The Narrow Path Ministries

I'm sure you've addressed this already, but your book is so big and the lectures so long.

A couple of weeks ago said, "If you want to know what's going on in Israel right now, read Ezekiel 38. We don't have much time left!"

Then on NPR today I heard John Heaggy(sp?) say that "Ezekiel's war is here! You could be raptured before I finish this sentence!"


So I read Ezekiel 38. And, clearly, it's a prophecy about a war - a massacre, more like it. But can someone please tell me WHAT this has to do with the end of the world? I don't see the connection. Even if this conflict in Israel is a fulfillment of that prophecy, how do they make the connection between "Ezekiel's War" and the second coming of Christ?

I just don't get it.

I don't get it either, nor can I make biblical sense of those who try and place Ezekiel's prophecies coming to pass today.

One thing I have noticed is that everytime these people make these claims, it turns out that they are incorrect. So I don't really listen. I mean, if we are suppose to believe in the any moment return of Christ then why look for signs, if no sign needs to be fulfilled? Seems like a contradiction. Either there are no prophecies left to fulfill before Christ returns are there are still some to be fulfilled. Which is it? (I would like to ask the people you refer to that question)

Sean wrote:So I don't really listen. I mean, if we are suppose to believe in the any moment return of Christ then why look for signs, if no sign needs to be fulfilled?

Wouldn't people say that in Matthew 24, Jesus tells you to look for signs? I know a preterist might view those verses differently, but I could see why one would want to unless I am totally miscronstruing Jesus' words here.

Micah wrote:

Sean wrote:So I don't really listen. I mean, if we are suppose to believe in the any moment return of Christ then why look for signs, if no sign needs to be fulfilled?

Wouldn't people say that in Matthew 24, Jesus tells you to look for signs? I know a preterist might view those verses differently, but I could see why one would want to unless I am totally miscronstruing Jesus' words here.

The only signs given in Matthew 24 are:
Mat 24:6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.
Mat 24:7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
Mat 24:8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

Jesus says these signs are signs of the beginning, not the end.

Jesus then moves onto the destruction of Jerusalem;

Mat 24:15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
Mat 24:16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, so depending on what other texts you want to use it seems like everything mentioned in Matt 24 has been fulfilled in reference to signs preceeding the destruction of Jerusalem.

However, if you place all these events into the future then you can point to any series of events taking place in the world and call them signs of the end. It can get subjective.

Finally, Jesus says in many places that He will come as a theif in the night. Meaning there will be no signs. His coming will be unannounced. Think of the 10 virgins. The 5 foolish ones were unprepared for a long wait. If there was a sign of the any moment return, then they would have been ready. The same with the wicked servant of Matt 24, it says:

Mat 24:50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites.

And Paul says:

1Th 5:1 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you.
1Th 5:2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
1Th 5:3 While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

It doesn't seem as if there will be a sign before His coming.

Micah wrote:

Sean wrote:So I don't really listen. I mean, if we are suppose to believe in the any moment return of Christ then why look for signs, if no sign needs to be fulfilled?

Wouldn't people say that in Matthew 24, Jesus tells you to look for signs? I know a preterist might view those verses differently, but I could see why one would want to unless I am totally miscronstruing Jesus' words here.

I just re-read this and my comment was targeted at those whom were quoted in the first post. They (dispensationalist) usually hold to a belief in the any moment return of Christ that requires nothing prophecied to happen first. Yet, in the first post it seems that they are using Ezekiel 38 as being a prophecy that is being fulfilled now. If this is true, then Jesus could not have returned before the prophecy in Ezekiel 38 was fulfilled. This is contradictory. Either there are things prophecied that must still be fulfilled before Jesus can come back or there is nothing that needs to be fulfilled. You can't have it both ways. If Ezekiel 38 is playing out right now, then Jesus can't come back until that entire prophecy plays out.

Does that make sense?

Regarding Ezekiel 38-39, is there evidence within the passage that would point to the fulfillment of the prophecy being still future?
Or internal evidence pointing to its fulfillment in the past?

I've read some futurists commentary on what they term "Ezekiel's war" and it seems to me that their understanding of this passage (that this is a future end-times war) comes out of their eschatological framework already derived from the Olivet discourse and Revelation.

Thoughts?

Sean wrote:I just re-read this and my comment was targeted at those whom were quoted in the first post. They (dispensationalist) usually hold to a belief in the any moment return of Christ that requires nothing prophecied to happen first. Yet, in the first post it seems that they are using Ezekiel 38 as being a prophecy that is being fulfilled now. If this is true, then Jesus could not have returned before the prophecy in Ezekiel 38 was fulfilled. This is contradictory. Either there are things prophecied that must still be fulfilled before Jesus can come back or there is nothing that needs to be fulfilled. You can't have it both ways. If Ezekiel 38 is playing out right now, then Jesus can't come back until that entire prophecy plays out.

Does that make sense?

It sort of makes sense. What kind of prophecies are supposed to happen, according to dispensationalists, after Jesus returns? Just all of Revelation or something more?

Now I grew up in dispensationalist churches, but like most they never go into great detail of scripture on this matter and a lot of this is a little foreign to me. So please bear with my questioning.

As for your previous comment on "Jesus says these signs are signs of the beginning, not the end", couldn't a dispensationalist say Jesus meant the beginning of the end? Just like the beginning of labor and the end being the birth of a child.

As for the abomination, I know that dispensationalists will claim that to be the anti-christ.

You said, "However, if you place all these events into the future then you can point to any series of events taking place in the world and call them signs of the end. It can get subjective."

They can be subjective, but couldn't a dispensationalist just claim that scientific evidence shows storms, earthquakes, wars, etc. are gaining more and more in frequency, like birth pains?

As for Jesus coming like a thief in the night, I don't think a dispensationalist would argue against that because even though we see the signs we don't know the exact time he will be coming.

Now, I want to clarify that I am not trying to defend dispensationalism for myself, but like I said I grew up around the stuff and if I were to defend it than that is what I would come back with. Hopefully, you have good answers of refutation because I still attend a dispensationalist church and if this subject came up I would like to challenge my fellow brothers.

Thanks.

I thought I would say sorry. I am not purposely trying to divert this away from Ezekiel 38 and in order to sort of keep it on topic...couldn't a dispensationalist say that this war in Ezekiel is just the final birth pain before the child arrives? Don't know and I am not too sure of a dispensationlists view on Ezekiel or knowing Ezekiel 38 fully myself.

Isn't Ezekiel 38 popularly termed the Gog Magog war? I guess all the hub bub is related to friction in the middle east these days. After reading through it, I would be interested in knowing if this fits any known historical event similar to this.

Micah wrote: It sort of makes sense. What kind of prophecies are supposed to happen, according to dispensationalists, after Jesus returns? Just all of Revelation or something more?

I was more speaking of the Ezekiel 38. If these events are suppose to take place before Jesus returns, then that means He couldn't have returned anytime in the past. Meaning, there is no such thing as the doctrine of "imminance".

Micah wrote: Now I grew up in dispensationalist churches, but like most they never go into great detail of scripture on this matter and a lot of this is a little foreign to me. So please bear with my questioning.

As for your previous comment on "Jesus says these signs are signs of the beginning, not the end", couldn't a dispensationalist say Jesus meant the beginning of the end? Just like the beginning of labor and the end being the birth of a child.

Yes, they can say that. The problem is if we are seeing the beginning of the end, then how long will it be before the end? There is no way to determine that, it again is very sujective. I mean, at what point do you say these events are so bad that Jesus return must be very near? These events have been going on for a long time, but again reliable records have only been kept in recent times. Why not just live as if you could die at any moment (and then meet Jesus)? It is certain were are going to die in our lifetime, but it is unknown when Jesus will return.

Micah wrote: As for the abomination, I know that dispensationalists will claim that to be the anti-christ.

Luke equates this event with the fall of Jerusalem:

"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near". (Luke 21:20)

Micah wrote: You said, "However, if you place all these events into the future then you can point to any series of events taking place in the world and call them signs of the end. It can get subjective."

They can be subjective, but couldn't a dispensationalist just claim that scientific evidence shows storms, earthquakes, wars, etc. are gaining more and more in frequency, like birth pains?

Sure they could, but how would I know that for sure? There are scientists that says these events are not occuring more than "normal". And that fact is, we never had the ability to track and record these events until very recently. So it's not as if anyone can say conclusively that these events are really occuring more often. Our records don't go back very far.

Besides, the "birth pangs" Jesus was referring to were leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. That happened long ago (70AD). Why would we assume they would apply beyond that period of time? The context of Matthew 24 is:

1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

Jesus seems to be describing the events that lead up to this event. Those events seem to be the "birth pangs". It doesn't seem like the "birth pangs" have anything at all to do with the return of Jesus. I don't read a rapture in Matthew 24, escpecially not a pre-trib rapture. If that were the case, it seems that you might alreadly be in the tribulation before you saw any signs.

Micah wrote: As for Jesus coming like a thief in the night, I don't think a dispensationalist would argue against that because even though we see the signs we don't know the exact time he will be coming.

Now, I want to clarify that I am not trying to defend dispensationalism for myself, but like I said I grew up around the stuff and if I were to defend it than that is what I would come back with. Hopefully, you have good answers of refutation because I still attend a dispensationalist church and if this subject came up I would like to challenge my fellow brothers.

Thanks.

Well if we knew it was coming soon we could prepare, yet it seems as if the passages that speak of the return of Christ make His return "unknown" and "at an hour you do not expect".
To make that to mean we can know about when He will come but just not the day or hour is missing the point, IMO. People have tried to set dates when Jesus will return. This is exactly what Paul speaks to in 1 Thes 5:1, you will not know so be prepared by living for Christ at all times. The metaphor of a theif is used. If you knew when a thief was going to break in your house you would be there and stop him. It makes no sense to say that you know when about a theif is coming, just not the day or the hour. Either it's unexpected or it's not.

Be kind if you are going to debate this subject in a church that sees this doctrine as important. You might just make them mad.

Micah wrote:I thought I would say sorry. I am not purposely trying to divert this away from Ezekiel 38 and in order to sort of keep it on topic...couldn't a dispensationalist say that this war in Ezekiel is just the final birth pain before the child arrives? Don't know and I am not too sure of a dispensationlists view on Ezekiel or knowing Ezekiel 38 fully myself.

My question back would be, How would one know that it's the final birth pang?