof the Soviet Union, as well as Turkey and Iran. But, again, "the king ofthe north" in Daniel is Syria and not Russia. "The king of thesouth" is identified with Egypt and other North African Muslim countries."The king of the west" is identified as "the reunited RomanEmpire" and the kingdom of the Antichrist. The "kings of theeast" are identified with nations such as India, Afghanistan, Pakistan,and "all the nations of the Orient, or Far East." However, a moreconsistent interpretation of "the east" as it is used throughoutScripture is to identify it with the Mesopotamia region, especially Babyloniaand Assyria. The chapter ends with the Armageddon scenario, a discussion ofwhich goes beyond the purpose of this review.
Thelast chapter (13), entitled "Ezekiel and You!," is a presentation ofthe gospel and encouragement to labor in the work of the Lord. This iscertainly a valid objective for all teachings of prophecy.
Inthe appendix of the book, the author presents a "Proposed Chronology ofthe Tribulation Period." An observation I would like to make here is thatthe author, as his first chronological point, mentions the regathering ofIsrael in fulfillment of Ezekiel 37, which he says, "began in 1948."It should be observed that the author himself sees Ezekiel 37 as beingfulfilled, at least partially, before the Tribulation. Therefore, the belief ofIsrael's restoration as being pre-tribulational is not an argument againstimminence. What the author himself admits about the restoration of Israelshould also be applied to the pre-tribulational view of the invasion of Ezekiel38-39. It is not an argument against imminence. Another observation I wish tomake about his chronology is that when listing the events of the middle of theTribulation, he includes the fact that "the Jewish people will flee fromthe Promised Land amid great persecution." The very fact that Israel mustflee from the Promised Land in the middle of the Tribulation again shows theywould not have any time to spend seven months burying the dead, nor will theyhave seven years of burning the equipment, which would require them beingwithin the borders of the Land and not outside of it.
Thisreviewer opts for a pre-tribulational view of the invasion of Ezekiel 38-39.The following, then, are pages which are reproduced from my own prophecy workentitled, The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of PropheticEvents (pp. 77-83). Altogether it deals with four different views of the timingof the invasion. Within it you will find the reviewer's arguments against theposition of the author, the mid-tribulational view (pp. 77.78), and thearguments in favor of a pretribulational position, as well as answeringarguments opposed to it (pp. 80-83). |
