24 thoughts on “Revelation 20: Four Views of Gog and Magog”

1. Hi Adam

   I wonder once the ‘thousand years’ have expired whether Dominionism with it’s ‘seven mountains’ and other religious and political offspring(s) and offshoots,could go worldwide. Spreading even to the four corners of the earth.

   Empowered and emboldened by such a one that brothers and sisters in Christ would become a by-word,if ‘this army’ is stood against by such.Perhaps it would take fire coming down from the sky to destroy them (Rev 20:7-10)

   Have you seen this?

   http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain10.htm

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • Hi Seroled,

     Like you, I’m not entirely sure what Satan’s final deception will look like. It seems like there would be some form of large-scale, even world-wide, persecution against God’s people. Something else I’ve wondered is this: Since the nature of Satan’s deception, before he was bound (in the first century), had a lot to do with keeping the Gentile nations in darkness, will his final deception make use of Dispensationalism / Christian Zionism and its ideology which makes the Jews and Israel far superior to non-Jews? Maybe there’s nothing to that, but it’s something I’ve wondered. The Dominionist movement, like you said, could become even more scary than it already is as well.

     I have seen that article from Let Us Reason. There were parts of it that I appreciated, and other parts that I didn’t. I share their stand against dominionism, but I’m not on board with some of their eschatology or their emphasis on the Jews reclaiming the city of Jerusalem in 1967 and all that this entails for dispensationalists.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • Ézéchiel was fullfilled before Christ. Revelation in the first century (Jesus said: This is the moment = time= hour, for the accomplishment of ALL scriptures) .. ((((ALL scriptures))))… This is VERY VERY VERY VERY and hyper-ULTRA CLEAR……

       LikeLike

     • How do we know who is a real jew today. Are those who call themselves jews today actually Israelites.The new testament talks about not spending time on endless genealogies suggesting ethnicity no longer matters. All the temple records were destroyed in 70 a.d, most the jews in the world are from Eastern Europe, they showed up there about 1000 years after Christ. Even using DNA they can’t prove they’re Israelites. It might show they’re from the middle east, but both esau and Jacob have the same DNA from Isaac and only one is a israelite. How do we know if those in Israel (and America) today are real jews or impostors. They follow the talmud, they speak Yiddish, alot of there beliefs and customs are not from the old testament. They reject Christ. They’re looking for a false messiah and dispensational Christians give them undying loyalty. Doesn’t the bible say there would be a strong delusion. Maybe individual jews are saved but not the nation. And only God knows who the real jews are. I’m not being anti Semitic, but shouldn’t we be cautious

       LikeLike

2. Hi Adam

   Yes there was much dispensational bone in that article.

   You make a good point that dispensationalism and Christian Zionism may be part of the coming deception – definitely something to consider…

   Seroled

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • Hi Duncan,

     Please accept my apology for only now getting back to you on this. Besides traveling during the Christmas and New Year season, I’ve had some things going on that have kept me away from the blog the last few weeks. I hope I’m not too late that you can’t use this, if you still wish to. That quote came from a publication by Kenneth Gentry titled “”Recapitulation v. Progression in Rev. 19 and 20.” It’s part of a series of “Revelation Commentary Updates,” excerpts from an upcoming commentary that he is working on. He describes these updates here (toward the bottom of the page):

     http://www.kennethgentry.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=384

     The quote you referenced is on page 6 (of 9) of that publication. I’ll go ahead and quote the entire puclication it comes from, even though this is probably far more than you need. I placed the quote in question in bold font.

     THE RELATIONSHIP OF REVELATION 19 AND 20

     Revelation 20 is probably the best known and most hotly debated chapter in Revelation. This
     is the chapter (the only chapter in the Bible!) that mentions Christ’s ruling and reigning with his
     saints for 1000 years. As I noted in my last Update, dispensationalism absolutely depends on
     Revelation 20, even though in the final analysis Revelation 20 absolutely destroys
     dispensationalism. I return to the scene of the accident in this study.

     An extremely important issue arises as we move from Revelation 19 into chapter 20. The
     question arises regarding the relationship between these two passages: Is it one of recapitulation
     (i.e., repetition of the same events) or sequence (two different episodes with one following as a
     result of the other)?

     The prevailing scholarly (non-premillennial) consensus today holds that the relationship
     between these two chapters is one of recapitulation. The recapitulationist sees Rev 20:7–10
     covering the same ground as and repeating 19:11–21. That is, they argue that the final
     eschatological battle at the second coming of Christ appears in both 19:11–21 and 29:7–10.

     This, of course, destroys the premillennial argument that sees the second coming (19:11–21)
     leading to Christ’s subsequently establishing his millennium (20:1–10). Consequently,
     premillennialists insist on sequence rather than recapitulation.

     Oddly enough, my evangelical preterist view agrees with the premillennialist regarding the
     relationship between these two passages — though with quite different results. I hold that
     Christ’s coming from heaven to wage war in Revelation 19:11ff represents his judgment coming
     on Israel in AD 70. As such it reflects the theme of the book found in 1:7, where he comes
     against those tribes who pierced him (the Jews). Consequently, 20:1ff presents the consequence
     of Christ’s judgment of Israel, Christianity’s first major enemy: the binding of Satan, the
     vindication of the matyrs, and the spiritual rule of believers with Christ in the present age.

     As you can easily surmise, this debate on the relationship between Rev 19 and 20 is very
     important for the preterist approach. I spent an enormous amount of research time on this whole
     question. In this Update I will cull out of my lengthy material some of the evidence for
     recapitulation then summarize my response to it. In my lengthier material I deal with eight
     recapitulation arguments, but the four I analyze below are the more significant ones.

     R. Fowler White presents us with a rigorous argument against sequentialism and for
     recapitulation in Rev 19:11-21 and 20:7-10 in his important 1989 article: “Reexamining the
     Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev 20:10-1” in his 1989 Journal of the Evangelical Theological
     Society article (hereinafter: “1989”). He followed this up in JETS in 1994 with his surrejoinder to
     dispensational Harold Hoehner. White’s 1994 article is titled: “Making Sense of Rev 20:1–10?”
     (hereinafter: “1994’). G. K. Beale, Simon Kistemaker, Vern Poythress, Dennis Johnson, Cornelis
     Venema, and others build on his arguments.

     I will first summarize and then critique the leading points of the arguments from these
     scholars, focusing primarily on White.

     The Recapitulation Argument Summarized

     (1) The deception of the nations argument (1989:320-325). White notes that “The case for
     recapitulation . . . rests initially on the observable discrepancy between the events depicted in
     19:11–21 and 20:1–3” in that “it makes no sense to speak of protecting the nations from
     deception by Satan in 20:1–3 after they have just been both deceived by Satan (16:13–16; cf.
     19:19-20) and destroyed by Christ at his return in 19:11–21 (cf. 16:15a, 19)” (321). Indeed, John
     describes Christ’s victory “by describing his enemies in all-inclusive terms: all the nations will
     have taken up arms against the Divine Warrior and all will fall by his sword in the final
     confrontation (N.B. 19:18, 21; cf. 12:5; 19:15).”

     (2) The Ezekiel correlation argument (1989:326-328). Both 19:17-20 and 20:7-10 allude to
     Eze 38–39. In fact, as White notes 19:17–18 is “virtually a verbatim quotation” of Eze 39:17–20
     (1989: 326), and 20:7–10 specifically mentions “Gog and Magog” (Eze 38:2; 39:1, 6), showing
     God destroying them with fire from heaven (cp. Rev 20:7–10; Eze 38:22; 39:6). Clearly then,
     John bases both “the Armageddon revolt (19:17–21) and the Gog-Magog revolt (20:7–10) on the
     same prophetic passage” (1989: 327), implying that they are dealing with the same historical
     episode. This “argues strongly for seeing a reference to the second coming in both passages”
     (1989: 328).

     (3) The similar language argument (1989: 327). White comments: “when writing about the
     Gog-Magog revolt in 20:8 , John uses precisely the same wording he uses in connection with the
     Armageddon revolt in 16:14 and virtually the same wording he uses in 19:19 (N.B. 16:14 . . . ‘to
     gather them for the battle’; 19:19 . . . ‘gathered to wage the battle’; 20:8 . . . ‘to gather them for
     the battle’).” Beale separates this argument from the Gog-Magog argument and suggests that this
     language represents all of these wars as “the same event” (Beale 980).

     (4) The articular battle argument (1989:328–30). The presence of the definite article before
     “battle/war” (ton polemon) in 20:8 is significant. White observes that the word “battle” (polemos)
     occurs nine times in Rev (9:7, 9; 11:7; 12:7, 17; 13:7; 16:14; 19:19; 20:8) but that only the last
     three references have the article. And since 19:19–21 continues the interrupted plot line of
     16:12–16 (thereby linking the two passages), and since both 19:19–21 and 20:7–10 allude to the
     same OT eschatological battle prophecy (Eze 38–39), the definite article before the battle of 20:8
     must be “anaphoric” (329 n 18), referring the reader back to the battle “previously described in
     19:19; and in 16:14” (329). In his later article he argues that “the article with polemos in 19:19 is
     in fact anaphoric, referring back to the use of polemos in 16:14)” (1994:546).

     These are intriguing arguments. But are they adequate to the cause?

     The Recapitulation Argument Critiqued

     1. The Nations’ Deception Argument

     The first argument notes the destruction of “the flesh of all men” in 19:18, pointing out that
     this must be the final eschatological battle because it sees total destruction. Therefore 20:8 must
     be repeating this battle, otherwise there would be no “nation” to draw out for war. This argument
     is not as potent as it first seems, for the following reasons:

     First, apocalyptic imagery often engages in hyperbole by making universalistic statements.
     For instance, Isaiah speaks of the destruction of Idumea in Isa 34 as if “all the nations” are to be
     “utterly destroyed” (34:2) and the universe is to collapse (34:4–5). Regarding Rev’s use of such
     imagery, Düsterdieck (466) notes that the destruction of “all the nations” simply reflects the
     “ideal character” in apocalyptic.

     Second, even in more mundane contexts Scripture can make universal statements without
     requiring a global interpretation. Paul states that in his day the gospel was “proclaimed in all
     creation under heaven” (Col 1:23), “in all the world” (Col 1:6), “throughout the whole world”
     (Ro 1:8). All agree that he is not claiming the gospel had been preached in South Africa,
     Antarctica, and Detroit. Elsewhere he is accused by the Jews of preaching “to all men
     everywhere [pantas pantachç]” (Ac 21:28). Again no record exists for his preaching in Cleveland
     or even in Gaul. If these statements can be made in mundane narratives, why can they not in
     apocalyptic drama?

     Third, Beasley-Murray (282) points out the familiar collective use of “all” as over against its
     distributive sense. When the birds eat “the flesh of all men” it can well mean “all kinds” of men.
     This is most likely in that he specifically lists a wide range of men (19:18). BAGD (784) presents
     this as a widely used function: “everything belonging, in kind, to the class designated by the
     noun, every kind of, all sorts of” (e.g., Mt 4:23; 23:27; Ro 1:28, 29; 1Co 6:18).

     John is probably speaking either of all kinds of men (including the prominent) who are slain
     or of the enormous bloodshed involved in AD 70, not of global destruction. Thus, no problem
     exists for explaining from where the later nations arise.

     2. The Ezekiel Correlation Argument

     The second argument fares no better. Though “significant correspondence” of a “highly
     peculiar” nature exists between Rev 19 and Eze 391, problems confront this interpretation:

     First, similarity does not entail identity. Simply because John patterns both the battles of Rev
     19 and Rev 20 on Eze 38–39 does not mean they are the same battle. Similar language is used
     because similar fundamental realities prevail: God is catastrophically judging oppressive
     enemies of his people.

     Many scholars see AD 70 as a microcosm of the final judgment. Consequently, we may
     expect the same imagery to apply to both AD 70 and the end. For instance, of those first century
     events, Bloesch states: “The catastrophe that befell the Jewish people in A.D. 70 is a sign of the
     final judgment.”2 Morris agrees: “a theological unity between the two judgments, and that some
     of what Jesus says [in the Olivet Discourse] could apply equally well to both.”3

     Second, as Bøe notes, John often makes double use of Ezekiel’s images (Bøe, 275). The
     imagery from Ezekiel’s scroll vision in Eze 2:8–33 applies both to Rev 5:1 and 10:8–11;
     Ezekiel’s measuring imagery in Eze 40–48 appears in quite distinct passages in Rev 11:1–2 and
     21:10–27 (Bøe 371). Beale (Revelation, 93) also allows chronologically distinct fulfillments of
     Da 7:13, on the basis of an “already and not yet” prophetic fulfillment pointing to Christ’s
     ascension and his Second Advent. I would argue that this can apply also to AD 70 as an
     “already” fulfillment which anticipates a later “not yet” fulfillment. Thus, as Michaels (226)
     observes: “to John it is not a case of the same story told twice, but of history repeating itself.”

     Third, Eze 38–39 does not fit either the imagery of Rev 20:7–10 or its consummational
     setting. According to Bøe (381), John often “appears to reappropriate and transform his biblical
     material in a manner which serves his rhetorical and theological needs.” He is “free to transform
     both [sic] terms, themes and structures” (Bøe 362). We see this in that:

     (1) In Eze God is on the offensive and gathers Gog (38:1–4; 39:1–2), whereas in Rev Satan
     takes the offensive and gathers “Gog” (20:7–10). (2) In Ezekiel Gog is motivated by plunder
     (Eze 38:12–13), whereas in Rev 20:8 he is moved by Satan’s deception without regard to
     plunder. (3) Eze speaks of an actual battle wherein God causes men to fight one another with
     swords (38:21), which is a common motif describing for confused historical battle (Jdg 7:22; 1Sa
     14:20; Hag 2:2; Zec 14:13). This is a common way of showing God providentially and indirectly
     (rather than miraculously and directly) punishing men in history (e.g., Isa 10:5; 13:17). But Rev
     20:7–10 seems to present a purely final-eschatological judgment, involving direct divine
     destruction by fire (20:9b), with no mention of human implements of war involved. (4) Eze
     speaks of Israel becoming faithful at that time because of that battle (39:22–24). Whereas Rev
     has God’s people already ruling and reigning (20:4) and living in obedience in the “beloved city”
     (20:9b) at the time of this final judgment.

     (5) Rev 20 presents the antagonists as “Gog and Magog” (20:8) in an episode which results in
     Satan being cast into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already are (20:10).
     Whereas the battle in 19:11–21 does not mention Gog and Magog, but rather the beast and false
     prophet who are judged after this battle (19:20) — which is why they are already in the lake of
     fire later when the battle in 20:7–9 concludes.4 (6) Ezekiel emphasizes certain events occurring
     after the battle, including burning the weapons for seven years (39:9), burying the dead
     (39:12–16), and other nations witnessing God’s triumph and Israel’s faithfulness “from that day
     onward” (39:21–24). These clearly show history continuing after the battle. But Rev presents the
     climactic end-time wrath of God (20:9c), which is followed by the final judgment and the end of
     history (20:11–15).

     Fourth, Beale (980) allows the possibility that Eze 38–39 could point to second century BC
     events (Antiochus Epiphanes) that serve as “typological patterns” for what will “happen at the
     end of history” (cf. Bøe 373). Riddlebarger recognizes that “Divine judgments in history are, so
     to speak, rehearsals of the last judgment.”5 That is precisely my understanding of John’s use of
     Ezekiel to refer to AD 70: for AD 70 is a distant adumbration of the end of history which will
     come at the Second Advent.

     First, White (1994:545) complains that “if John really expected us to interpret the revolts in
     Revelation 19–20 as different events, he certainly did us no favor by describing both revolts in
     language, images and plots that are reminiscent of one and the same event in Ezekiel’s
     prophecy.” Though this argument relates to the preceding one, it deserves additional
     consideration.

     (1) Again, similarity does not entail identity. White himself admits (1989:333–34) this: “that
     objection would be fair enough. But those who would argue thus must be prepared to produce the
     dissimilarities that preclude identity.” I have already dealt with this line of argument above. As I
     show above, the wars are thematically related though not historically identical.

     (2) John frequently confuses us. Sequentialists can turn the tables against White to much
     effect. If John had wanted us to understand recapitulation rather than sequence in this passage,
     John “did us no favor” by: (a) recasting the beast and false prophet (19:20) as Gog and Magog
     (20:8); (b) inserting a thousand year period between the two battles (20:2–5); (c) representing the
     period of Christian history from the first century to the end as “a short time” (12:12) and as “a
     thousand years” (20:2–6) (cf. Beale 678, 984; Poythress 138, 178; Venema 320); (d) offering no
     hint that Satan is bound before Rev 19:11ff while emphasizing his being bound before Rev
     20:7ff; and (e) telling us that Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire when the beast and false
     prophet already are (20:10).

     We must disagree with White (1994:544) that: “it is of course precisely the reminiscences of
     God and Magog in both Revelation 19 and Revelation 20 (among other things) that makes the
     notion of chronological progression between the two appear unclear and unnatural.” As Moyise
     observes: “By firmly making the reader think of Ezekiel’s visions and then confronting him or
     her with drastic changes, the reader is forced to stop and ask what is going on.”6 It does not
     appear that John’s use of Eze 38–39 “strongly supports a prima facie understanding of the events
     narrated therein as congruent and concurrent with one another” (White 1989:151).

     Second, Beale (Revelation, 980) notes that the same “gather” language and “deception”
     motive are used in 16:12–16; 19:19–20; 20:8, thereby linking this as the same battles. But this
     loses its force when we realize that earlier allusions to this (allegedly) same battle do not use
     “gather” and “deceive” language. And this despite these latter three references employing the
     anaphoric [repetitious] article referring back to them. For instance, Beale (1022) speaks of the
     “anarthrous [i.e., no article] description of the last battle in 11:7.”

     Interestingly, we can draw an analogy with the famous debate over the resurrections in
     20:4–6. The same language (ezçsan, “come to life”) is used in vv 4 and 5. But in the first instance
     it does not refer to a physical resurrection, whereas in the second instance it does (Beale,
     Revelation, 1002–07; Kistemaker, Revelation, 540; Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 291–94;
     Poythress, The Returning King, 182). In an important respect, the first resurrection (whether it is
     spiritual or symbolic) anticipates the second resurrection (physical). Likewise, AD 70 (in
     19:11–21) anticipates the final eschatological battle (20:8–10) (see discussion above in my point
     2 on Eze language).

     4. The Definite Article Argument

     Though White (1989:329 n 18; 1994:546) argues that the definite article appearing with three
     of John’s nine uses of the word “battle” (polemos) is anaphoric, this does not prove that these
     three are the same battle (16:14; 19:19; 20:8). Sequentialists agree with recapitulationists that
     these three battles are related; however, being related and being identical are not the same thing.
     Numerous problems weaken the articular argument here.

     First, we must determine if the article is truly anaphoric (an article of previous reference).
     Grammatically this is a judgment call. The anaphoric article does not have a peculiar
     grammatical form to distinguish it, but only a different function. The three articles before us
     could be examples of the article of simple identification, the individualizing article, the monadic
     article, the well-known (familiar reference) article, or some other. As Wallace notes, interpreters
     need to be careful with articles because “you might be tempted to make more out of it than the
     author intended.”7 And the recapitulationist argument certainly lays a heavy burden on the article
     here (though White supplements this by other factors).

     Surprisingly, even while suggesting that it is the anaphoric article, White (1989:329)
     simultaneously argues that it points to “a specific episode of war,” — but this makes the article
     an example of the “well-known” article. Beale (Revelation, 835, cp. 968) allows that it may be
     either the well-known article (thereby referring, in his view, to the “War of the End”) or “an
     article of previous reference.” Which is it? How can the recapitulation argument be built (in part)
     on the anaphoric article if it may in fact be the well-known article?

     Second, even if the article is anaphoric we must determine its previous referent. Beale
     (Revelation, 835) suggests it may refer back to “the same ‘war’ as in 11:7.” But then he also
     allows that it “may be an article of previous reference . . . to the OT prophecy.” Which is it? Does
     it refer back to 11:7 or to the OT? Thus, one of the leading scholarly advocates of recapitulation
     appears to equivocate on the definite article’s use here, showing that it is not clear.

     What is more, Beale (Revelation, 698) links 11:7 and 13:7 by showing that they both virtually
     repeat the phrase “make war with the saints to overcome them.” But he then argues that 13:7
     begins at Christ’s death and continues “during the entire church age” (Beale 700). But if the
     anaphoric article refers back to 11:7 (and to 13:7) it applies “during the entire church age”
     (Beale 700) and does not point to the last battle.

     Further compounding the recapitulationist problem, White (1989:329; cf.1994:546) argues:
     “when polemos appears without the article, it designated the activity of warfare in general.” This
     covers 11:7 despite Beale’s (589) arguing that “11:7 refers to the final onslaught against the
     saints at the end of history” by showing parallels between 11:7; 17:8; 20:7 (an argument similar
     to White’s [1989:329] paralleling 16:14; 19:19; 20:8).

     Recapitulationist Smalley (Revelation, 513) disagrees with Beale regarding 20:8: “The articular form is hardly one of previous reference, alluding to the ‘final’ battle of 11.7” (cp. Aune, Revelation, 16:14).8 Smalley (498) argues that the article in 19:19 is in fact anaphoric, but
     that it refers back to the just mentioned war at 19:11, 14. And this despite his agreeing with Beale
     and White that 16:14; 19:19; and 20:8 refer to “the final conflict” (Smalley 410). The anaphoric
     argument is quite slippery.

     Since recapitulationists see John alluding to Eze 38–39 in 19:19 and 20:8, perhaps the article
     anaphorically refers back to these chapters. If so, these could be instances of his making multiple
     applications of his OT material. Thus, the anaphoric article could simply point to his original
     source material (Eze 38–39) but would not mean he is using both of these instances to refer to
     the same war. This is at least as plausible as the recapitulationist’s analysis.

     Third, if John intends to set apart 16:14; 19:19; and 20:8 as referring to the same battle, why
     does he not employ the same article + noun structure in 17:14? There we read: “these will wage
     war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King
     of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.” The verb polemeô
     appearing here also appears in 19:11 and surely refers to “the battle” (ton polemon) in 19:19.
     Kistemaker (Revelation, 543) argues that 20:8–9 “is the same battle John described in 16:12–16;
     17:14–18; and 19:11–21.” Beale (Revelation, 878) agrees, even noting that “17:1–19:1 is a larger
     interpretive review of the sixth and seventh bowls” (Beale 847). So does D. Johnson (Triumph of
     the Lamb, 275) who declares that 17:14; 19:19; 20:9 all describe “the war to end all wars.” See
     also Poythress (Return of the King, 179).

     Yet in 17:14 John uses the verb instead. If John were using the definite article + noun as a
     distinctive marker (so important to the recapitulation argument), it would seem he should use it
     here in 17:14. This certainly appears to be the same war as in 16:14; 19:19 (they are clearly
     related, with 19:19 concluding what 16:14 begins), even involving the ten horns of the beast
     against the Lamb. In fact, “most scholars hold that the battleaccounts [sic] in 16, 14–16 and 17,
     14 (with the future of the verb polemeô) are identical with the war described here in 19, 71–21”
     (Bøe, 293).

     Fourth, the article could simply be the familiar reference or the well-known article, which
     seems also to be White’s argument even while he speaks of its anaphoric use (1989:329 n 18):
     When speaking of “the definite article with the noun polemos” he states that “the noun refers to a
     specific episode of war” (1989:329).

     But if this is so, to which “well-known” battle does John refer? Aune (Revelation, clxv)
     comments regarding the use of the article in Rev in general: “part of the style of apocalyptic
     literature is the use of already familiar persons and things drawn from stock apocalyptic
     imagery.” If so, both the AD 70 war and the ultimate eschatological war are well-known in
     Scripture.

     It even seems that the NT emphasizes AD 70 more frequently — probably because it was
     looming in the near future, directly relevant to first century Christians, and of catastrophic
     significance in re-orienting their thinking regarding the flow of redemptive history (see my
     Introduction to the commentary for a summary of allusions to the removal of Israel’s status in AD 70). Indeed, it seems that the NT knows of only two great battles remaining in redemptive history: AD 70 which closes the old covenant era (and inaugurates the new covenant) and the Second Advent which closes the new covenant era (and history). Jesus certainly seems to link
     AD 70 and the Second Advent in his large Olivet Discourse (see previous statements in Point 2
     above). In addition, John limits Rev’s prophecies to the near term (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10), which
     suggest a strong emphasis on AD 70.

     Conclusion

     This is a greatly reduced summary of my detailed argument. But I hope it is sufficient for
     introducing the important debate regarding the relationship of Rev 19 and Rev 20. And for
     illustrating my objection to recapitulation.

     I am considering producing this material for an article for either Journal of the Evangelical
     Theological Society or Westminster Theological Journal. However, that will take a little time
     which is growing ever scarce for me. Though I do think it might be a valuable “introduction” to
     the scholarly world of my Revelation commentary.

     Notes:

     1 Sverre Bøe, Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38-39 as Pre-Text for Revelation 19: 17-21 and 20: 7-10
     [Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 2001] 298
     2 Donald G. Bloesch, The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory (Downers Grove,
     Ill: InterVarsity, 2004), 84.
     3 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 593.
     4 If the Gog and M
     5 C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark (Cambridge: University Press,
     1983), 404.
     Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation 6 (Sheffield Academic Press, 1995),
     82.
     7 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
     1997), 218.
     8 For instance, the well-known article is used in Jas 1:1 to refer to the well-known
     Diaspora and in Ac 2:42 to reflect the well-known teaching of the Apostles.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • Thank you very much Adam! I can still use it. I have finished volume II of my book but will spend close to a year going over it and refining and editing it. Wonder when Gentry will come out with his full commentary? (good writing takes time) By the way here is a nice overview of my book I just did (The Antichrist and the Second Coming) http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/introduction-to-volume-ii-of

       Duncan

       By the way my take on the Gog and Magog thing is that we are in the time at the end of the millennium (I see Ezek 38-39 and Rev. 7-10 as the same invasion) and that the Gog and Magog invasion will happen in the not too distant future. That is almost like a dispy (although they separate the invasion into two).

       LikeLike

   • Duncan,

     You’re welcome, and I’m glad that you can still use the quote in your book. I did read the overview to your book. It’s very informative. Thank you for the link.

     If I remember correctly, Gentry is hoping/planning to get his commentary published this year as well. It sounds like, for him, the timing depends on his level of funding.

     That’s an interesting view you have on Gog and Magog, especially that Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 20:7-10 speak of the same future invasion. I’m not sure that I’ve heard it from anyone else before. I have a couple of questions about your view, if you don’t mind: [1] Do you believe that those who are attacked are national Israel, the body of Christ, both, or …? [2] If this is to take place in our future, why do you believe that God described this battle with language depicting ancient warfare (“horses and horsemen…full armor…buckler and shield, wielding swords…shields and helmet…bow and arrows, clubs and spears” [Ezek. 38:4-5; 39:9])?

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • Hi Adam,

       Number 2 is quite easy; it is at the bottom of what I am putting below. Question 1 takes much longer. I could send you my chapter on the invasion if you like.

       The dispersion of Israel prior to the Gog and Magog invasion is said to be to “many” nations (Ezek. 38:8, 12). As noted earlier, this does not fit the Babylonian exile, which was to one nation. Ruthven brings up an interesting point along these lines:

       The text twice mentions that Israel would be, “gathered from many nations” (Ezek. 38:8 and 12). Long before the time of Ezekiel, Israel had been gathered from bondage in Egypt and led to establish themselves in the Promised Land. Later, the kingdom of Israel was dispersed by Assyria to “many nations,” but was not regatherd. Then Judah was exiled to Babylon, and was regathered. But in cases where they had been exiled to only one nation—Egypt or Babylon—their return could not be “from many nations.” And in the case where they went into “many nations,” they were not again gathered.

       This is an important point. The northern kingdom of Israel was dispersed into many nations in the eighth century BC but was not regathered. The southern kingdom of Judah was exiled to only one nation in the sixth century BC and then regathered (after a relatively short time). Neither of these exiles fit the time that Ezekiel is describing.

       It should be noted that while the Roman invasion in AD 67 was large and geographically diverse, even it was not diverse enough to fit the invasion described in Ezekiel 38-39. The Roman Empire did not include the area north of the Black Sea (the land of Magog, Ezek. 38:2) or the area of Persia (Ezek. 38:5). The territory of Persia was part of the Parthian Empire in the first century; the Parthians did not participate in the Roman invasion of Judea. Added to this, the first-century Roman invasion did not happen at a time when Israel had been gathered from the nations. Quite to the contrary, it was the Roman invasion that sent Israel into the nations.

       In addition to the above considerations, the Jews were not delivered from the Roman invasion as Ezekiel says will happen to the regathered Israel in the Gog and Magog invasion (Ezek. 39:1-9). Any attempt to spiritualized Israel in Ezekiel 38-39 (to try and make it fit an AD 70 fulfillment) is unwarranted. Spiritual Israel (i.e., new covenant believers) was never sent into the nations for any iniquity (Ezek. 39:22-29) and then gathered back after a long time (Ezek. 38:8). When did God ever hide his face from his new covenant people (Ezek. 39:27-29)? The Gog and Magog invasion of Ezekiel and Revelation is referring to an invasion of a regathered nation of Israel that has yet to happen.

       Finally, the argument that the Gog and Magog invasion could not be a modern day invasion because it talks about horses, swords, bows and arrows etc. (Ezek. 38:4; 39:3) is without merit. Ezekiel was communicating in the language of his day. One would not expect him to mention (or even know about) modern implements of war such as laser guided missiles, tanks or troop carriers. As Bøe notes, “The text is probably not primarily intended as a detailed account of military equipments as much as a colorful description of an overwhelming and up-to-date equipped army.” The idea of every combatant in this invasion being on horseback would be especially notable to the ancient mind: “Then you will come from your place out of the far north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great company and a mighty army. You will come up against My people Israel like a cloud, to cover the land” (Ezek. 38:15-16). Who could stand against such an onslaught? Even the invincible Roman army was mostly on foot. Prior to modern times and mechanized warfare, there has never been such a well equipped, mobile, multinational army.

       LikeLike

     • Rev 20 and Ezk 38 – 39 are the same event rev 19 is the wedding supper of Christ where he returns to destroy his
       enemy’s the anti Christ and the false profit and their army’s. Rev 20 is the marriage of Christ where he is King over
       the reunited lost tribes of Israel and the tribe of Juda (Ezk two sticks that are joined together again) All of Ezk 37,38,39
       are about the thousand years of peace and at the end of it where Gog and Magog come against them at or near the end

       In Rev you will notice where God uses the anti Christ to execute judgement on the great Prostitute. Who says that
       he cant use Satin himself to do his work, kind of an ultimate insult and show of God’s real control over everything.

       (There is a passage in the Bible somewhere where God uses a Demon to do a certain work for him)

       LikeLike

   • Duncan,

     Thanks for replying to my questions about your view of Gog and Magog. I have to admit that I’m not quite seeing it, but I’ll keep my mind open. I do see your points, though, regarding why the events of 70 AD don’t fit Ezekiel’s prophecy. Before I continue, I should note that I still favor the viewpoint expressed by Gary DeMar and David Lowman above, that Ezekiel’s prophecy was fulfilled in Esther’s day, and that John’s prophecy is yet a future prophecy concerning an intense time of persecution against the body of Christ. So, with that in mind, I’ll respond to just a couple of your other points for now.

     Regarding the Babylonian exile, was not Babylon an empire made up of many nations? I’ve never thought of Babylon as simply one nation. So if the Hebrews were placed throughout the Babylonian empire after 586 BC, weren’t they dwelling in many nations, the nations which had been conquered by Babylon? Later those nations (if they are viewed as such) were under Persian rule.

     On a similar note, here’s a question I’ve had for quite some time (it comes to mind because you said that the Jews from the Northern Kingdom who had been dispersed were not regathered): What prevented the descendents of the 10 scattered tribes from coming back to the land of Israel in the years after the return led by Zerubbabel/Ezra/Nehemiah, or during the rule of the Roman Empire? From what I know, travel was quite freely allowed under both the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire, and perhaps under the Greeks as well. Did the distinction between the 10 tribes and the 2 tribes really continue to exist that much longer? In Acts 2:5, we’re told that “there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven” (The phrase “every nation” here I take to refer to the nations within the Roman Empire, similar to “all the world” in Luke 2:1). Doubtless, some were only visiting for the Feast of Pentecost, and presumably they made this pilgrimage on a regular basis. Still, it seems from this fact, that by the time of Christ, any Jew who wished to visit or live in the land of Israel could do so. Peter addressed “all the house of Israel” on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:36). Paul also referred to the 12 tribes as a whole in Acts 26:7, and James starts off his epistle by addressing “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion.” I also understand that numerous anthropological studies suggest that many who belonged to the 10 tribes were largely absorbed into the nations to which they were scattered, and because of inter-ethnic marriages they didn’t really maintain their Jewish lineage. They couldn’t have been entirely lost, though, as these passages indicate.

     I’ll concede that it’s possible that Ezekiel could have used ancient warfare language to speak of what is to us modern warfare, if everything else (the context of chapters 38-39 and previous chapters) clearly indicated that this prophecy belongs to our future. And to me it doesn’t, or at least I haven’t seen that yet.

     The other point that I have to admit I’m hung up over, with regard to the possibility of Ezek. 38-39 being a future prophecy for national Israel, is that the text refers to the subjects of the prophecy as “My people Israel” (e.g. Ezek. 38:14-16), and to the land in question as “My land” (e.g. Ezek. 38:16). God has already made a people for Himself through the cross, which includes Jewish and Gentile believers on an equal basis, but does not include anyone (Jew or non-Jew) who doesn’t trust in Christ. For that reason, I can’t imagine viewing this prophecy as a future, yet unfulfilled prophecy for a particular race of people. Likewise, I don’t see that the geographical land of Israel is given any emphasis in the New Covenant age, which is described by Jesus and the apostles. Rather, the New Jerusalem, the New Covenant Church, is given emphasis in this present age.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • I think you were the one who said the Esther explanation would be more impressive if the Jews had ever made such an connection and they did not. One of the most important things here is the current staus of Israel. Saying that Israel has no signifigance at all is one of the few things that unites full and partial preterists. I think preterism has a problem with group think on this issue. Of course the dispys are way off base in the other direction. Here is something from volume II. Does not look like my footnotes came through 😦

       Israel and the Gog and Magog Invasion

       SUMMARY OF REVELATION
       In this chapter I shall examine where we are now in terms prophetic fulfillment. I believe we are at the end of the millennium—the time when Satan is released from the abyss to deceive the world and instigate the Gog and Magog invasion (Rev. 20:7-10). I will first begin with a very brief summary of the book of Revelation:

       Revelation is a book that unveils the invisible realm of the spirit by way of symbols (Rev. 1:1). Revelation was written around AD 65 towards the end of Nero’s reign (the sixth Caesar, Rev. 17:10). With the two exceptions (Rev. 12:1-12 and 20:7-10), Revelation is referring to events that were soon to happen in the first century (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10, 12, 20).
       Revelation is a tale of two cities/wives—Babylon and New Jerusalem. These “cities” represent two communities of people, the unfaithful old covenant community (the harlot wife, cf. Ezek. 16:31-32) and the faithful new covenant community (the bride), cf. Gal. 4:21-31. The harlot is destroyed by fire and the bride becomes married (Rev. 18:8; cf. Matt. 22:1-10). Revelation is showing the covenant curses of Leviticus (ch. 26) and Deuteronomy (chs. 28-32) that were to come on God’s unfaithful old covenant people when they broke the covenant. This is something Israel did in the ultimate sense when she had her King killed (cf. Matt. 21:5); at that point she became a widow (cf. Rev. 18:7).

       God had said that in breaking the covenant, the children of Israel would rise up and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land (Duet. 31:16 cf. Rev. 17:1). He said he would bring four sets of sevenfold punishment on his old covenant people in response to their unfaithfulness (Lev. 26:18, 21, 24, 28). These covenant judgments form the basis of the four sets of sevenfold judgments of Revelation (the seven seals, Rev. 6:1-17; 8:1; the seven trumpets, Rev. 8:2-10:7; the seven thunders, Rev. 10:3-4; and the seven bowls, Rev. 16:1-21). These judgments on unfaithful Israel climax in her destruction—the destruction of the harlot by the Antichrist (Rev. 17-18; cf. Ezek. 16). This happened at the AD 70 destruction of the Jewish nation and the old covenant Temple system by the beast from the abyss that worked through Titus (Rev. 11:7; 17:8; cf. Dan. 9:26).

       Revelation is revealing the AD 70 final end of the old covenant order and the full establishment of the new covenant order—the full establishment of the kingdom of God (Rev. 11:15-18). This is symbolized by the destruction of the old heaven and earth (cf. Jer. 4:19-31) and full establishment of the new heaven and earth (cf. Is. 65:1-19). In AD 70 the kingdom of God was taken from the unfaithful old covenant community and fully given to the faithful new covenant community (Matt. 21:33-43). With God’s unfaithful old covenant wife destroyed, God then marries his new convent bride (Rev. 19:1-9).

       Revelation ends with the bride, the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:9-10), coming to earth at AD 70. The sea disappears at this time (Rev. 21:1-2) as the whole earth becomes the land (i.e., the domain of God’s people). This is a picture of the kingdom of God coming with power, a spiritual event (Luke 17:20-21; John 18:36). Some of Jesus’ first-century audience would still be alive when this happened (Mark 8:38-9:1). Today, the “gates” of the New (covenant) Jerusalem are open with the invitation for all to come and eat from the tree of life and drink of the water of life (Rev. 22:14, 17). Those who refuse this call (those who do not become part of the new covenant bride, Rev. 22:14-15) will end up in the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8).

       Other than Revelation 12:1-12 (the AD 30 ascension of Jesus to God’s throne), the only part of Revelation that was not one of the things that “must shortly take place” (Rev. 1:1) when the book was written is Revelation 20:7-10. Revelation 20:7-10 is a prophecy of what is to happen at the end of the millennium. The millennial reign of Jesus and his people over the nations, was about to begin when Revelation was written (Rev. 2:26-27; 3:21; 5:8-10; cf. Luke 19:11-27). Its end, however, the time when Satan would be loosed for a season and then disposed of in the lake of fire, was in the distant future when John wrote (Rev. 20:7). Revelation 20:4, 11-15 is describing a single throne scene that occurs at the beginning of the millennium (cf. Dan. 7:9-10) with a parenthetical description of what will happen at the millennium’s end in Revelation 20:7-10. Here is how this section would look if put in sequential order.

       And I saw thrones and they sat on them and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witnesses to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years . . .
       Then I saw a great throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
       Revelation 20:4, 11-15
       Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
       Revelation 20:7-10

       Although John sees the AD 70 beginning of the millennium (“And I saw thrones, and they sat on them . . . .” Rev. 20:4), he does not see the end of the millennium but is prophesying about what will happen at that time (“Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison.” Rev. 20:7). As Sverre Bøe notes, “Rev 20:7-10 seems to describe events beyond the horizon of contemporary events.”

       PHYSICAL ISRAEL
       The description of the Gog and Magog invasion in Revelation 20:8-9 contains references to Israel. These are found in its allusions to the invasion of the Holy Land by Gog in Ezekiel 38-39 and in the phrase “the beloved city” (v. 9). To anyone familiar with the OT, the reference to the beloved city would immediately bring to mind Jerusalem. Bøe writes the following on this:

       This expression recalls biblical imagery, though an exact equivalent to “the beloved city” is not found. Three texts from the Psalms come quite close to this, though:
       Ps 78:68: But he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves.
       Ps. 87:1-2: On the holy mount stands the city he founded; the Lord loves the gates of Zion.
       Ps. 132:13-14: For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation: “This is my resting place forever; here I will reside, for I have desired it.”
       On this background there can be little doubt that every Jew and every person acquainted with the OT would think of Jerusalem as “the beloved city,” even though the name is not used. This lack of an explicit reference to Jerusalem is analogous to Ezekiel 38-39, which nowhere uses the names “Jerusalem” or “Zion.”

       In spite of the above statement, Bøe does not think physical Jerusalem is referred to here. He cites Revelation 11:8 (where Jerusalem is referred to as “the great city” in which Jesus was crucified) as being inconsistent with Jerusalem being called “the beloved city” here. He sees the beloved city of Revelation 20:9 as more of a symbol of the new covenant community. Bøe does admit, however, that this view would make Revelation inconsistent with almost all the rest of the Gog and Magog literature (e.g., Ezek. 38-39; Qumran texts, rabbinic writings, etc.), which see the invasion as being directed against Israel. As I have discussed previously, “the great city” in Revelation 11:8 refers to harlot Babylon (Rev. 18:21). This is a reference to unfaithful Israel and her Temple, not Jerusalem per se, and does not preclude an indication to the city of Jerusalem here.

       Even the language used in Revelation 20:9 to describe the Gog and Magog invasion (“they went up on the breadth of the earth”) is consistent with a physical attack on Jerusalem. Aune notes the following on this:

       “to go up” is used here in three overlapping senses: (1) In Israelite and early Jewish idiom, people always went up (never down ) to Jerusalem . . . (2) The idiom is also used when approaching the land of Israel from outside . . . (3) This idiom can be used in the context of the attack of the nations against Jerusalem in the final eschatological war . . . .”

       While gē is correctly translated as “earth” in verse 8 (Satan “will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth . . . .”), it is better translated as “land” in verse 9 (“They went up on the breadth of the earth [land] and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city” cf. Rev. 7:1).

       The use of an indirect reference (circumlocution) to the city of Jerusalem as the “beloved city” (without calling it Jerusalem, cf. Rev. 11:2) is probably because the New Jerusalem bride is now the real Jerusalem. She is the Jerusalem of promise referred to in passages such as Isaiah 65:17-19; 66:7-13; cf. Gal 4:21-31. While the word “Jerusalem” occurs only three times in Revelation—always in reference to the New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12; 21:2, 10)—physical Jerusalem is also referenced, albeit indirectly. It is called “the beloved city” here and “the holy city” in Revelation 11:2 (a reference to Daniel 9:24-27: “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city . . .”). Because of the references to Israel and Jerusalem in verses 8-9, I shall first discuss the prophetic status of current day Israel as a preface to my discussion of Revelation 20:7-10.

       CURRENT DAY ISRAEL
       Most preterists see no prophetic significance in the current reestablishment of the state of Israel. They say that with her destruction in AD 70 that God was finished with national Israel as a people (They are at a bit of a loss to explain why there is a state of Israel today, however!) I see my fellow preterists as being quite wrong on this issue. Full preterists see no prophetic significance to the reestablishment of the nation of Israel because their paradigm does not allow it. The full preterist paradigm necessitates that there is no new fulfillment of biblical prophecy (such as Israel coming back to the land) after AD 70. Most partial preterists also say that Israel coming back to the land has no prophetic significance. This is at least partly due to an overreaction to dispensationalism and its teaching of a physical millennial kingdom centered in Israel.

       Preterists have correctly rejected the dispensationalist’s mistaken interpretation of a physical kingdom of God centered in Jerusalem (cf. Luke 17:20-21; John 18:36) and have emphasized the continuity of God’s covenant. When Israel violated the covenant (by rejecting Jesus), God did not put the kingdom on hold, instead, he went forward with a new people (cf. Matt. 22:1-10). Notice that when the Jews rejected the message of the kingdom in Acts, Paul did not change his message to that of postponement but continued to preach the kingdom of God “with all confidence.”

       “Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!” And when he had said these words the Jews departed and had a great dispute among themselves. Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concerned the Lord Jesus Christ with all conference, no one forbidding him.
       Acts 28:28-31

       While it was clear to Paul at this point that Israel had rejected Jesus, he in no way changed his kingdom message to that of postponement. Jesus never taught a postponed kingdom; quite to the contrary, he said that the Jews would be cast out at the full establishment of God’s kingdom (Matt. 8:11-12; cf. John 4:21-24).

       The writer of Hebrews similarly proclaimed that believers were “receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken”; there is no mention of any postponement. In AD 70 the kingdom of God was taken away from physical Israel and given to God’s new covenant people (Matt. 21:43; cf. 1 Peter 2:4-10, where language associated with Israel is applied to the church). The kingdom of God came in power in the first century just as God said it would (Dan. 2:40-45; 7:17-27; Mark 8:38-9:1). While these tenants of preterism are true, and the church has become part of true Israel (Rom. 9:6-8; Eph. 2:11-3:7; cf. Rev. 2:9), it does not follow that God is therefore finished with physical Israel. While dispensationalists have largely ignored the continuity of God’s covenant and the spiritual nature of God’s kingdom (cf. Matt. 16:28; Luke 17:20; John 18:36), preterists have ignored the fact that the Bible teaches that God is not finished with physical Israel. His calling on her is irrevocable (Rom. 11:25-33; cf. Lev. 26:44-45).

       GOD’S CALL ON ISRAEL IS IRREVOCABLE
       While Scripture teaches that new covenant believers have become part of true Israel (cf. Luke 2:34; Rom 2:28-29), it also teaches that God is not finished with physical Israel. The eleventh chapter of Romans discusses how God has not totally cast away physical Israel (“I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! . . . For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” Rom. 11:1, 29). Using the analogy of an olive tree, Paul says that the unbelieving “branches” of physical Israel were being cut out in the first century and believing Gentile branches were being grafted into the tree of true Israel (Rom. 11:17-20). This shows the continuity of the covenant; there is one tree of covenant Israel, not two. Too often dispensationalists talk as if there were two trees, physical Israel and the church. Although many of the branches of physical Israel were broken off in the first century (Rom. 11:11-23), Paul says there would come a time when physical Israel would be grafted back into the tree of true Israel.

       For if you [Gentiles] were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches [i.e., physical Israel], be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins.” Concerning the gospel they are enemies for you sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
       Romans 11:24-29 (underlined emphasis mine)

       Paul wrote this around AD 56. Clearly physical Israel’s blindness was not removed in the fifteen years between when Paul wrote Romans and the Second Coming at AD 70. The majority of the Jews continued in their blindness for the next fifteen years and were scattered to the nations in AD 70 (cf. Luke 21:20-24). While this world-wide dispersion finalized their being cast away, Paul said that a future acceptance of physical Israel by God was to happen after this (“For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? Rom. 11:15). This was a “mystery”—something previously hidden that was now being revealed (Rom. 11:25; cf. Mk. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:51).

       DOES “ALL ISRAEL” ONLY MEAN A SMALL PART OF ISRAEL?
       Because physical Israel was not reconciled to God at AD 70, full preterists have to say that the reference to “all Israel” being saved is not speaking of the physical Israel but only the believing remnant of physical Israel. Don Preston writes the following along these lines:

       Paul said that in his day, the remnant was being saved, and his statement that “all Israel shall be saved” must be seen within the context of the consummation of God’s scheme to bring the remnant to Him. This means that “all Israel” is a referent to the rest of the remnant that had not yet been brought in . . . In Romans 9-11 Paul laments that the majority of Israel was refusing to obey the call to her Messiah. Just like in the past, Israel, the majority of Israel, was rejecting the prophets, and persecuting them. The remnant however, was accepting the call of the gospel, and were being saved: “Israel has not obtained that for which she sought, but the elect (i.e., the remnant, DKP), has, and the rest were blinded.” (Romans 11.5f). This rejection/acceptance on the part of the majority/minority is the key to understanding Paul’s understanding of the salvation of “all Israel.” He did not believe in the conversion of the majority of Israel. He believed that the “rest of the remnant” was about to be saved (Romans 13.11 f; 16:20).

       While I agree with Preston on many things, I strongly disagree with him here. It is true that Paul was talking about a remnant (the minority) of physical Israel that was being saved (in the first century) in contrast to the majority of physical Israel that had been blinded (or “hardened” Rom. 11:7 NASB). Notice, however, it was the Israel (the majority) that had been blinded (“Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Rom 11:7) that would eventually be saved (“. . . blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved . . .” Rom. 11:25-26). The “all Israel” that would eventually be saved is not a reference to the remnant who were coming to faith, but the majority of physical Israel who had been blinded.

       “BELOVED FOR THE SAKE OF THE FATHERS”
       Subsequent verses in Romans 11 support the assertion that when Paul says all Israel would be saved, he is referring to blinded/hardened physical Israel. It was the Israel that was the enemy of believers that would eventually be saved: “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers” (v. 28). This was physical Israel; according to Paul they had been blinded and God had committed them “to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all.” (v. 32). Again, it was physical Israel, not the rest of the believing remnant, which God had blinded (v. 7). This blindness would be removed at a future time and physical Israel would be incorporated back into the tree of true Israel (vv. 25-26). While God did cast away the Temple and the old covenant system (cf. Rev. 18:21), he did not cast away his old covenant people. God’s calling on Israel is irrevocable (v. 29); he will eventually have mercy on them again for the sake of the fathers (v. 28; cf. Lev. 26:38-45).
       I concur with the following analysis of Romans 9-11 by Keith Mathison.

       “In [Romans 9] verses 30-33, Paul explains that only a remnant of Israel has been saved thus far because Israel as a people has pursued righteousness by works, rather than faith, and thus they have stumbled over Christ. In Romans 10:1, Paul declares, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.” This is the prayer that Paul later says will be answered (11:26 [“And so all Israel will be saved . . .”]). Paul is not praying for the remnant of Israel who are already saved. He is praying for the Israel that has stumbled over Christ [Rom. 9:31-33]. In 10:2-4, Paul grieves over the fact that the Jews have sought to establish a righteousness of their own. In verses 5-15, Paul explains that Christ is the fulfillment and the apex of redemptive history, and that the gospel is for both Jews and Gentiles. Then in verses 16-21, he begins to explain the unexpected paradox that has now occurred in the outworking of redemptive history. Because the Jews as a people have rejected the Messiah, they will be set aside while God pours out the blessing of the covenant on the Gentiles.
       Paul then begins chapter 11 with an important statement. Having explained that Israel as a whole has rejected her Messiah, he declares, “I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not!” Repeating the argument he made in Romans 9:6-13, Paul explains that Israel’s rejection is not total and that a remnant has been saved on the basis of God’s sovereign grace (11:1-6). He uses himself as an example of an Israelite who has been saved. In verses 7-10, Paul explains that while a remnant of Israel has obtained salvation, “the rest were hardened” (11:7). It is important to remember that “the rest” who “were hardened” is a reference to Israel according to the flesh (9:3), the Israel that Paul prays may be saved (10:1). In 11:11, Paul asks and answers a very significant rhetorical question: “I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not!” But who are “they”? This has to be a reference to Israel according to the flesh, the Israel that stumbled over Christ, the Israel who were hardened—in other words, Israel as a people. It cannot be a reference to the remnant of Israel who have been saved by faith in Christ, because the remnant did not stumble. From [Rom. 11] verse 11 onward, Paul speaks of this hardened people of Israel.” (underlined emphasis mine)

       This distinction between the remnant of physical Israel vs. the majority of physical Israel that were hardened/blinded is crucial. It was not just the remnant that would be saved, eventually all Israel (i.e., hardened physical Israel) would be brought back into relationship with God. Paul reveals the “mystery” (v. 25) that God had committed physical Israel (not the remnant) “to disobedience that He might have mercy on all.” (Rom. 11:32). If Paul was simply teaching that the rest of the remnant of Israel was about to be saved, that would not be much of a mystery. If he is saying that God had hardened physical Israel in the first century so he could have mercy on them at a later time, that is a wondrous mystery and explains Paul’s exclamation about how amazing God’s ways truly are. For God has committed them all to disobedience [cf. Rom. 10:21], that He might have mercy on all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! (Rom. 11:32-33) As to exactly what “all Israel” means, Ladd notes the following: “Paul sums up the entire matter in verses 25-27. Israel is now hardened. The Gentiles are now being brought in. Finally, ‘all Israel shall be saved.’ ‘All Israel’ does not need to mean every single Israelite but the people as a whole.”

       THE REFERENCES TO ISRAEL IN ROMANS 9-11 ARE TO PHYSICAL ISRAEL
       If one examines every reference to Israel in Romans 9-11, in all but one, they are to physical Israel. In the one exception (Rom. 9:26) there is a double reference; the context makes it clear that the first reference is to true or spiritual Israel and the second is to physical Israel (“. . . for they are not all Israel who are of Israel”). Given that all the other references to Israel in Romans chapters 9-11 are to physical Israel, it is hard to come to any other conclusion than that Romans 11:25-26 is also referring to physical Israel “. . . blindness in part has happened to [physical] Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all [physical] Israel will be saved . . .” (Rom. 11:25-26). Mathison writes the following on this:

       “In 11:25-26, Paul makes the statement that has been the source of most of the eschatological controversy surrounding these chapters:
       For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of the mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved.
       There is good reason to believe that the partial hardening, mentioned in 11:25 is a reference to the hardening in 11:7. If this is true, then a case can be made that “Israel in 11:25 means Israel as a people, since it is Israel as a people who have been hardened. There is also good reason to believe that the “Israel” in verse 26 is the same as the “Israel” in verse 25. In other words, although there is controversy surrounding the exact interpretation of this passage, a case can be made for understanding it to mean that someday there will be a reversal of the hardening that has happened to Israel as a people. A remnant of the people of Israel has been turning to Jesus from the first century to this day, but Israel as a people has remained hardened. Paul seems to indicate, however, that this hardening is not a permanent condition. If this interpretation is correct, it is a New Testament prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled.”

       I believe that the blindness of physical Israel is being taken away in our day. Unprecedented numbers of Jews are discovering their true Messiah today. I expect this to continue, as more Jews come to Jesus. In light of Ezekiel 38-39, however, it appears that the full removal of physical Israel’s blindness and their integration back into the olive tree of true Israel only happens after the Gog and Magog invasion (cf. Ezek. 39:21-29). I discuss this later in this chapter.

       LikeLike

   • Duncan,

     Thank you for your latest reply. I lack the time to thoroughly respond to everything you wrote, but I did take the time to carefully read it all. Your summary of Revelation at the beginning was outstanding. I’m very glad you included that.

     One thing that stuck out to me in the rest of what you wrote was your statement that “the Church is now part of true Israel.” By using the word “part,” do you mean that there is another part of true Israel outside of the Church? In your viewpoint, is there anyone within the true Israel who doesn’t belong to Christ? I ask that because I’m sure we would agree that all who belong to Christ are in the Church, and that outside of the Church there is no one who belongs to Christ. I’m just curious, then, as to how anyone could be said to be part of true Israel who does not belong to the Church, the body of Christ. If you’re referring to a future group of Jews who will be converted en masse, they would become part of the Church, right? I hope my questions make sense here.

     I know I’m not doing justice to all that you wrote above, but have you ever read Mike Blume’s article on The Times of the Gentiles? He deals with the statement in Romans 11:25 that “a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” His take is that this hardening was temporal, and coincided with Jesus’ statements predicting judgment upon His own unfaithful generation in Israel. The times of the Gentiles he sees as “the period of time Rome, preceded by other Gentile powers, afflicted Israel as a form of God’s judgment upon them for disobedience.” In other words, the expression “times of the Gentiles” is not salvific. He ties in Romans 11:25 with Luke 21:24 and Rev. 11:2. At this present time, I concur with his view on this, and largely agree with all that he wrote in this article:

     http://mikeblume.com/timesgen.htm

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply
     • Thanks Adam,

       I willl check out the Blume citation. An interesting discussion here http://americanvision.org/4024/do-you-know-what-the-bible-really-says-about-rebuilding-the-temple/ I did not convince the person I was talking with, but I sure gave him some things to think about!
       Of course DeMar does not think there was a single Antichrist. If that is the case then I do not know what I have been working on the the last 11 years. . . . The Antichrist was the opponent of God/Christ who was defeated by the AD 70 coming of the Lord (Dan. 7:21-22; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:11-21). He was the demonic prince to come that would work through Titus in his attack on Jerusalem at the end of the age (Dan. 11:36-45). This resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Dan. 9:26) at the AD 70 destruction of the Jewish nation (12:7). Revelation shows this as the destruction of harlot Babylon by the beast from the abyss (Rev. 11:7; 17:8).

       Duncan

       LikeLike

3. Hi Adam,

   Do you happen to have a reference for the following quote from Gentry? I was hoping to use it in volume II of my book. You cut a little bit out, do you have a little fuller version of this section?

   …If John had wanted us to understand recapitulation [the repetition of the same events] rather than sequence in this passage [Revelation 20], John “did us no favor” by: (a) recasting the beast and false prophet (19:20) as Gog and Magog (20:8); (b) inserting a thousand year period between the two battles (20:2–5); (c) representing the period of Christian history from the first century to the end as “a short time” (12:12) and as “a thousand years” (20:2–6)… (d) offering no hint that Satan is bound before Rev 19:11ff while emphasizing his being bound before Rev 20:7ff; and (e) telling us that Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet already are (20:10).

   Thanks,

   Duncan

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. Duncan,

   For whatever reason, my reply to you ended up above your question instead of below it. You’ll be able to find it above…

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. John is merely using the Ezekiel prophecy as a way of explaining events after the Messianic Age (reign of Christ/Millennium/pre-eminence of Christianity) There are a number of similarities, but a number of dissimilarities as well. The Last Day coincides with the defeat of Gog-Satan. Satan IS Gog in John’s scheme of things. It is Satan himself who leads Magog (the collective man of sin from II Thess 2) from behind the scenes. He’s the puppet master, godless Magog is the puppet. Magog believes The Lie. And what is the Lie? That man can be like God (Genesis 3). We are now experiencing the war of Gog and Magog. Christianity lives in a ‘land of unwalled villages’. Anything gets in, because the apostasy of II Thess 2 is present.

   This type of deception never could have happened during the Millennium, because Satan was bound to prevent, but now, he is loosed to permit it.

   Rev 19 is written in the form of a Roman victory parade. Christ, the victorious general rides his white horse, and the armies of heaven come behind him. Last are the prisoners. The devil, Rome (personified primarily by Nero) and the apostate Jews. It was the custom of the victorious general to execute prisoners as he chose, hence Rome and apostate Judaism are cast into the Gehenna, to be remembered no more. Satan is imprisoned that he might see the pre-eminence of his enemies (Isaiah 2). He is permitted to come out of his prison at the proper time by God, and it is the apostasy (II Thess 2) that is the proof OF his release. and also what allows the advent of the man of sin (anthropos hamartia) who is all of the wicked from the four corners of the earth. Man now believes that he is god (it is headed that way), Man rejects God and the things of God and the people of God, Man battles against God in every sense possible from outright persecution to philosophy. Man determines good and evil for himself, which has allowed homosexuality and other perversions to briefly become pre-eminent. Christ will come swiftly and suddenly and destroy Gog and Magog and the Resurrection wil occur and Judgment will be for the saints.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • E. W., thank you for sharing your thoughts. I have to disagree, though, that anything comes “after” the reign of Christ. His reign is forever, according to Scripture, and it will have no end. I also respectfully disagree that the events of II Thessalonians 2 are currently being played out (if I understand you correctly). I see too many indications that they were being played out in the first century AD, including Paul’s statements that [1] his first century audience knew exactly who the restrainer was and [2] the mystery of lawlessness was already present in his own time. For a deeper analysis of this passage, if you’re interested, please see this post:

     http://kloposmasm.com/2011/12/20/a-study-of-ii-thessalonians-21-8

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply
     • If the 1000 year reign is forever, then explain Rev 20. The thousand years have an end and Satan gets a little time to gather together the godless nations. Something doesn’t make sense there.

       And why the upsurge in homosexuality? If Christ is reigning, then shouldn’t these people be dead? Why is the world getting worse morally>? The only explanation I can think of is the loosing of Satan.

       LikeLike

     • E.W., I wasn’t intending to get into the intricacies of Revelation 20, or to examine the 1000 years. My objection is to the idea that Jesus is not presently reigning.

       Daniel 7:13-14 pictures Jesus receiving dominion, glory, and a kingdom at His ascension:

       “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and He came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him; His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”

       The angel Gabriel said the same to Mary: “…And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:32-33).

       Jesus did not rebuke Nathaniel, the Jewish crowds, or Pilate when they proclaimed Him king even during His earthly ministry (John 1:49, Matthew 21:5-19, Luke 19:37-40, John 12:13, John 18:37). Just before He ascended, He proclaimed that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him, and therefore His followers were to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20).

       Just before His crucifixion, Jesus told the high priest that “from now on” he would see Him “seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). Such a statement did not suggest a 2000 year wait before He would begin to reign. Peter declared on the Day of Pentecost that Jesus had already been exalted “at the right hand of God” in fulfillment of the great promises of Psalm 110 (see Acts 2:30-36). Hebrews 1 says much about this as well.

       John, writing to a first century audience, proclaimed that at that time Jesus was “the ruler of kings on earth” (Revelation 1:5).

       Much more testimony in the New Testament confirms that Jesus is reigning now.

       Where, by the way, does the Bible suggest that when Christ reigns, homosexuals meet their death?

       Moral corruption has increased and decreased at various times during the last 2000 years, from what I can see in history. America and various places in the world are in bad shape now, no doubt, but I don’t see this as an indication that Satan must have been loosed recently. There have actually been moral advances when we consider that the early history of the US was marked by genocide among the Native Americans, and African Americans are receiving significantly better treatment in this nation than even 50 years ago. Just some thoughts…

       LikeLiked by 1 person

6. […] http://kloposmasm.com/2010/04/05/revelation-20-four-views-of-gog-and-magog/ […]

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. […] http://kloposmasm.com/2010/04/05/revelation-20-four-views-of-gog-and-magog/ […]

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. Fascinating stuff. I will be exploring the possible Esther connection. Thanks so much for your labors!

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
9. Hi Adam,

   It’s quite simple to eliminate three of the four possible alternatives that are laid out above from “A” to “D”, using the internal evidence within the description of the Gog and Magog war itself in Ezekiel 38-39.

   First of all, to settle the question of whether this is one or two conflicts for Gog being described in Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 20, (or even THREE conflicts, if Revelation 19 is included as a separate battle): Ezekiel 38-39 lays out a schedule of events for Gog’s battle that culminates in its FINAL defeat, when ALL of Gog’s combatants are BURIED in the valley called “Hammon-Gog”. If Ezekiel is one of two (or even three) prophecies related to Gog, and if Gog is COMPLETELY wiped out in this first Ezekiel 38-39 conflict, how is it even possible for Gog to re-emerge and fight ANOTHER conflict (OR EVEN TWO) in Revelation 19 or 20? It’s impossible, as far as I can see.

   For the sake of argument, let’s say that in chronological order, the Revelation 19 and / or Revelation 20 conflicts occur FIRST before Ezekiel 38-39’s LAST battle for Gog. That’s an impossibility also, because BOTH Rev. 19 and 20 describe a penultimate climax where there is UTTER, final annihilation of the combatants in those two battles. The only conclusion we are left with is that all three texts are describing the same, single, catastrophic conflict for Gog. This fact would eliminate options “A”, “B”, and “C” above.

   In addition, there are a couple more characteristics of the Gog conflict in Ezekiel 38-39 that can NOT be true of ANY of the options “A” – “D” above: Gog’s battle is described as being a conflict between “brothers”. This is a *CIVIL* WAR. When “Gog shall come against the land of Israel” (Ez. 38:18), the battle is described this way in Ezekiel 38:21: “And I will call for a sword against him (Gog) throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord God”, (the mountains that are “round about Jerusalem”), “EVERY MAN’S SWORD SHALL BE AGAINST HIS BROTHER”.

   There is no escaping the fact that Gog’s battle involved ISRAELITES fighting each other, even though these Israelites dwelling in the land had been “gathered out of many people” (Ex. 38:8), such as the various nations of ancestory from Japheth’s Gentile line in Genesis 10 that were listed in Ezekiel 38: (Persia, Ethiopia, Libya, Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, Togarmah, Sheba, Dedan, Tarshish). The returning Jewish exiles in Zerubbabel’s day had come out of many other locations than just Babylon. Cyrus’s decree made that very evident in II Chron. 36:23 and Ezra 1:2-3. “Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE EARTH hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you” (among ALL the kingdoms of the earth) “of all His people? The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up.”

   Once these Jewish exiles coming from multiple nations returned in Zerubbabel’s day, they prospered in Israel to the extent that they ended up dwelling in “un-walled towns” just as the prophet Zechariah had predicted for them in Zechariah 2:4 (cp. Ezekiel 38:11, where Gog would later come against these same “un-walled villages” at a time when they were prospering).

   There were also proselytes in Israel coming from other nations that took part in Gog’s war as well. The leading example of this was the Zealot commander Simon bar Giora, whose very name meant “Simon, son of a proselyte”. As you probably remember, Adam, I believe this man Simon bar Giora to be the “chief prince” – the one to whom God gave the moniker of “Gog”. His activities during that period of the First Revolt are an exact replica of Gog’s actions found in Ezekiel 38-39, which I listed in your post “Rev. 13:3 and the Wounded Head of the Zealot Movement”.

   The other characteristic of the Gog conflict in Ezekiel 38-39 that options “A”, “B”, and “C” above do NOT include is the fact that this Gog and Magog battle takes place in “the LATTER years”, or, as the LXX puts it, “at the END of years” (Ezekiel 38:8). Again, Ezekiel 38:16 dates this Gog and Magog battle to a time “in the LATTER days”, or, as the LXX has it, “in the LAST days”. As preterists, we understand this to be the closing days of the Old Covenant Age. This timing of the Gog battle in the “LAST days” eliminates a fulfillment for this in Esther’s days (option “A”), or in the 2nd century BC (option “B”), or in a future-to-us, pre-mill, Russia-versus-Israel attack (option “C”). This last one is an impossible match, because Gog’s war was “at the END of years”, and we know there was at the very least 7 years of post-battle cleanup by those in Israel that was predicted, so this battle for Gog couldn’t possibly take place at the end of all human history.

   One error within the option “D” proposal above is the suggestion that this Gog battle would include Rome as the main antagonist. It wasn’t. Rome was not a “brother” to the Israelites, and if this was a “brother against brother” war, then Rome could not be Gog. Gog HAD to come from Israel.

   The prophecy of Balaam dictated this as well. His Numbers 24:5-9 (LXX) prophecy clearly identified Gog as connected with the nation of Israel. Balaam is also provided the source for the prophets’ message about Gog, given “in OLD TIME” by the prophets. As Ezekiel 38:17 said, “Art thou he (Gog) of whom I have spoken IN OLD TIME by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee (Gog) against them?” (against the people of Israel). Here, it is obvious that, even in relation to Ezekiel’s days, this Gog prophecy was an even MORE ANCIENT one, given many years before Ezekiel’s time. Balaam’s prophecy would have to be the one that supplied the basis for the prophetic material that prophets in Joshua’s generation and following passed down to their people through the centuries before Ezekiel’s day.

   After all, Balaam was given inspiration by God as to what would happen concerning the people of Israel in “the LATTER DAYS” (Numbers 24:14). That would be talking about the latter days of the Old Covenant Age, when Israel as a people still existed prior to the power of the holy people being shattered in AD 70, according to Daniel 12:7.

   Adam, since you requested alternate views to be offered here, this one is mine: Simon bar Giora, a Zealot leader in the “latter days” of Israel as a people, came against Israel with a multitudinous army to fight against their fellow-Israelites, in a civil war conflict of “brother against brother”. This battle of “Gog and Magog” in the four quarters of the land of Israel took place in those days of the First Revolt, ending in an AD 70 annihilation of Israel as a holy people, and the destruction of “Gog’s” (Simon bar Giora’s) entire army.

   There needs to be an option “E” above.

   LikeLike

   Reply