Before or After?

Last month I wrote an article entitled "Before and After," and it concerns a pair of Rapture-related dreams I had over the last several months. Don't let the above title throw you, however. This month's article has nothing whatsoever to do with that, so please don't think I'm merely indulging in a bit of tongue-in-cheekery (moi?).

As you will see momentarily, the above just happens to be the quintessential title for this article.

I have written on several occasions about the battle of Ezekiel 38–39 (including as recently as two months ago), and I have discussed different aspects of this overwhelming attack on Israel that is miraculously crushed by God Himself in order to awaken His people and motivate them to rekindle their relationship with Him. For example, I have discussed in some depth why I am convinced the Rapture must at the very latest occur prior to the climax of Gog-Magog, since God's thundering intervention on Israel's behalf signals the fact that He has turned His attention back to His Chosen People...and that means He's wrapped things up with the Church.

Telegram: I have discussed the potential gap between the Rapture and Gog-Magog before, but something occurred to me recently. The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to see the Rapture not just immediately preceding the climax of Gog-Magog, but occurring before the players even begin to put their forces in motion. The reason I say that is because once the players do begin to assemble for the attack, God may as well send us a singing telegram that announces the catching away of the Church. Now, I admit it would be thrilling to be here to see the Gog-Magog players saddle up, but I personally don't think God is inclined to be quite that obvious in regard to the timing of the Rapture. Just my two shekels.

On a related note, recall that in Ezekiel 38:3–4 it is God who puts the hooks in the jaws of Gog and brings him forth against Israel. So, it is a sovereign act of God that sets the attack of Gog-Magog in motion—an attack that serves the purpose of bringing His people Israel back into a relationship with Him. Ask yourself: Do you really think God would initiate a sequence of events designed to reestablish His relationship with the apple of His eye while He still has His eyes focused on the Church? I sure don't.

One other key aspect of the battle of Gog-Magog, however, is its timing in relationship to the Tribulation—an aspect that is looming larger with each passing day as the world careens toward its literal fulfillment. I have indicated on a couple of occasions that I am of the opinion that Gog-Magog probably occurs before the beginning of the Daniel's 70th Week; but I have never been especially dogmatic about it—mainly because I had never devoted enough time and effort to the topic to be dogmatic.

But you know me. When I feel wishy-washy about a certain scriptural issue that I feel invested in to some degree, and say stuff like "Well, it could be this way, but hey, it could be this other way, too...so I don't want to be dogmatic about it," sooner of later, the bug bites. You know, the bug...it bites. I want to know. I want to be sure. I want to be right.

I'm genetically incapable of leaving wishy-washy alone for very long.

I want to know exactly what I believe and exactly why I believe it, and I pity the fool who tries to stop me once I get started. So there it is:

The timing of Gog-Magog in relationship
to the launching of the Tribulation:

Before or after?

(Hey, that would make a swell title...) So, you might say this article is ointment for that particular bug bite.

Although I have been thinking about Gog-Magog quite a bit recently since we seem to be looking at a potential three-year window of opportunity for the enemies of Israel to launch just such an attack, what suddenly sparked my interest in the topic of its timing in relationship to the Tribulation is an excellent article I read recently written by Mark Hitchcock, someone who has long been one of my favorite Bible teachers.

The article, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in the subject, is a fairly comprehensive and well-researched overview of the battle of Ezekiel 38–39, and includes a section devoted to the timing thereof.

This came as a bit of a surprise to me, but according to Mark there are a total of seven views of the timing of Gog-Magog. I will list all seven in the same order Mark does, but I am only going to discuss two of them:

1. Gog-Magog occurred in 473 BC and is described in Esther 9, a view held by many preterists.

2. It will occur before the launching of the Tribulation (presumably in the gap between the Rapture and the Tribulation).

3. It will occur after the launching of the Tribulation and sometime during its first half.

4. It will occur at the end of Tribulation (in conjunction with Armageddon).

5. It will occur at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom, which follows the Second Coming.

6. It will occur in two phases: Phase 1 (Ezek. 38) occurs in the first half of the Tribulation, and Phase 2 (Ezek. 39) occurs near the end.

7. It will occur at the end of the Millennial Kingdom.

I highlighted what seem to be the two primary views of this issue, and I have come to regard the others as the Fringe Five. Since I am only going to talk about #2 (before the launching of the Tribulation) and #3 (after the launching of the Tribulation and during its first half), for the purposes of this article I will refer to these as the BEFORE and AFTER views, resp.

In his article, Mark takes the time to evenhandedly delineate some of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the seven views. Although he freely acknowledges that many other leading end-time teachers and authors lean toward BEFORE, he makes clear his preference for AFTER, even as he dutifully cites some of the strengths and weaknesses of all the views.

As I said, I lean toward BEFORE, but I never felt 100 percent sure until writing this article. Because I have such deep respect and admiration for Mark and his work, I was intrigued by his AFTER position and carefully read his stated weaknesses of BEFORE and strengths of AFTER. Most of the other views are rather easily dismantled with a competent reading of Scripture; but I figured if someone of Mark Hitchcock's stature sees some type of problems with BEFORE and some compelling reasons to lean toward AFTER, it would certainly be worth my time to chew on them for awhile.

And that's when the bug bit—and the wheels began turning.

Two key issues

As I read through Mark's strengths and weaknesses for both BEFORE and AFTER, it struck me that there are two key issues that emerge in this discussion that do a lot to determine which of these two different views of the timing of Gog-Magog one gravitates to (assuming one is scripturally astute enough to pass on the Fringe Five).

What I am going to do here is examine these two issues one at a time, and discuss how interpreting them one way causes people to lean toward the BEFORE view, while interpreting them the other way causes people to lean toward AFTER. Along the way, I also want to flesh out a couple of other reasons why I am now a bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool, card-carrying member of the BEFORE crew.

And just as Mark makes his preference for the AFTER view known without being overly dogmatic or dismissive of BEFORE, I will do my best to follow his sterling example in discussing my preference for the BEFORE view without being overly dogmatic or dismissive of AFTER.

But you know me—I can't make any promises in that regard.

Issue #1: Must we always interpret the phrase "the last days" as strictly referring to the Tribulation proper?

One of the supposed weaknesses of the BEFORE view that Mark discusses has to do with the phrase "the latter/last days." First, the text from Ezekiel:

According to Ezekiel, the attack of Gog-Magog will occur in "the latter years" or "the latter/last days." Although the phrase "the latter years" in verse 8 is the only usage of this phrase in the Old Testament, the phrase "the latter/last days" is used numerous times. And just in case you're wondering, it doesn't make a lick of difference whether the English translation reads "latter" or "last" since in every single case it's the same words in Hebrew.

As far as interpreting the words "the last days" is concerned, here is what Mark has to say about this alleged weakness of the BEFORE view:

In other words, Mark is regarding the phrase "the last days" as strictly referring to the seven-year period of the Tribulation proper, and not a day prior. Of course, given this interpretation, one essentially has no choice but to place the attack of Gog-Magog after the launching of the Tribulation (that is, unless one wants to go with one of the Fringe Five).

Obviously, if we refrain from requiring this strict application of the phrase "the last days" and allow it to at least include the gap between the Rapture and the Tribulation, then the BEFORE view is still very much on the table. So that's the issue before us:

Does Scripture require us to always interpret
the phrase "the last days" as a strict reference
to the 2,520 days of Daniel's 70th Week, and
not one single day outside those parameters?

In a word, no. Much has been written about "the last days," and you don't have to read a lot of it to understand that the phrase is used in somewhat different ways in different contexts. John MacArthur writes the following in regard to Peter's mention of "the last days" on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16):

In the last days Messiah would come...and indeed He had come—and He's coming back. Here "the last days" includes the entire Church Age, which had literally just been conceived minutes earlier, and arguably extends all the way up to the Second Coming. But at the very least, this tells me straight off that the phrase "the last days" cannot be regarded as a technical term that always refers strictly to the seven years of the Tribulation—Scripture simply doesn't justify such a wooden interpretation of the phrase.

Yes, the Bible does speak of certain things that occur in "the last days" and they are events that do occur during the seven-year Tribulation proper (such as the final redemption of the Jews, etc.); but we cannot logically infer from this that "the last days" can never extend outside that seven-year period.

So, I find Mark's first "weakness" of BEFORE to be quite weak itself, and certainly less than convincing.

As I wrote this article, something occurred to me that makes me even more convinced that the BEFORE view is the correct view. It's no smoking gun, but it's something that hadn't occurred to me before that gives me another nudge toward the BEFORE camp.

First, ask yourself a question:

Q. What is the primary characterization of the final period of judgment that is usually being referred to when people talk about "the last days"?

If you said "the unparalleled rise of evil and deception," treat yourself to a cookie. (Even if you didn't, have a cookie anyway.) The final period of time referred to as "the last days" that sees God pour out His judgment on the nations of the world? When God will bring a remnant of His people to salvation even as the Antichrist does everything in his power to slaughter them all? That final period of time during which a strong delusion sent by God will sucker a hardened Israel and a rebellious world at large into believing Satan's man is in fact their savior?

Let there be no doubt in your mind:

It is a period of evil and deception
such as the world has never seen.

That's the primary characterization of "the last days" as we normally think of them. OK, now ask yourself another question:

Q. Is there something that triggers or releases this final wave of deception and evil that characterizes "the last days"?

If you said "the removal of the Restrainer as mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:7," you've got another cookie coming. I trust you know that the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit, and He ceases to be a restraining influence on evil after the Rapture as He relocates to heaven along with the temple in which He is currently sealed—us.

It is the event of the Rapture and the concomitant removal of the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit on earth that releases the final wave of deception and evil that characterizes this period we think of as "the last days," and it is true that it includes and is typically focused on the seven-year Tribulation which gets rolling not too long afterwards.

So...doesn't it seem perfectly reasonable to be able to include the period following the Rapture when we speak of "the last days"? Doesn't it make good sense to be able to legitimately think of "the last days"—a period characterized by the worst wave of deception and evil in history—as a period beginning with the Holy Spirit standing down from His ministry of restraining evil in the world, and letting Satan have at it (an act of God), rather than the mere confirmation of a treaty (an act of men)?

It sure makes good sense to me. (Have another cookie...I won't tell.)

Now, on to Mark's second weakness of the BEFORE view.

Issue #2: Is Israel "at rest" and "dwelling securely" today?

The second weakness of BEFORE that Mark discusses has to do with the fact that Ezekiel says that Israel is "at rest" and "dwelling securely" at the time of the attack. Let's look at the pertinent verses:

Ezekiel says the attack of Gog-Magog comes when Israel has been regathered into their land and is "at rest" and "dwelling securely." OK, and here is Mark's explanation as to why this is a weakness of BEFORE:

I'm happy to see that Mark refers to the work of Arnold Fruchtenbaum (Ariel Ministries), one of the leading messianic Jewish Bible teachers in the world today. He notes that Fruchtenbaum says the Hebrew word betach used where verses 8 and 11 say that Israel "dwells securely" means "security based on confidence in one's own strength."

And he's quite right—that's exactly what it means. A nation that dwells in a condition of betach is not necessarily a nation that lives in an idyllic state of complete peace and harmony—it is a nation that lives in a condition of security or safety that is born out of confidence in their own strength and ability to defend themselves. That's what it means. Although it may lean in that direction in some instances, its most prevalent usage is not to convey a state of total, complete peace and tranquility and an utter absence of disturbance.

So, that's the key question:

Q. Does Israel live in a condition of betach today?

A. Absolutely.

Fruchtenbaum nails it. Now, not to take anything away from Mark Hitchcock, but when it comes to interpreting the subtle nuances of Hebrew, I have to admit that I feel more inclined to defer to Arnold Fruchtenbaum.

The second term we need to tangle with is found in verse 11, where Ezekiel refers to "them that are at rest." Here, the Hebrew word is shaqat (quiet, undisturbed). But Mark takes his interpretation of the phrase "at rest" to the moon and back and insists that this requires Israel to be absolutely tranquil and completely devoid of anything that might disturb anyone in any way. He seems to suggest that it means life in Israel must be a veritable scene from The Sound of Music (before the Nazis show up, that is).

But the word shaqat is not typically used in such a way, especially in reference to a nation...and the reason should be completely obvious:

Since when is daily life in any nation all that "quiet and undisturbed"?

Even during the most peaceful of times, a violent incident might occur from time to time. A bomb might explode. A missile might be fired. Somebody might get killed. Stuff happens, ya know? C'est la vie and all that.

When used in reference to a land or a nation, the word shaqat typically emphasizes that the nation is not actively at war. There is peace as opposed to open armed conflict with another nation. Ordinary people go about their daily lives with minimal concern for their safety, even though there may be instances of violence that occur here and there...these things happen every day in every country on earth. OK, perhaps there are more such events in Israel today than in a lot of other nations, but the fundamental point remains valid.

For example:

That's what I mean: The word shaqat typically means a nation is not at war. So, same question:

Q. Does Israel live in a condition of shaqat today?

A. Absolutely.

They are not currently at war with any other nation. "One huge armed camp"?! Excuse me? People go to work, go shopping, go to restaurants, go to movies, and go to synagogues. Life pretty much goes on as normal in Israel today for the vast majority of Israeli citizens. Not only that, but it appears Mark would have us believe that as soon as the treaty of Daniel 9:27 is confirmed, Israel will live in such a state of absolute peace and tranquility, with Jews and Arabs joining hands and singing "Shalom Ve'ahavah" ("Peace and Love") on every street corner in Israel.

(OK, now that's absurdly overstated...but I think you get the point.)

As you can see, insisting that the phrase "the last days" refers strictly to the seven years of the Tribulation proper and claiming Israel is not "at rest" or "dwelling securely" today in order to reject the BEFORE view and push the AFTER view makes for a pair of anemic, highly unconvincing arguments. I believe the phrase "the last days" can certainly include the gap between the Rapture and the Tribulation (in fact, I am tempted to say it must), and Israel unquestionably satisfies the conditions mentioned by Ezekiel in verses 8 and 11 of being "at rest" and "dwelling securely," and I think that viewing these two points otherwise is at best a stretch.

The bottom line is that if this is the best you've got to change my mind and lure me into the AFTER camp, you're looking at one hard sell, hoss.

A Hail Mary

Besides these two main issues of (a) whether the phrase "the last days" can be allowed to include the gap between the Rapture and the Tribulation and (b) whether Israel can be said to be "at rest" and "dwelling securely" today, I want to comment briefly on one of Mark's somewhat speculative reasons for supporting the AFTER view. In his article, he states the following:

First of all, the Antichrist doesn't rise to world power at or shortly before the midpoint of the Tribulation. Revelation 6 makes it quite clear in my opinion that the Antichrist begins (or is quite likely continuing) his rise to world power at the outset of the Tribulation with the opening of the very first seal (for crying out loud—he just confirmed the Deal of the Millennium and achieved the Impossible Dream of bringing peace to the Middle East):

Mark makes it sound like the Antichrist can only begin his rise to power in the aftermath of Gog-Magog, but Scripture indicates otherwise. Scripture has the Antichrist already rising to power when the Tribulation begins.

And one other thing: Mark talks about the decimation of Russia and the Arab players of Gog-Magog as if that was needed to pave the way for the rise of the Antichrist. Uh...Mark, let me ask you a question:

What if the Antichrist is Arab?

And I only ask because it is eminently possible. I've written before about the fact that I am convinced from Scripture that the Antichrist must be a Gentile, and could certainly be an Arab. No? Consider:

Daniel prophesies that the "people of the prince who shall come" will destroy the temple (Dan. 9:26), where the Hebrew word am (people) can have a variety of connotations, including both national and ethnic. Some people assume it has a national meaning here, which suggests the Antichrist must be Roman since it was the Romans who destroyed the temple in AD 70. Thus, they conclude that the Antichrist must be born somewhere within the boundaries of what was once the Roman empire.

Others interpret the word am in verse 26 to have an ethnic meaning, which means the Antichrist must be of the same ethnic group as the people who destroyed the temple. (Note that the word am was just used in an ethnic sense to refer to Daniel's people the Jews in verse 24.) There is historical evidence that up to 80–90 percent of the men in the Roman legions that destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70 were Arab conscripts taken from the surrounding area, and that it was in fact these Arab conscripts who set fire to the temple out of hatred for the Jews. Thus if the word am in verse 26 is interpreted in its ethnic sense (as many argue it should be and I am inclined to agree), it's telling us the Antichrist will be of that same ethnic group—i.e. an Arab.

An Arab Antichrist makes a lot more sense than most people realize, and not just for valid scriptural reasons some have written about. It is also true for reasons I've never heard anyone else discuss—this one's all mine.

If the Antichrist turns out to be an Arab, it would be a magnificent example of God's special brand of poetic justice. I've written about this idea of "patriarchal payback" before, but think this through carefully:

God sends the strong delusion near the midpoint of the Tribulation (2 Thess. 2:11) to deceive the descendants of Jacob (Israel) into accepting an Arab Antichrist (a descendant of Esau) as their Messiah. But when they balk at worshiping him as God, he will turn on them and slaughter them. But why will God delude or deceive Israel in such a manner? Because roughly 3,950 years ago, Jacob deceived his father Isaac into giving him his brother Esau's blessing—a blessing that contained the promise of a future Messiah (Gen. 27). But what did Jacob's descendants do when that promised Messiah finally arrived? They rejected Him and had Him executed like a common criminal. In other words, during the Tribulation God will "deceive the deceiver" as a most fitting part of Israel's final judgment—at least the part of Israel (two-thirds?) that persists in rejecting the Messiah He sent them two thousand years ago.

This positively blows my hair back every time I think about it. An Arab Antichrist would be poetic justice at its most sublime. The bottom line, however, is that if the Antichrist does turn out to be an Arab, Mark's point makes no sense at all. In that case, the decimation of Israel's Arab enemies would, if anything, be more likely to hinder or impede the Antichrist's rise to domination rather than pave the way for it.

FWIW: Barack Hussein Obama deceived the American people by running for president as a black candidate; but like most of what came out of his mouth, that was a lie. Documented genealogical information reveals that he is only six percent black and 45 percent Arab. Just tuck that one away.

Incidentally, Mark mentions Revelation 13. This is at the midpoint of the Tribulation, and it is the climax of the Antichrist's rise to world domination, not the entire process of that rise that supposedly just kicked off following Gog-Magog, not long before the midpoint of the Tribulation.

Suddenly nothing fits.

Sorry Mark, but this is a Hail Mary...that gets intercepted in the end zone.

A gap in the gap

People who support the AFTER view of Gog-Magog tend to see the man who will be revealed as the Antichrist come along after the Rapture and confirm a big peace deal between Israel and her Arab enemies that will allow Israel to rebuild the Third Temple, guarantee its safety, and establish a Palestinian state as per the two-state solution.

Actually, they've got that much basically right.

But then, according to the AFTER view, at some point during the first half of the Tribulation—with the Jews finally "at rest" and "dwelling securely" alongside their new Muslim BFFs, something will happen to cause these Arab countries to change their minds, revert to their natural disposition of hating the Jews, renege on the peace deal, and gather to wipe out Israel in the battle of Gog-Magog. (Destroying Damascus? But they're friends now...)

It occurred to me while working on this article and contemplating these issues, however, that there is one fundamental flaw in the AFTER view that is seldom addressed and never satisfactorily resolved in my mind:

It has a gaping hole in it that I don't see any easy way to fill.

As I said, according to the AFTER view, the Antichrist comes along and confirms the treaty of Daniel 9:27 that allows Israel to rebuild their temple, guarantees their security, and establishes a Palestinian state.

Understand that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif), while being the holiest site in all of Judaism, also happens to be the third holiest site in Islam, behind Mecca and Medina.

Ooh, time for a pop quiz:

Q. Can you guess where the fourth holiest site in Islam is located?

A. Hint: Read Isaiah 17.

Ever since the Six Day War in June of 1967, Jews have virtually had to fight tooth and nail to even be allowed to ascend the Temple Mount. Traditionally, even if they do ascend to the site of Israel's previous two temples, if they are spotted so much as silently moving their mouths as if praying, they will be forcibly removed by armed Muslim guards.

Although it is true that things have loosened up somewhat in recent days, the fact remains: The idea of the Jews ever building a (gasp) temple on Haram al-Sharif is beyond unthinkable—it would be unspeakable blasphemy to the Muslims. Do you think all of Israel's Muslim enemies are going to roll over en masse, as it were, and let the hated Jews desecrate their beloved Haram al-Sharif in the most despicable manner imaginable to them?

You think some smooth-talking, up-and-coming Antichrist-to-be is going to come strutting along and sweet-talk all the Arab enemies of Israel into allowing such a desecration of the third holiest site in Islam? Evangelical scholar John Walvoord thought so:

Now, with all due respect for the venerable John Walvoord, consider:

What do you think would it take for the currently empowered Muslim nations that surround Israel and that seek only the destruction of the Jewish nation to sit on their hands and passively allow the Jews to so wantonly desecrate the third holiest site in Islam?

That's easy:

An act of God.

Absolutely nothing less. (Not an act of men, like the confirmation of some treaty.) This is w-a-y beyond some treaty—I don't care what the Muslims are offered in return. A Palestinian state for the right to desecrate Haram al-Sharif? Oh, please...think again. Understand that the Arabs want it all and they want it their way. End of conversation.

Even if one individual Arab leader were willing to offer the Jews their temple (which is almost inconceivable), what would be the result?

That's easy, too:

World War III.

Absolutely nothing less. If any Arab leader agreed to do such a thing, the Muslim world (in its present state) would erupt in flames and leap into "Death to Israel!" mode. And it wouldn't take them long to mass together and go for the jugular.

Now, if the battle of Gog-Magog comes before the treaty of Daniel 9:27 (i.e. occurs during the gap between the Rapture and the Tribulation), that's a horse of a different color. The King James Version (correctly) indicates in Ezekiel 39:2 that five-sixths of Gog's forces will be destroyed. In other words, the battle of Gog-Magog will decimate Israel's Muslim enemies to the point where they no longer pose a threat to the Jews (or to anyone, for that matter). This makes it much easier to see a deal being made that allows the Jews to rebuild their temple on the third holiest site in Islam because Israel's Muslim enemies will have just gotten their Jew-hating hind ends royally kicked and will be powerless to stop it. The Muslim nations surrounding Israel will not have the wherewithal to stop the treaty of Daniel 9:27 from becoming a reality, and it will become just that.

And it'll be all systems go for the temple, whether they like it or not.

Although leaning toward AFTER, Mark touches on this idea in discussing the strengths of the BEFORE view:

In Mark's case, however, this isn't enough to convince him of the correctness of BEFORE. But if Gog-Magog doesn't occur until after the confirmation of the treaty of Daniel 9:27, then will someone please explain to me:

What on earth happens to cause the Muslim enemies of Israel (who are still at full strength) to roll over and acquiesce to any treaty that allows such a desecration of the third holiest site in Islam??

Mark doesn't seem to have an answer for that one, as far as I can tell. I am not aware of any eschatological event (other than Gog-Magog) that would reduce Israel's Muslim enemies to a pile of silly putty that would allow such an abomination to be built on Haram al-Sharif.

The AFTER view leaves a gaping hole in the period between the Rapture and the launching of the Tribulation that utterly fails to explain why a conspicuously non-decimated Muslim world sits back and allows the desecration of Haram al-Sharif with a Jewish temple.

The AFTER view leaves a gap in the gap.

And I for one simply don't see any reasonably straightforward and scripturally consistent way to fill that gap.

Stalemate: Of course, none of us knows with precision how end-time events will play out. But I have noticed that many capable Bible teachers that specialize in eschatology sometimes have a tendency to move eschatological events around like a chess grandmaster moves pieces around the board, looking for a strong position to support and weak positions to avoid. The problem is that sometimes in the process they fail to take into consideration the real-world effects of some of the events they are moving around the eschatological chessboard, and end up failing to fully consider the effects such events may have on certain nations or the world at large.

First the horse, then the cart

As I worked on this article, it became crystal clear to me that the AFTER view essentially puts the cart before the horse. Think about it: The radical Muslim world is champing at the bit and growing more empowered and emboldened today. The terrorist state of Iran is getting alarmingly close to becoming a nuclear-armed terrorist state today. They all openly seek to destroy Israel and kill every last Jew, and a feeble, bumbling American administration that is willing to dance to whatever tune the terrorists whistle is ill-prepared and disinclined to stop them. Today.

Yet the AFTER views asks us to believe that before the Tribulation even begins, for reasons that are unclear, this scenario will suddenly morph into something quite different. Sometime between now and the beginning of the Tribulation, these emboldened, Jew-hating Muslim terrorists will soften up and become downright amenable to the idea of desecrating Haram al-Sharif with a Jewish temple, and will be prepared to extend the hand of friendship to the despised descendants of Jacob at the negotiating table.

This time will be different: And supposedly a smooth-talking peacemaker will somehow persuade Israel's fully armed and empowered Muslim enemies to be reasonable and allow the desecration of Haram al-Sharif for political gain. This, after the Arabs have stubbornly rejected out of hand anything that even smells like a compromise at every given opportunity ever since the rebirth of the nation of Israel in 1948.

Then and only then, after this breakout of peace in the Middle East and at some point during the first half of the Tribulation, will these same Muslims who have become Israel's friends suddenly revert back to their death-to-Israel ways and once again become the emboldened terrorists who seek to wipe Israel off the map and kill the Jews, just as they were before the Tribulation began (i.e. just as they are today).

Then and only then will the battle of Gog-Magog finally occur, and then and only then can the Antichrist finally rise to power, several years after he confirmed the greatest political deal in history and began to go out conquering and to conquer. And it's the same old routine:

Suddenly nothing fits.

So, at the very least, the AFTER view (which I feel like calling the cart-before-the-horse view) requires a convoluted sequence of events that gets harder and harder to force-fit together the more one thinks about it.

On the other hand, I scarcely see the need to give you a blow-by-blow account of the BEFORE view, because it's basically what we see developing today. The Rapture is going to occur at any time, and an unrestrained Satan will finally be free to grab the proverbial bull by the proverbial horns—and his Jew-hating Arab pawns are even now at the ready to come against God's Chosen People, take all their land, and slaughter every last one of them.

And understand that this is not something the Arabs cooked up on their own—this is straight from Satan's "I Wanna Be Like the Most High" playbook.

But after God crushes the Arab enemies of Israel in Gog-Magog, a decimated Muslim world will be willing to do almost anything to have peace with mighty Israel—even allow a temple to be built on Haram al-Sharif.

This is speculation on my part, but I think it's highly likely that Israel will allow a two-state solution as part of the terms of the treaty of Daniel 9:27 in an effort to show themselves gracious and magnanimous in victory, precisely as they did in 1967. I believe this was foreshadowed by what Moshe Dayan did following Israel's victory in the Six Day War. Even though Israel had defeated the Muslim forces and had taken Jerusalem, Dayan surprisingly agreed to allow Jordan to maintain control over the Temple Mount:

Now, Dayan certainly meant well—he did what he did in a sincere but misguided effort to ensure a lasting peace. In the same vein, I think the (victorious) Israelis will allow a two-state solution as part of the treaty of Daniel 9:27 as a gesture to the (decimated) Muslims in an equally sincere but misguided effort to do the same—ensure a lasting peace. After all, they are getting their beloved Third Temple and everything.

That's sure to put the Israelis in a generous mood.

But just as Dayan's desire to be magnanimous to the defeated Muslims after the Six Day War in 1967 backfired, so will Israel's desire to be magnanimous to the defeated Muslims after the battle of Gog-Magog.

The last straw: I've written about this before, but Israel's decision to divide their land...er, I mean God's land (Joel 3:2) is the last straw for God, and is what triggers the outpouring of His final and most severe round of judgment on them in the Tribulation.

So, consider me completely locked in on the view that holds that the battle of Gog-Magog will occur after the Rapture but before the launching of the Tribulation. In my opinion, the AFTER view simply has too many glaring flaws and inconsistencies to be tenable. It creates a jumbled sequence of events that requires some creativity to piece together in order to explain what the BEFORE view makes clear, logical, and eminently plausible.

Finally, I cannot emphasize enough what a great job Mark Hitchcock does with the topic of the battle of Ezekiel 38–39, regardless of his opinion on the details of whether it occurs before or after the launching of the Tribulation. For that, Mark has my undying respect, no matter what our respective opinions on that particular aspect may be.

That said, I sincerely hope I was able to avoid being overly dogmatic or dismissive of the opposing view as consistently and conscientiously as Mark was in his article.

Yeah, well...you know me.

Greg Lauer — DEC '21

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 DEC '21 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit