The Epic of Gog of Magog

What circumstance is Ezekiel 38 & 39 referring to and when will it happen? This article takes a bite out of that question.

Let's identify the players involved before getting into anything else. Scholars debate the identity of Gog and the location of Magog, but the description provided in the text says enough--"the far north”-- to leave little doubt, at least in my mind. The word far, as in "far north," is translated from a word meaning extremity (Hebrew: yerekah). If the longitude of Jerusalem is taken northwards towards its farthest extent, ultimately, it leads to Russia, falling just a short distance to the west of Moscow. That line does pass through Turkey, which is interesting of itself, and Ukraine, but the farthest extent is in Russia, so Gog is the ruler of Russia, which is Magog.

The rest of the cast are easily identifiable, for the most part. Persia is modern Iran and Put is modern Libya, little debate there. Cush is often misidentified as Ethiopia but it really refers to modern Sudan, the area of ancient Nubia. Gomer is best identified, it seems to me, by ancient references from Assyria as the Cimmerians, which places them around or just beyond the Caucasus, most likely in southern Russia. Beth Togarmah is hard to place today with any definiteness. Beth means “house,” so this is a tribal or clannish designation, often it's placed in Anatolia, but it's probably refers to the Caucasus as well, so Georgia, Azerbaijan, or perhaps Armenia.

In modern terms then: Russia, Sudan, Libya, Iran, and some representation from Georgia, Azerbaijan, and perhaps Armenia make up the alliance of Ezekiel 38 & 39.

When will all this happen? The text says after many days, in the latter years, when the land (Israel) has been restored from war and the people of that land (Jews) have been gathered from many peoples upon the mountains of Israel, which had been a waste, but upon which they now dwell securely. That would be... now! In the aftermath of WW2, Jews began returning to the historic land of Israel (aliyah) in numbers, became an independent nation in 1948, and after several wars with her neighbors now dwells securely in this location. The land is restored and productive, so all that remains in this readied space is for the sudden surge, storm-like, of the Gog alliance attacking and invading Israel.

Why will they do such a thing?  Ezekiel says to loot. Israel is wealthy in our day, especially in comparison to its closest neighbors. It is productive agriculturally, has a strong economy and it is well-stocked with armaments-- certainly a trove worth plundering. Israel's wealth is a recent phenomenon, however, the nation has been considered wealthy by western standards only recently-- like in the last twenty years or so. From the perspective of the alliance I am sure looting is what they think their motivation is, but from God's perspective this is an action he's instigating and it occurs for his purposes.

God will put a hook in Gog's jaw and pull him back and into Israel for judgment, to express his fiery wrath, and to demonstrate his sovereignty over the whole world. In our day, Russia has had troops in Syria since 2015, some within 25 miles of Israeli-occupied Golan. Russians have supposedly been withdrawing from the neighborhood since 2016, but conditions in Ukraine have given added impetus to moving Russian troops and materiel out of Syria since May of 2022. As bad as Russia may need to get out of Syria to deal with issues elsewhere, Ezekiel 38 leads me to believe that God is likely to pull them back in, not stopping in Syria on the rebound but progressing all the way into Israel.

How will God judge the invaders? In several ways, but generally, it seems to me, some sort of volcanic cataclysm is the heart of the matter. Will it synchronize with the sixth seal, which I also see chiefly in volcanic terms? Perhaps, but not necessarily. There is that cryptic half-hour to deal within the Seventh Seal which seems to imply a short break between the Sixth Seal/Rapture and the start of the 70th Week/First Trumpet. Regardless, I do think Ezekiel 39 ends with the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel, as we shall see.

As far as the identifying the judgment as a volcanic cataclysm, all we have to do is consider the description to arrive at that conclusion. There is a great earthquake, landslides, rain, hail, fire and sulfur-- all marks of a volcanic eruption. There is, fortuitously, a volcanic system near enough to propound the possibility: the Levant Volcanic Province. It covers the Hula Valley in northern Israel, sweeps over the Golan Heights with its many cinder cones, and extends down into Jordan. Although considered extinct (e.g. Mts. Avital and Bental are said by geologists to have last erupted 10 kya.) I entertain the notion that what has happened there before could happen again.

Cinder Cones in the Golan

In the chaos and confusion of the described events, presumably, the soldiers of Gog's alliance kill one another. Those not killed by another soldier die from sickness (pestilence), which I assume will be the effect of air fouled by volcanic gases and ash rather than some sort of contagion. This volcanism will occur on a scale large enough to affect the coastlands, likely in Lebanon, which would make this a larger phreatomagmatic eruption than what is witnessed in the geologic evidence in the area.

The end result of all this for the alliance is death. Their weapons end up providing Israel with fuel to burn for seven years (there's a span that rings a bell). Their bodies, exposed to the elements, carrion fowl and critters become the focus of a major effort to bury the bones over the next seven months. A burial site for the dead troops is made east of the sea-- whether that means the Mediterranean or Dead is hard to tell, but it makes sense to me that it would be east of the Dead Sea. The odd skeletal remain will be found occasionally long after the slaughter ends. 

What is the end of all this for Israel, which is, after all, the focus of all end-times prophecy? A spiritual awakening is the obvious answer, but not just a period of revival. To catch the whole impact of this renewal we have to touch base with Daniel 9 and Romans 11.

In the present age after the cutting off of the Messiah at the end of the 69th week of Daniel, Israel was dispersed among the nations. A partial hardening had come upon the Jews from God because of (the implication is) their rejection of Christ and their unwillingness to depend on faith in God's mercy in Christ rather than their status as Jews and their religious works. The history of this age might give the observer the idea that God was done with the Jews, having cast them aside, but this age of partial hardening will only last until God is done with the Gentiles. Once his redemptive objectives have been accomplished with them, God will turn his redemptive attentions back to the Jews and all Israel will be saved.

The word translated “until” in Romans 11:25 always means “up to that time” in the NT. Therefore, this hardening in part that has come upon the Jews will only remain in place up to the time that the fullness (completion, Koine: pleroma) of Gentiles has come in. Then, the partial hardening which has let the Jews stew in their unbelief, allowing only a trickle of Jews to come to Christ, will no longer be in effect. What can that something be that turns the tide and turns hardening into openness? There’s only one thing that convicts people of sin, righteousness and judgment and woos them to faith in Christ, and that’s the Holy Spirit!

If you, like me, have wondered how anyone could be saved during the Great Tribulation if the Holy Spirit (if understood as "he who now restrains") is taken out of the way. The scriptural record is clear that people will reject the Antichrist, his mark and put faith in Christ during the Tribulation, how can they if the Holy Spirit is gone? Now, in my view, it is not the Holy Spirit who is taken out of the way, but the Holy Spirit in and with the Church extant at the time (Rapture), but that doesn't make the situation less impossible.  Who can be saved if the Holy Spirit isn't poured out on the flesh getting saved? 

No one can, but Ezekiel tells us that after the Battle of the Gog Alliance the Holy Spirit IS poured out on Israel. When Daniel was told of the 70 weeks of work that God had left to do with the Jews and Jerusalem before everything was complete, Gentiles were not included, they weren't mentioned, they weren't in view. The 70 weeks are about Jews and God's work with them, not about God's work with Gentiles. 69 of those weeks passed until the cutting off of Messiah, at which point, God cut off (at least partially) the Jews. That means one week remains, one seven year period in which God will finish his work with the Jews and then all Israel will be saved.

So Ezekiel 38 and 39, The Epic of Gog of Magog, is actually the story about what touches off Daniel's 70th week.

The Olivet Discourse: Be Prepared

The paradox of certainty v. uncertainty in regard to Christ's Return has some practical implications for the serious believer. We know with certainty it’s coming, but don’t (and can't) know when, so how should we then live? We're not left without instructions on the subject from Christ in the Olivet Discourse, which, as it happened, served to bring that discourse to an end. So what was the final word on the word about the final? Simply, "be prepared."

In Matthew's account, Christ advises that uncertainty is the fuel of preparation. Because the Son of Man will be coming at a time it doesn't seem like he will, being prepared for his return at any time is the only wise, practical response--a point graphically reiterated in The Parable of the Ten Virgins. Christ spoke of a parabolic homeowner who, if he would have known in what part of the night the thief was coming, would have made sure he was awake to prevent it. Since we cannot know when Christ will return, we should be at least as conscientious as that homeowner (who had a better forecast in regard to the thief than is possible for us in regard to Christ) and be watching rather than sleeping.

Luke presents the most general application of all three accounts: pay attention (Koine: prosexete) reflexively to how you are living. We are not to live weighed down by the worries of ordinary life, especially, I would say, if drunkenness (or even just "buzziness") is the means of doing so. It is not a burden to live in Christ, but it is a burden to live for this world, and it lulls us to sleep in regards to spiritual truth. The only way to gain the upper hand, and not be trapped suddenly in the tribulation ("these things") to come, is to stay awake and pray that we can gain that upper hand.

Matthew and Mark, although different as to specifics, both use a similar parabolic example (cf. Luke 12:35-46) to get this message of practical import across. The thought is that we should take Christ seriously as Master over us and be doing what he told us to be doing when he gets back. Since we do not know when that may be, reason dictates that we always be doing what he asked. It appears the best preparation for the end of the age is to be obeying Christ as a lifestyle.

So what are you doing?

The Olivet Discourse: No One Knows

All three accounts of Olivet Discourse issue warnings to be watchful in light of what Jesus prophesied concerning his return. I think this has led some to the faulty conclusion that the events foreseen would have been expected very soon by his original audience. I've already stated in other posts on this discourse that the signs mentioned were impossible to cram into a short time frame, so I won't repeat my reasoning here about that. Suffice it to say that Jesus' warning was not meant to convey urgency so much as it was meant to convey uncertainty.

No one knows when, exactly, Christ's return will occur. The phrase "day and hour" is specific enough to mean that the particular moment the event occurs is in view rather than a period of time within which it occurs; however, considerations about the suddenness of the event discussed below mean that the ultimate end cannot be what's in view either. We are told that angels do not know at which moment it will occur (I suppose that means the Devil doesn't either) and even the Son doesn't know. If only the Father knows, and the Son does not, that means there is no way for anyone to know--there is no way to figure it out and no revelation could be expected which would specify it.

No one knows, no one can know!

Yet, the crowd which has tried to figure it out or reveal it outright continues to grow (including Wm. Miller of the 7th Day Adventists, Chas. Taze Russell of JW’s, Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God, Edgar Whisenant, author of 88 Reasons, and Harold Camping of Family Radio, among others). Really, I don't know how much clearer Christ could have been on the subject. Those that pursue such a course have, minimally, fallen into error, and possibly, purposely, taken on the mantle of false prophet. May such folly cease to gain traction among the faithful!

Matthew (cf. Luke 17:22-37) tells us the time immediately prior to the return of Christ will be like the days of Noah before The Flood. Then, normal life (eating, drinking, marrying, farming, milling) proceeded right up to the moment sudden destruction came upon the world unaware. Despite Noah's preaching of righteousness and witnessing the construction of the ark, life prior to the flood was similar enough to what it had always been to lull his listeners into inattention. That, I believe, is the key point Christ was making--there was nothing about life as experienced by the masses prior to global judgment that signified that wrath was about to be poured out.

However, that point comes on the heels of Jesus elucidating very clear, noticeable, presaging signs that signified the end was near. How can these two points be compatible? They cannot be, if what Christ was referring to in this sudden ark-like deliverance from judgment at the end was to occur after the Abomination of Desolation (and all that goes with it). The only way the suddenness in the midst of regularity indicated by the description makes sense is if Jesus was not talking about the the ultimate end, but was referring to a period of judgment that started with that deliverance and finished with the ultimate end. This would be akin to the flood starting with Noah's family embarking on the ark, proceeding with a lengthy rain, and ending a year later with floodwaters receding and Noah's family disembarking.

In the example of Noah the judged were carried away by floodwaters, which was certainly passive for them, but was for God too, in the sense that it was indirect, through the agency of water. Noah, on the other hand, was personally, actively protected by God, who shut him in. There is a subtlety in the language of Matthew that could be seen to call upon the same dynamic. The word (paralambanetai) used to convey the action involved in taking the one in the field and at the mill has a range of meaning that allows it to be used for more personal, tender actions (like taking a bride) than either the word used of the floodwaters' action (eren) or for the ones left (aphietai) in the field or at the mill.

So, what is pictured is a cataclysm much worse than a mere 40 days of rain and a year of flood (i.e. 7 years of Great Tribulation) coming upon all on the earth at the end of the age. Some, like Noah in his day, will be actively removed from danger and taken by the hand of God (snatched or raptured), which fits quite well with Luke's "escape" (Koine: ekphrygien, to flee out from) and is pictured by the Parable of the Ten Virgins. Some will be left to their fate, carried off by the judgment overwhelming the whole earth as prophesied by Christ who will return at the end of it. The threshold the faithful need to cross is being ready for that Noachian escape popularly called The Rapture which comes suddenly, unknowably, but certainly in the course of everyday life.

The Olivet Discourse: The Fig Tree Parable

The synoptic gospels are virtually identical in their accounts of the Parable of the Fig Tree within the Olivet Discourse. Whereas Luke specifically identifies the segment as a parable, the other accounts merely communicate its substance without a label. As in the case of many of the biblical parables, fanciful interpretations have arisen throughout history as to what are the "true" meaning of "symbols" within the parable. Therefore, it is vitally important to understand what parables are and are not in order to interpret this type of figure reasonably and to not veer off into the tall weeds.

Parables are merely analogies or comparisons--one thing, perhaps unknown or not fully understood, is likened, indirectly, to another that is readily known or understood. Parables are NOT allegories: each item in a parable is NOT meant to be symbolic of some other item in reality or to symbolically represent its action. Parables are really more akin to metaphors than to allegories in regard to their use of imagery. The conclusion or moral that can be drawn from the overall story of the parable, and thus teach a lesson, is the aim of using it.

As for the fig tree parable itself, two hermeneutic considerations need to be taken into account when interpreting it.

First, it is not really symbolic at all! It is a parable and is not reliant on meanings hidden in symbols. The audience knew figs, there were figs on the Mount of Olives where this discourse was being made (as well as olives), and so Jesus spoke about figs. When figs wake up from the winter and put out leaves, it is a sure sign that summer is around the corner. We could say the same thing using trees we know about in our neck of the woods and make the same point Jesus was trying to make, and make it just as well.

Second, Israel has never been symbolized anywhere in scripture as a fig tree, and it wasn't being symbolized as such in this parable. Making a fig tree represent Israel is beyond a stretch anywhere it is attempted, and it is not remotely hinted at, let alone obviously intended, by the language of this parable. To do so is bad interpretation, plain and simple. The fig tree is merely the means to communicate the concept of predictability in sequence from a known event to another related event: if one step of the progression occurs, you know with certainty the next step is about to happen.

Jesus said that when all (Matthew; Koine: panta) these things (Matthew, Mark and Luke; Koine: tauta) were seen (i.e., experienced), then we would know we were at the very end. Those things were all the things, each and every one of them (the force of tauta), detailed in the prior verses. When that condition exists, then the Son of Man bursting through the skies is at the door.  The intent is to keep folk from jumping the gun and anticipating the return of Christ before all of these things had come to pass--an especially helpful point considering the length of time envisaged in giving the signs in the first place.

The generation (Koine: genea, all those alive over a particular span) referenced has nothing to do with any symbolic meaning attached to the fig tree, since there isn't any. The point being made was that at least some of those who saw the Abomination of Desolation and its outcome ("all these things") would see the end as well. Clearly, the use of "generation" was not referring to the initial hearers of the Discourse such a long time ago, for the implicit scope of elapsed time within the signs given throughout the Discourse would have made their lifetimes an unlikely frame for fulfillment. So the use of "generation" was a way to push the scale of fulfillment off to a period in the future when the Abomination actually occurred and to offer hope to those believers who would be living through it.

The heavens and earth may seem like bastions of enduring reliability, but Christ's words are so established as to be more certain than even the existence of the creation itself, and especially so in regard to the end of the age.

The Olivet Discourse: The Trumpet Blast

In their accounting of the Olivet Discourse Matthew and Mark describe, briefly, the gathering of the saints by Christ at the end of age. Luke, however, is silent on the subject. I've written elsewhere about how this gathering relates to the timing of the Rapture of the Church, so I won't touch upon those considerations here. Suffice it to say, the discourse merely states that the ultimate gathering of the elect will happen at the end of the Tribulation, and gives us some sense of how.

Specifically, the Son of Man will send angels to assemble the saints from everywhere in heaven and earth. The bifurcation in the description is important: one aspect of the gathering is earthly, the other aspect heavenly. The expression, "from the four winds" refers to the four compass directions and entails every place on earth; "from one end of heaven to the other" refers to the realms beyond the skies and is heavenly. We would have to assume that at least the dead in Christ were part of the heavenly group, but there is no textual reason why it wouldn't or couldn't include the already raptured.

Those gathering angels are sent with a trumpet call, which might lead the inquiring reader to ask, "Exactly which trumpet blast might that be?" A succession of seven trumpet calls are mentioned in Revelation but none of them are associated with the gathering of the saints. I do not believe they are what is referenced by Christ in the Olivet Discourse. A last trump is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:52, and is definitely associated with the Rapture, but I don't believe that it is associated with the seven trumpets of Revelation either.

The seventh trumpet of the Apocalypse leads to more tribulation (i.e, the seven bowls) rather than the Return of Christ after tribulation is finished. The seven trumpets are not referenced anywhere else in scripture (even though modeled in a sense at Jericho), and I do not think the Apostle Paul would have even known of them when writing to the Corinthians in 55 CE (at the latest). John wrote the Apocalypse in 95 CE, and I doubt the Apostle Paul had the same type of revelation or awareness of detail as John would have prior to him receiving his vision on Patmos. There is just no good reason to associate the last trump of 1 Corinthians with the seven visionary trumpets of Revelation.

Last (Koine: esxate, meaning final, extreme) certainly implies more than one, but if it's not referring to the series of seven in the Apocalypse, then what is it referring to? Perhaps Israel's mandate to use trumpets during the exodus can provide some insight.

A long trumpet blast, not followed by another, in other words, the last signal trump sounded meant all Israel was to gather. It seems reasonable to me that Paul could have had this in mind when writing to the Corinthians (or even that a succession trumpet blasts were signaled when they set out by camp, the last signaling that all Israel was on the move). If so, then Paul was merely relying upon that imagery in conjunction with the word "last" to get across the sense of totality and finality in God's people moving into their eternal state, rather than connecting this to any series of trumpet blasts.

So, at the end of this age, immediately after the Great Tribulation, there will be an actual trumpet blast, unconnected to the seven visionary blasts of the Apocalypse, which signals the final ingathering of the saints in heaven and on earth to be with Christ. All the faithful dead will have been raised at that time, and those alive and remaining will have been changed. That doesn't mean that some of either category won't have been raised or changed before, only that all those that will be will have been so at that particular time.

The Olivet Discourse: The Return of Christ

According to all three accounts of the Olivet Discourse, the coming of the Son of Man will be unmistakable. If something is the sort of thing that could leave one speculating, “I wonder if that was it?” whatever it was, it isn’t the it we were looking for. So many groups (e.g. the Moonies, JW’s, Branch Davidians, among others) could have been spared much of their folly if they’d only taken this word to heart. Nothing about Jesus' actual return will be subtle, and it will not leave intact the course of ordinary living that had been the norm up to the time of its occurrence.

Matthew describes this lack of subtlety as having the quality of lightning flashing across the whole sky. The point is emphasized and clarified by the reference to vultures gathered at a corpse. The point is that when the sign has fully occurred (i.e. the Great Tribulation, which is akin to the corpse) that Christ's return is there on the spot like the vultures gathered in the metaphor. So, there is nothing doubtful about whether or not it will occur, or when the time comes, that is has occurred, anywhere here on earth.

Matthew tells us that Christ's return will happen "immediately" (Koine: eutheos, at once) after the distress of those days, that is the Great Tribulation. The sense of urgency entailed cannot be overlooked, so the return of Christ will come on the heels of the Tribulation without any protracted delay. I envision this as happening right after the outpouring of the seventh bowl at the end of the 70 Weeks. In other words, the seventh bowl of wrath serves as the last bit of the Great Tribulation and ushers in the return of Christ.

All three accounts reference astonishing astronomical events in conjunction with the powers in the heavens being shaken. Luke does not mention them in sequential terms (i.e, as following the Great Tribulation as do Matthew and Mark), but his generality cannot be seen to dismiss the specificity of the other two. Matthew, uniquely, refers to the sign of the Son of Man appearing in the heavens before his coming in the clouds. That sign is never described by Matthew, never mentioned by Mark or Luke, so suffice it to say, it's something we don't need to understand in any depth to know that Jesus is coming back in the clouds (and in the same fashion as he ascended).

Furthermore, we are told that the tribes of earth will mourn at the sign, whatever it might be. Mourn, in this instance, means to bereave the loss or cutting off of something or someone. This is not regret or repentance, this is the agony of defeat (see 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). At this sign, the Gentiles (tribes) alive at that time finally recognize that they are cut off—that they backed the wrong horse and face nothing but judgment ahead. The blinders come off, the delusion dissipates, and they will see, finally, the truth about Christ with their own eyes, but without faith.

It is infinitely better to see that truth, now, by faith but without sight.

The Olivet Discourse: The Secret Rapture

Some look at the description of Christ's return within the Olivet Discourse and jump to the conclusion that the secret (i.e. pre-tribulational) Rapture of the church is an unscriptural teaching. The sudden catching away of the church prior to the Tribulation and the ascendancy of the Antichrist seems to fly in the face of the text, which plainly states that the return of Christ and the rescue of his saints occurs at he end of the Tribulation. I don't blame folks for holding this position, in fact, I thought this way myself in my early days as a Christian. 

What changed my mind was a "Eureka!" moment while poring over Revelation 12 (see this). When I understood the imagery in that passage, it was as if I'd been given a key that unlocked everything else the Bible said about eschatology. Suddenly, just about everything fell into place, including the Olivet Discourse. As it did, I no longer disdained the Secret Rapture teaching, but found myself, to my surprise, accepting it and thereafter promoting it.

The mechanics of Jesus' return as detailed in the Olivet Discourse are the same regardless of which approach to the Rapture one takes. Astronomical wonders and some uniquely associative heavenly sign immediately precede the visible return of Christ through the clouds. The series of events will be absolutely unmistakable and inescapable, like lightning illumining the whole sky. As he comes through the clouds, he will gather his saints together from the four winds (all over earth) and from one end of heaven to the other.

Pre-tribbers and mid-tribbers assume at least some saints were already in heaven (i.e., raptured, not just the dead in Christ) when Jesus finally arrives on earth. The text explicitly states that he gathers his saints from from all over the heavens so that is certainly a valid perspective. How those on the earth are gathered is not intimated, it is only said that they are gathered in the lot. I see nothing in the text which implies that those on the earth are quickly whisked up into the air just to experience a meteoric descent back to earth immediately afterwards with Jesus.

Post-tribbers have to assume that very thing, the sequence as follows: Christ appears in the heavens, gathers the saints from heaven (the dead in Christ) and earth (those alive and remaining) in the air (necessitated by 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) and then immediately returns to earth with them in tow.

Among other issues with that scenario, it does not jive with Revelation 19:19-20:5. That text clearly states that there are saints who did not take the mark of the Beast and that are raised from the dead (raptured, for all intents and purposes) in isolation from the rest of the dead. The passages that deal directly with the faithful dead being raised or raptured (1 Corinthians 15:50-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) clearly state that all the faithful dead at the time of the Rapture rise together. Therefore, the unmarked saints from the Tribulation cannot be part of the faithful dead at the time of the Rapture. 

The only way the math works out is for those unmarked, Tribulation saints to die after the Rapture has occurred.

If those Tribulation saints must die during the Tribulation but after the Rapture, the post-tribulation perspective is untenable. The mid-tribulation perspective is not eliminated, not at least by the passage mentioned above. It does have issues with what follows in the Olivet Discourse (see this), however.  It seems the escape of the Rapture, at least for the broadest measure of the Church, must happen suddenly in the midst of ordinary life, and hence pre-tribulationally, according to the scriptures. 

I must admit my approach to the Rapture in the Olivet Discourse is not a slam dunk. The language Jesus used in these passages is ambivalent enough for anyone so determined to justify in their own mind seeing these passages in another light. I do believe my approach to the Revelation and Daniel is more than solid and that everything else fits together within my interpretative schema, whereas nothing does under a mid- or post-tribulational regimen. If either of those approaches are right, no worries, bad things will happen to awake the slumbering before Christ returns, and they won't be caught with their pants down. 

If my approach is right, we need to be ready now.

The Olivet Discourse: Great Tribulation

The synoptic versions of the Olivet Discourse vary widely in the section dealing with the Great Tribulation. There are commonalities in elements of the narrative, but the phrasing is variant and details differ. All, however, picture a very difficult time which has a start and a finish, and which will challenge the Jews alive at that time even while the entire earth experiences tremendous stress. All three accounts segue into the return of Christ at the end of said tribulation.

Matthew and Mark both describe, almost verbatim, distress (Koine: thlipsis--pressure, and the internal stress that results) unique in that it was never equaled before nor will it be equaled after. So, the envisioned tribulation will surpass Noah’s flood according to this description, and that wiped out just about everything and everyone. Anything globally significant before WWII and the Holocaust, as well as those occurrences themselves, will also be surpassed on the same basis. The siege of Jerusalem in 66-70 CE isn't even in the ballpark by such a description--not in terms of severity, or scope, let alone in fulfilling cited prophecy.

Though Luke describes the circumstance by a different word (ananke), it's meaning (distress caused by external conditions) is roughly equivalent. Luke and Matthew do agree on describing that distress as great (megale). Although many events experienced in history up to the present could be described as great, nothing matches the depth and breadth of some of the events described in the Apocalypse. It seems to me that Jesus was referring to that unique level of things when he described the coming tribulation.

For the sake of the elect, the days of this tribulation are curtailed, which may explain the day variation of Daniel 12:11-12. Who might these elect be? Generally, the word signifies the chosen of God, and from the context, it can be assumed that the reference here includes Jews in Judea and Jerusalem looking for the Messiah. If others were meant to be encompassed by the term, we're certainly not told that in this discourse. Regardless, it's comforting to know that God has an agenda concerning time which has the aim of ending time without ending the elect.

Those aching to see the Messiah return, especially in the midst of such severe stress, could be susceptible to counterfeits. However, when Christ returns he won’t be slipping into town quietly, in a fashion that could be missed--not even by those not anticipating his return. Anything less than a cosmic, earth shaking event can't be the Messiah's return. Thankfully, it will not possible for the elect to be duped, which I suspect will owe much to the ministry of the Two Witnesses mentioned in Revelation 11:1-13.

The Olivet Discourse: Pregnant Refugees

A common feature of all three accounts of the Olivet Discourse is the pronouncement of woe upon the pregnant and nursing. It is situated in about the same place in the unfolding story in Matthew and Mark, but is located in a slightly different place in Luke. It doesn't appear to be a different detail, so can it be used to "align" all three accounts? I think that it could, but if it is, it removes any possibility at all that the Lucan account was referring to events foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

If the woe is the same woe in all three accounts, then Matthew and Mark's reference to the gospel being preached to all nations is a detail skipped over by Luke. The surrounding of Jerusalem and its desolation mentioned by Luke is just a different way of saying "the abomination of desolation" as stated by Matthew and Mark. Even though the Lucan description of this section would fit the events of 66-70 CE, the phrase "all that is written will be fulfilled" doesn't fit at all with 70 CE. Considering that at our late date all that is written still hasn't been fulfilled makes that especially so!

The only way to keep the preterist hope alive, therefore, is to see the woe on the pregnant and nursing as referring to two distinct occurrences of such a plight. Otherwise, the language of the end which dictates the interpretation of Matthew and Mark, would carry for Luke's account as well. The dual fulfillment of things like the "Abomination of Desolation" (seemingly fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes, yet used by Christ to refer to something yet undone) perhaps allows for such an approach, but I think it strains credulity to apply it to the pregnant refugees.

So in the end, I must dismiss it, and with it, the preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

The Olivet Discourse: Abomination of Desolation Part II

Primarily, there are two things occurring in regard to the Abomination of Daniel referenced by Christ in the Olivet Discourse: suppression and replacement. The normal activities in the Temple have to be stopped, and other ones, unclean ones, have to take their place. Antiochus models that, but doesn't fulfill it, the Romans did one but not the other. What does fit the bill, for both Daniel and the Olivet Discourse, is described in Revelation 13:14-15, even though its location is merely implied by Revelation 13:5-6 (see Daniel 9:27) rather than specified.

Since Jesus did command the reader of Daniel's prophecy to understand, particularly as it relates to the end Jesus is prophesying, the Abomination of Desolation at the end of the age spoken of by Daniel was clearly meant to be understood. Oh, it may take some consideration, some thought (which is the burden of the Koine "noeito" which is translated "understand"), but it was certainly meant to be understood. I think that principle of perspicuity holds for all end-time prophesy. Without a doubt, such prophecy becomes clearer the closer we get to its fulfillment (Daniel 12:9-10).

The elephant in the room in all this unpacking is that the Abomination of Desolation presumes a place that can be abominably desolated. I think I have well established that the destruction of that location in 70 CE was not part of its ultimate desolation as envisioned by Daniel and Jesus and which still awaits. That can only mean that at sometime, the holy place must be rebuilt according to biblical standards and prepared for the offering of holy sacrifices once again. Make no mistake about it, the Temple will be rebuilt, it must be in order to fulfill that spoken by the prophet and by the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

At some point after the Temple is in place, the Abomination will be stood up, and those in Judea at that time are told to hit the pike; however, they are not directed to a location in the Olivet Discourse, or in Revelation 12, or anywhere in Daniel. Though Petra is often offered as a possibility by commentators, that is sheer speculation without so much as a shred of definitive biblical proof. At best, we can say that the refugees will probably run into the desert more than a Sabbath Day’s journey (~ ¾ of a mile) to a place where God will take care of them for 1260 days (3 ½ years). What is certain is that they are in hiding after their flight and are not to let anything (like purported sightings of the Messiah, even if evidenced by great miracles) draw them out.

That these refugees are believing Jews is easy enough to deduce: they are in Judea; they are sabbath keepers; they are actively looking for the Messiah. Furthermore, they must be those that would be mindful of the words of Jesus or this section of the discourse, which counsels them, would be fruitless. God's word never goes out void, so it seems to me, that some of those Jews, maybe a lot of those Jews, maybe even all of those Jews would be Messianic. It is easy enough to put together the pieces and see that the Abomination of Desolation will occur after Jews have rebuilt the Temple, and that many of them have turned to Jesus as Messiah.

The Olivet Discourse: Abomination of Desolation Part I

There is a difference between the Synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse concerning the sign of desolation. Matthew and Mark are similar in specifically citing Daniel’s Abomination of Desolation, whereas Luke merely mentions a desolation which comes on the heels of armies surrounding Jerusalem. By the hermeneutic cited elsewhere, the Lucan description cannot be taken to undercut the specification made in Matthew and Mark. So, whereas the Lucan description could be made to serve a preterist interpretation, Matthew, Mark and the actual passage referenced from Daniel strictly forbid it, so it cannot be valid.

Jesus understood Daniel's prophesy as being unfulfilled in his day. Though he would have been well-familiar with Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees, he treated Daniel’s words as not yet having been fulfilled. Therefore, the abomination Daniel was speaking about was not accomplished (at least with any finality) by Antiochus placing an idol of Zeus in the Temple and sacrificing a pig on the Jewish altar. It certainly seems to be a picture of things to come, but it wasn’t the intended, ultimate fulfillment.

Furthermore, Daniel specifically says that the abomination comes midway through a covenantal arrangement with, presumably, the pompous little horn. There was no such instrument with Antiochus Epiphanes, nor was there any with the Romans in the 60's. So Daniel was not referring to Antiochus when prophesying this, and Jesus did not envision Titus (Emperor Vespasian/General Titus) when citing it. What Daniel spoke of is not an incursion and destruction (as in the case of the Romans), but a cessation of proper sacrifice and a substitution of detestable (unclean) things.

“Wing” (Hebrew: kanaph=wing, covering), as is translated in some English versions, in this part of Daniel is nonsensical, though wing is often a perfectly good translation when this word is used. Its range of meaning extends from edge or corner to covering, and it is the latter that makes sense in this context. Besides, for “wing” to be intended, translators (e.g. NIV following the LXX and Theodotion) must add the phrase “of the Temple” which is not in the Hebrew at all—not even a hint! The Abomination does cover or overspread the Temple, figuratively, which makes perfect sense in light of Revelation 13:15.

Jesus said that the abomination will stand in the holy space. In Rome’s destruction (really, obliteration) of Jerusalem nothing stood--literally, the Romans threw everything down and stood up nothing. That kind of destruction was actually prophesied by Daniel (9:26) as having already occurred when the Abomination takes place, really, as something parenthetical to the cutting off of the Messiah. So Rome's destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE is prophesied by Daniel, just not as part of the Abomination of Desolation.

The Olivet Discourse: Dispensationalism

There is, in my view, an unmistakable dispensational quality in what the scriptures say about the last days (see this, this, and this). Gentiles are on one schedule for redemption, whereas Jews are on another. Don't take that to mean that I see a way to God other than Jesus Christ, I do not! Everyone who is ultimately saved will be so because he or she recognized Jesus as the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose from the dead, and therefore put all his or her hope in him.

God merely has one agenda for bringing that salvation in Christ to the Gentiles, and another for bringing that same salvation to the Jews.

In the Olivet Discourse, this reality can be seen in what Jesus prophesied concerning the Abomination of Desolation. Notice how the context changes at the introduction of that sign in Matthew (it is more subtle in Mark and Luke but still discernible). Earlier in the discourse the emphasis was on the nations (Gentiles), but once the subject of the Abomination is broached, the emphasis shifts to the Jews. That change, it seems to me, is clear enough to be obvious and yet its import can be easily missed.

Notice, specifically, how instructions given to those who see the Abomination are given to those in Judea and to sabbath observers. The Jewishness of such a designation can scarcely be overlooked. Furthermore, tribulation is curtailed and relief provided for the elect, but that action is marked by the sign of the Son of Man which causes the tribes (phulai) of earth to mourn. That distinction contrasts the Jewishness of the sufferers against the "Gentileness" of the mourners.

If we consider the original context in Daniel for this sign, it becomes very clear that the Abomination of Desolation (and thus the Tribulation signified by it) is part of God's redemptive plan for the Jews. Nothing is offered to the Gentiles by it but mourning due to their unbelief. As for all those Gentiles who did believe in the gospel, they are not addressed, nor even mentioned. The inference, therefore, is that they're not around until they are gathered from one end of heaven to the other when Christ returns!

The Tribulation, redemptively, is for the Jews and Jerusalem. It brings nothing but wrath and the portent of ultimate judgment to the Gentiles who experience it. Believing Gentiles will be off the scene at that time and not return until after it is over. There is one redemptive track in history for the Gentiles, and another for the Jews.

The Olivet Discourse: The End

The synoptic accounts introduce the actual ending sign in the Olivet Discourse differently from one another. Matthew gives us a detail that Mark and Luke do not mention. Mark and Luke merely mention enduring to the end to be saved (as does Matthew just before its unique statement), whereas Matthew further states that the Great Commission will be completed, "and then the end will come." A break that can only be inferred in Mark and Luke is thereby clearly delineated in Matthew.

So, let's review the schema of the Olivet Discourse as I've interpreted it.

The Discourse is Jesus' answer to the question, "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?” In the early segments of his answer, Jesus reveals two general signs which lead up to the end:

1) Birth pangs of false Christs, wars, famines, earthquakes, persecutions, falling away, false prophets and lawlessness occurring throughout the age. Like birth pangs they will increase in frequency and intensity through the age. My interpretation of the seals of the Revelation being mostly historical fits in quite well with this description--once a seal has been broken, it's effects continue throughout the age; and

2) The Gospel being preached to the entirety of the world. This effort began at the Day of Pentecost and has moved forward throughout the age (note my interpretation of the First Seal). Regardless of whether progress is assessed by every ethnic group being reached or by every habitable place having a witness, the sign that we are not at the end yet is the continuing effort to complete the Great Commission. Once it has been accomplished, the end is here!

The break between the signs leading up the end and the end itself is communicated by the phrase: "then [tote, again] the end will come." The end, in this case, is not a hard stop like a period in punctuation, but is more like a period in history. The end is actually a finite span over which the very last things will occur. What the breaks tells us is that final period will not begin until the Gospel has been preached everywhere.

What occurs during that final period which is the end? Daniel's 70th Week is what is indicated by the reference to Daniel's Abomination. Therefore, what is actually outlined in the Olivet Discourse is a Labor Period followed by a Delivery Period which culminates in the Return of Christ. The Labor Period is long and drawn out, and has been going for almost 2000 years. The Delivery Period has not begun yet (since the Great Commission has not been accomplished yet), but once it does it will last only seven years, and finish with Christ in Jerusalem ruling and reigning here on earth.

The Olivet Discourse: Persecution and Its Effects

The three accounts of the Olivet Discourse seem to have different takes on the persecution that is mentioned as a sign by Jesus (Matthew, Mark and Luke). After using birth pangs to metaphorically describe the progression of signs, Matthew's account has Jesus saying that "then" (Koine: tote) persecution will occur. Whereas Mark's account does not describe the persecution in terms of sequence in relation to the rest of the action, Luke's account has the persecution occurring before (pro) the birth pang signs. Is persecution, and all that is associated with it, to occur before or after the birth pangs?

The force of the "then" in Matthew's account is "at that time," rather than "afterwards"; therefore, Matthew is locating the beginning of persecution at the time of the things that had been mentioned before. Mark seems to be addressing the persecution as if it was occurring within the stream of events mentioned previously (false Christs, wars, earthquakes, famines, etc). Luke places the persecution as occuring before (at least) the terrors and the signs in the heavens (v. 11). So, there isn't really any difference, after all.

We are told that believers will be handed over (betrayed would be the implication from Mark 13:12 and Luke 21:16) to be afflicted (persecuted, as in NIV, is not as precise), and killed. Luke specifically (v.12) places this as occurring very early in the scheme of things, and in doing so, certainly emphasizes early Jewish opposition to Christianity (note: synagogues). However, that cannot be the exclusive scope of the persecution since kings and governors (plural) are also mentioned in the same phrase. Mark and Matthew are less specific, implying that persecution will be the case near the end or even throughout the period in question.

We are also told that believers will be hated (Matthew 24:9). The word refers to moral choice, i.e., picking one above others, and is the same word used to convey the same thought in Luke 14:26. The notion is that the world will like everything better than it likes Christians. This will be the case globally, in all nations. It serves as an interesting counterpoint to the gospel being preached in all nations (v 14).

Packed into the reference to “all nations” is a broad sense of elapsing time; for how long does it take to be hated in each and every one of the cultural/linguistic groups (Koine: "panton ton ethnon")? One has to become known to each and every one in order to be detested in each and every one. Therefore, to see this discourse merely in terms of Rome in the first century is a mistake. When this was written, there were boundaries and there were barbarians--it was known and understood that Rome did not include all of them. 

At that time (tote, again) many will fall (into a snare), which implies not so much apostasy as it does deceit, which is reinforced by the mention of false prophets. Associated with this fall is their betrayal (handing over) and detesting of one another. So, false prophets will arise and cause many believers to stray resulting in internecine detestation and betrayal. Anything in any age which foments hatred toward brothers or sisters in Christ is false absolutely, it's source will always prove to be devilish rather than from God. Listening to it will turn the persecuted into persecutors!

Through the multiplication of lawlessness or a lack of restraint (wickedness is not a good translation), love will be made cold. The voice of the verb is passive, and so refers to action that is being done unto the subject or is arising from the action of another. Therefore, the chilling believers referenced are not volitionally active, their love does not grow cold by choice, but chills as an effect of being exposed to the multiplication of lawlessness. The wear and tear of exposure to lawlessness is insidious and lethal.

What is shocking to me in all this is the use of the word “many” (Koine: polus). It refers to a whole bunch, to a great number. Jesus was saying that things will progress at the time in question in such a lawless fashion that the occurrence itself chills the love (agape) of many or most! It is possible, maybe even probable, for believers to fall into despair and lose hope in the face of lawlessness and to end up hating the lawless. What happens to the Great Commission, and Christlikeness, in such a circumstance?

Given such a description, one has to wonder if Jesus will find faith when he returns? Life lived in this age leading up to the coming of Christ will be an assault on our faith. There is a challenge to meet, there is an occasion to rise to, there is something to be proven, and it won't be done for us. But the one who bears under the assault to the end will be saved! 

According to the Olivet Discourse, then, persecution of those bearing the name of Christ will start in the midst of the signs stated in the first third of the address and will proceed until the end of the age. We know the entire span of the age is envisioned because disciples cannot be hated by all nations until all nations have been confronted by the gospel, and because we are told that those who endure to the end will be saved. Being hated is something all true Christians ought to anticipate throughout all time and everywhere, but when it comes our way, we can't let it turn us into a hater in response.

The Olivet Discourse: When Is the Answer

I have stated that the question which Jesus was actually responding to in the Olivet Discourse was: "What would be the sign of his coming and the end of the age?" The entire address is taken up with his response to that and the question about the destruction of Temple was entirely ignored. That may seem hard to swallow, but as I will demonstrate, it does produce a coherent, consistent interpretation of the whole discourse. Regardless, however one may interpret this passage, to be on the mark, that interpretation must end up with Jesus back here in a new age--anything else misses the point.

Although it seems out of place in the setting, Jesus was not speaking only to those who were with him, but also to all of us who would come later in time and hear his answer through the transmission of its witnesses. This is revealed by the breadth of his answer. John was the only one of that bunch that lived more than another 50 years (at least according to tradition), and the scope of Jesus' answer is actually much longer than that when it’s carefully examined. In fact, it is so broad that we are encompassed within its detail today, and in a very real sense, those that were hearing him were stand-ins for all of us.

Jesus described that scope (v. 4-8) as encompassing wars, famines, earthquakes and false Messiahs (all in the plural). However, Jesus stated that such, even in the plural, would not be a reason for any eschatological alarms to be sounded. The end was not yet, even after a multiplication of such things. In his account, Luke adds pestilence, terrors and signs in the heavens to the mix, all in the plural as well. We have been seeing these things throughout history, and are still seeing those things today, yet they still should not be alarming because they're not the telling sign of the end of the age.

Furthermore, the occurrences of these signs are represented as akin to the progression of labor, but just the beginning of it (v. 8). Labor starts slowly and builds in a cyclical pattern of increasing intensity, and culminates in a grand conclusion. The process can be quite lengthy, a few hours if one is lucky, over a day if not. A proper reading of these signs must incorporate a lengthy process (i.e, labor) of repetitively building events (wars, famines, earthquakes, false messiahs) that themselves take a lengthy time to develop, and that's just the start. Clearly, Jesus envisioned a very a long time in his answer.

He also spoke of false prophets arising and leading many astray (v. 11). History has seen its share of those, although it seems to me, the most significant (e.g., Muhammed, Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell) arose long after the Temple was destroyed. If the termination of the prophesy is the end of the age and Jesus' return, these false prophets, as well as historical false messiahs, such as Bar Kochba, Menachem Schneerson, and even Sun Myung Moon would have been in view by Jesus as he spoke about such, such a long time ago.

In these issues alone, I have already demonstrated the difficulty of compressing all of these signs into the short span of time before 70 CE, but let us remember that the terminus of the prophetic answer was the end of age and Jesus' return. This is certainly reinforced by Jesus tying the fulfillment of the Great Commission (v.14) to his answer. Even now, we're only just reaching the point where this sign is even remotely fulfilled and the end will not come before it is accomplished. Preterism, it seems clear to me, is a non-starter in interpreting Matthew 24.

Jesus also referenced the desolation mentioned by Daniel (v. 15) as a sign. At the time Jesus spoke this, Antiochus and the Maccabees were a well-known and understood aspect of history, and yet Jesus spoke of Daniel's desolation as happening in the future. As Jesus would have used the term, it referred to an idol being placed in the Temple and the altar being desecrated. Jesus was saying that Antiochus' actions were not the ultimate fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy, but that it would be fulfilled as the most salient sign of the imminent end of the age.

History tells us that Rome's actions at the Temple in 70 CE were not the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy either, because they do not fit the bill. Whereas the Romans burned the place, killed its defenders on its grounds and dismantled it, they did not set up Daniel’s desolation. Hadrian's efforts in 130 CE to put a Roman face on a formerly Jewish city weren't even close to fulfilling Jesus' reference to Daniel, and nothing has occurred throughout the rest of history that is even remotely similar to Daniel's description. That means that the Abomination of Desolation, as cited by Christ, is something yet to happen.

It is common among naysayers, and preterists too, to say that Jesus and his first followers anticipated the end occurring quickly, within their lifetimes at most. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE, and they see that event as the scope of the Olivet Discourse. Preterists see it as fulfilled, the unbelieving see it as reportage after the fact, but either way, the events of 70 CE don’t line up with the facts as Jesus stated them. Neither viewpoint can be true!

What is true is that the Gospel has not yet to be proclaimed to all nations, the desolation spoken of by Daniel has not yet occurred, and Jesus has not yet appeared. So the age has not ended and this prophetic discourse, therefore, is still in force.

The Olivet Discourse: What Was the Question?

The Olivet Discourse appears in all three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) but all three accounts are slightly different from one another. As a result, hermeneutical issues become paramount in harmonizing the differences and developing a consistent, noncontradictory interpretation of any of the three. Doctrinal presuppositions are key: two of which, supersessionism (the belief that the church has replaced Israel as God’s people and the holders of promise) and preterism (the belief that biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled), ensure that one will never make heads nor tails out of this or any other eschatological prophesy in the Bible. Those that hold both or either viewpoint can never take the word for what it says, and therefore are clueless when comes to understanding those things which will come to pass in the very last days.

I hold to neither doctrine and think I can help you make sense of this.

So what accounts for the differences in the accounts? Well, even though the subject of the discourse is prophetic, its recording is historical. In other words, this was not written down under prophetic inspiration by Jesus, but was inspired to be written down as a testimonial narrative by those who heard him (or by those that heard from those that heard him). As in the case of any event witnessed by different people, the individuals involved will be subjectively attentive to and impressed by different details and aspects of what objectively took place. These differences do not reflect error, contradiction or unreliability, but merely the individual perspective of the witnesses involved. God uses the individual’s experience, memory and communication skills to disperse reliable truth.

When parallel passages differ in level of detail reported, the one which reports finer detail is correct in that detail. The more general passage is not wrong, it just didn’t visit that detail to the same depth or at all. This is particularly seen in the disciples’ question to Jesus (Matt 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7). Mark and Luke are about the same, whereas Matthew is very different. Matthew captures the gist of the question as put forth in Mark and Luke, but adds the significant detail, “and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?” That detail is what makes sense of Jesus answer in all three reports, especially, given the history that has since unfolded.

As to the passage itself, we find Jesus and his disciples in Jerusalem at the Temple, taking in the sights, so to speak. Jesus prophesies that total destruction is coming to what they are looking at. When they are in private later at their site on the Mount of Olives, the disciples (at least, Peter, James, John and Andrew according to Mark 13:3) dare ask him a two-fold question: When? And what will be the sign of his coming and the end of the age? Mark and Luke’s account only capture the “when” and, in effect, skip the question about his coming and the end of the age.

His "coming" (parousias) is really the way of speaking of his arrival, of his being present here--not in an ethereal sense (as in, "lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age”) but in a substantial one ("...while they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst"). Since he is standing with them at the time he is speaking these things, the implication is that they knew he would leave and then return to end the age, hence the link (kai) between his coming and the end of the age. My assumption is that they assumed that the destruction of Jerusalem would result in a new Messianic age.

So Jesus, basically, brushes off the question about the destruction of the Temple (it wasn’t important to the big question) and concentrates on the second question (which, really, was the big question)--when would he come and the age end? His response is focused on that question in all three accounts, but without Matthew’s account supplying the detail, this would not be clear. In fact, he never does deal with the first part of the question, and instead takes up Daniel’s desolation (Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). To tell you the truth, the destruction of 70 CE was only, at best, a pretext to what he wanted to talk about, but in fact, it doesn’t enter into the actual answer at all!

The Open Door to Heaven

"After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven..."      Rev 4:1 NASB

The Apostle John looked up after his visionary experience as an amanuensis, saw an opened door in the heavens and heard the now familiar voice of his visions calling to him, presumably, through it. We're not told what caught his attention first: the appearance of the opened door, or the voice beckoning him. It really doesn't matter. A new phase in his visionary experience was beginning, and its significance would soon be apparent.

The opened door in the heavens most readily signifies access to what normally would be inaccessible to mankind. In this particular instance that represents access to two things beyond human purview: 1) the throne room, or very presence, of God; and 2) the future. God has to open the door to the experience of either, or the heavens remain closed. So, even though it is not specifically mentioned in the text, that door had to have been opened by Jesus, a key bearer who opens what no one else can open or close.

Doors, opened or closed, serve a variety of roles in the Apocalypse, but the basic concept is the same regardless--doors represent a barrier only authority or power can open. There are doors only God can open (like the one in question), and there are doors that God does not (cannot?) open. That would seem an odd thing, a door barring God, but the Apocalypse represents such a thing existing. Jesus stands knocking, in that case, waiting for the invitee to open the door. The implication for monergism, perseverance, and the whole of Calvinism is troubling, to say the least.

"Come up here," though in the form of a command, was more along the lines of divine commentary and was specific to John (singular). It cannot be related to the Rapture, nor really, to anyone else's access to God or heaven, whether by prayer or other means. Immediately, John was transported beyond the door into the midst of whatever it was opened to reveal. The surroundings were obviously symbolic because God (the Father and the Spirit) were represented tangibly when they are actually incorporeal, and Jesus was represented as a lamb rather than the corporeal form he has taken.

The purpose of John's visionary translation was to find out what things take place after the things he had already been shown. Those things were contained in the opening vision of Christ and the Letters to the Seven Churches. It stands to reason, it seems to me, that this particular sequential characteristic undermines viewing the Letters as representing successive ages of the Church. Instead, the Letters, all of them together, must have had reference to something that could have been existent in the time of John and before the bulk of what is revealed as happening afterward according to the stated purpose of the command.

The Sign of the End

What could possibly signal the end of the world? The only clearly discernible sign that Jesus gave his disciples was the Abomination spoken of by Daniel. Earthquakes, famines, wars, and even the fulfillment of the Great Commission are all signs Jesus cited, but they all lack the precision of Daniel's sign. When an event which occurs repetitively in a series, or is the accumulation of a running total, how can we know if any particular occurrence or addition was the last one without some telling detail?

For instance, what marks the conclusion of the Great Commission? Is it possible to discern when the last one who needs to be reached in order for it to be completed has been reached? The Abomination of Desolation, in contrast, is well defined, and even though occurring twice, is distinctive enough not to be confused between one occurrence and the other. Though it has already been modeled for us, as it was for Christ, by Antiochus Epiphanes, there will be no way to miss its ultimate fulfillment in the days of the Antichrist.

The description of this event, as recorded in Daniel 11, starts with the advent of Antiochus Epiphanes at verse 21, but ends with the actions of the Antichrist starting with verse 36 and moving into chapter 12. In effect, the actual, specific occurrence of the Abomination of Desolation (v. 31) is the fulcrum of a prophetic teeter-totter. On one end is the antetype, Antiochus Epiphanes, and how he relates to the prophecy. On the other end, is the antitype, the Antichrist and how he relates to the prophecy, and the middle references both of their involvements.

It's almost as if Daniel 11 was a preview trailer tracking at normal historical speed until the fulcrum was reached. At that point the reel was fast-forwarded until the time of its secondary and ultimate fulfillment occurred, then normal speed resumed. If that sounds a bit stretched to you, I understand your reticence. However, Jesus said there was still life in the prophecy, despite being fully familiar with the history of Antiochus, the Maccabees, and the battles between the Ptolemies and Seleucids. It seems to me, to understand something of this nature one has to invoke the concept of dual fulfillment.

John, the Revelator, saw the same event from the isle of Patmos millenia before its ultimate fulfillment. Strangely enough, even his insight was presaged by antetype within the Book of Daniel. God must have wanted to get the point across unmistakably to repeat it so many times from so many different vantage points. No wonder when asked what would be the sign of the end, Jesus said this would be it, and yet we still seem, by and large, to be in the dark about what definitively signals the end.