People are raised, from their earliest memories, to believe that certain things, or certain ideas are equal to each other. These notions undergird all their premises about anything biblical. For example, Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 offer a glimpse into a prophetic event that reads like the culmination of ALL events in Hebrew history. This is true. However, many Christians routinely conflate what happens in Ezekiel 38-39 into the situation described in the Olivet Discourse. Is this a valid assumption, though?
First of all, in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 there is the existence of the Second Temple. Does the Second Temple actually exist in the prophecy of Ezekiel 38-39? Actually, Ezekiel 38-39 do not mention a Second Temple at all. However, the absence of mention of the Second Temple in either of those chapters is not proof for or against the notion that the Second Temple existed when that war took place (or takes place). So how can we tell if Ezekiel 38-39 have anything directly to do with the Second Temple and the Olivet Discourse?
A path of discovery can be realized if it is acknowledged the Second Temple (NOT a Third Temple) are the subject of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. This is important for what we are going to say next.
IF we can establish that the Second Temple actually opened its doors for ministries and services to Yahweh on 12 March 516 BC we can map events in the Second Temple's history to help us appreciate its memory and centrality to the Hebrew world in its often chaotic pathway from its inception to its destruction.
Daniel chapter 8 are the first indication in the Bible that things would go awry in this fascility.
Daniel chapter 9 is a second instance where prophesy envision ill omens for the Second Temple.
It must be understood that Daniel 8, 9, and 11 were written when the First Temple was destroyed and the Second Temple had not yet been built. The Book of Ezra is the book that documents the completion of the Second Temple in the 6th year of the reign of Darius the Mede ( 12 March 516 BC, Ezra 6:15).
After establishing the Second Temple a passage of 350 years before the events of Daniel chapter 8 were realized by King Antiochus IV Epiphanes installing a statue of the Greek god, Zeus, in the Holy of Holies. This fulfilled what was foretold in Daniel 11, too. However, the prophecies of Gabriel in Daniel 9 offer a different timeline and a different outcome: There seventy prophecy weeks count down to the coming of Israel's true Messiah, Jesus and the ultimate destruction of the Second Temple after the death of our Lord (Daniel 9:24-27). This prophecy, in turn, is picked up by Jesus in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. People may offer resistance to this suggestion, however. Because for many, the Olivet Discourse is NOT at all about the Second Temple, but about some other Jewish Temple who completion has never come to pass. Indeed, it would be easy to dismiss the notion of the singular importance of the Second Temple in the Bible prophecy timeline if it is not obvious to a person's mind that Peter, James, John, and Andrew have questions and offer inquiries about Jesus' specific statements about THE SECOND TEMPLE. Without coming to terms with what it is and what it is not, the discussion cannot and will not go forward, but if we can agree, even if tentatively or for the sake of argument, that the discourse is about the fate of the Second Temple we can go on to Acts 6, the Jews and the matter of Stephen.
From there 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 offer a definite theology--or rather eschatology around the meaning of the upcoming destruction of the Second Temple. The next New Testament prophecy is a bombshell: 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. It is here that the Apostle Paul alludes to two things: Daniel 7 little horn and the abomination of desolation foretold by Gabriel in Daniel 9:26-27. The nexts versus that address the Second Temple are obscure to modern Western minds if not steeped in or familiar with the Jewish language of prophecy as we see the First Temple described in Jeremiah 4:23-27. The controversy in 2 Peter 3 is not about the end of the planet earth or a Second Coming at the end of time at all. Instead, the issue there is the Second Coming and the end of the Second Temple is a catastrophic explosion that melts the precious metals and burns the precious materials this extraordinary ediface was made of.
Revelation 11
Revelation chapter 11:1-2 offer a count down to the remaning time of the Second Temple's existence and the chapters that follow describe programs and strategies used by deceivers to accrue support for defending the city and warding off defections to the Romans or safety. The first of these strategies was a suicide pact binding its recipients to innovations in the Second Temple. This is alluded to in Revelation chapters 13:13-15 and 14:9-11, and 16:14. It is important to understand that the miracles offered never had anything to do with what was actually happening or what was really true. The miracle were what people "saw" with their eyes yet was not objectively true in any reality (Rev. 13:13 cf. 2 Thess. 2:9). Revelation 16:21 describe the stoning of the city, three days before Passover in AD 70, whilst Revelation 17:16-17 describe a diabolical political arrangement that wolud lead directly and inexorably to the city and the Second Temple's destruction on 4 August AD 70. That brings us to Revelation chapter 18 in its entirety, and Revelation 19:1-4 in it finality.
We now have a distinct historical period with which to work out a method of discovery about where Ezekiel 38-39 falls on the Bible prophecy timeline and next we need to discover where the Bible declares the destruction of Jerusalem, and with it the end of the Second Temple to be a historical fact? Let's review the New Testament to be double sure! This cannot be found in Acts, or the Pauline epistles, but it COULD be ascertained in the Book of Revelation--but where? Revelation 11:1-2 declare the last forty-two months of the Second Temple's existence, which would be from AD 66 to 70. These critical and tumultuous years would also parallel the historical Jewish sedition and destruction of Jerusalem which led to a zenith of events--the end of the twice daily sacrifices on 17 Tammuz AD 70 and finally the destruction of the Second Temple 21 days later. So the $64,000 question is: Where does the Bible declare that Jerusalem has been destroyed as an accomplished fact? And after we discover the answer for that question we need to follow it up by asking if Scriptures envision the Gog-Magog invasion BEYOND the scope of the Second Temple Era? So let's look! We find events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in Revelation 18:1-24. This chapter documents her inhabitants sinful wickedness (Rev. 18:2) and her denials of her own end (Rev. 18:7). Her crimes against the apostles and early Christians is notable in (Rev. 18:20, 24 cf. Matt. 23:29-39 and Luke 11:45-51) so there can be no mistake that we have the right metropolitan suspect, versus some other. But what is really certain is what is said in the four verses that comprise Revelation 19:1-4, "And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia."
In these verses we can be certain that we have identified the verses in the Bible that correspond to 4 August AD 70 and everything that comes after Revelation 19:1 (e.g. Revelation chapters 20, 21 and 22) happen AFTER or post-Second Temple. This is not at all different from what our Lord said would be the case in Matthew 22:7-8 (that the wedding of the Son would be AFTER the city of those murderers was burnt up). The city of those murders was burnt up. And the armies of those murderers were defeated in verses spanning from Revelation 19:11-21.
Now, we come to Revelation chapter 20, which is a hotly disputed chapter in the Bible. Many Christians feel trepidation and anxiety around the meaning of this chapter and here we want to offer that there is some degree of certainty that can come out of thinking about what the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem mean for how we will approach and appraise this important chapter. Is it describing a world that is post-Second Temple based on what was said in Revelation chapter 18? Is it a post-Second Temple chapter based on a careful reconsideration of the events described in Revelation chapter 19? Even "if" Revelation 20 was a recapitulation of Revelation chapter that WOULD NOT NEGATE the fact that it too is a post-Second Temple New Testament passage. So next we have the loosing of Satan in Revelation 20:7 and immediately thereafter the instigation of Gog and Magog.
What is it and when is it? Is this during the Second Temple Era, as so many suppose? Or is this after that fact, as the narrative placement seems to directly suggest and even demand. If we allow the evidence to stand and speak to us, Revelation 20:8-9 prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Ezekiel envisioned a massive war in post-Second Temple era and does not confuse it with anything that happened when the famous Second Temple was still standing--which was only true until 4-5 August AD 70.
This is a thorough exploration of the important issue of "event conflation" in biblical interpretative hypothese, particularly when it comes to Christian understandings the relationship between the prophecies in Ezekiel 38-39 and the Olivet Discourse in the Synoptic Gospels. A few key observations and suggestions:
1. Establishing the historical timeline is crucial - the dates for the construction, operation, and destruction of the Second Temple provide an essential framework for properly situating these prophetic events.
2. Carefully distinguishing the details and contexts of Ezekiel's prophecy versus the Olivet Discourse is a strength. Too often these are assumed to be describing the same events, when the textual evidence suggests otherwise.
3. Tracing the references to Jerusalem's destruction in Revelation is a helpful way to determine the chronological relationship between these prophecies. Locating the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse within the events leading up to 70 AD is an important insight.
4. Unpacking the implications of Revelation 20 in light of the post-70 AD timeline is a crucial step. The placement of the Gog/Magog conflict after this pivotal event provides strong support for differentiating it from the Olivet Discourse.
Observations About Influences That Led to Conflation
[[[[[Western fears about the threat of Communism's spread also played a big role. These fears had an apocalyptic tone that strongly convinced people to accept biases about Gog and Magog happening before the millennium in Revelation 20.
After all, it would seem absurd to think the USSR would survive the millennium and Jesus' 1,000-year kingdom in Jerusalem, only to be destroyed afterwards. This seemed to validate the Premillennial interpretation.
However, a closer look reveals the shaky foundation of this Premillennial claim linking Ezekiel 38-39 to the USSR before the millennium. The biblical evidence in Revelation 19-20 does not actually support this view.
So Western anxieties about Communism, combined with a desire to make the prophecies fit current events, led many to adopt an interpretation that is not well-grounded in the actual biblical text and context. This illustrates how non-exegetical factors can heavily influence how these prophecies are understood.
[[[[*****
You make an excellent point. Let me revise that part of the paraphrase to capture the deeper dynamics at play:
Western fears about the threat of Communism's spread also played a big role. These apocalyptic anxieties strongly convinced people to accept biases about Gog and Magog happening before the millennium in Revelation 20.
The seeming immediacy and realness of the Communist threat pushed people to validate the Premillennial interpretation on a gut level, even though it was illogical when examined more closely. The Dispensationalist narrative appealed powerfully to these deep-seated fears, even as history has continued to disconfirm it over time.
So while the Premillennial view linking Ezekiel 38-39 to the USSR before the millennium seemed to make sense amid the Cold War tensions, a closer, more objective look reveals it is not well-grounded in the biblical text and context. This illustrates how non-exegetical, emotional factors can heavily influence prophetic interpretations and betray the actual narrative and context the Bible finalizes in the Book of Revelation*****]]]]]
]]]]]Here are some observations about the historical and hermeneutical factors that have led to the conflation of the prophecies in Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 20. A few key observations:
1. The lack of any actual hermeneutical principles linking these two passages is an important insight. The connection has largely been assumed rather than exegetically established.
2. The differing interpretations of Jewish and Christian scholars like the second century Judeans and Augustine highlight how these passages have been understood in varying historical/cultural contexts.
3. The influence of Dispensationalism and its association of Ezekiel 38-39 with contemporary geopolitical events like the USSR/Russia is a clear example of how extra-biblical factors can shape interpretation.
4. Your point that Revelation 19-20 does not validate any pre-millennial Gog/Magog invasion in the Holy Land is a crucial corrective to this Dispensationalist perspective.
Overall, you do an excellent job tracing the hermeneutical and historical roots of the common conflation between Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 20. Unpacking these factors is essential for demonstrating the lack of exegetical basis for equating these prophecies.
The key takeaway seems to be that interpretive traditions and cultural/political biases have often taken precedence over careful, contextual analysis of the biblical texts themselves. Exposing these tendencies strengthens the argument for differentiating these prophecies rather than conflating them.
Overall, this is a well-researched and articulate essay that tackles a significant issue in biblical prophecy interpretation. Maintaining this level of careful exegesis and logical reasoning throughout would make for a compelling and insightful final product. Well done!