"The Second Phase of Jacob's Oppression" called "Gog and Magog Attack on Israel" Discussion

 

Chrześcijanie Chełm

July 31 at 1:00 AM  · 

Part 3. the series on "The Second Phase of Jacob's Oppression", called "Gog and Magog Attack on Israel," is a description of this attack on Israel, not yet based on mass media, but based on Old Testament prophecies. We will learn of the initial successes of the attackers, but fortunately also of their final total failure, which will be made all the more joyful that immediately after it the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, beginning with the land and the people of Israel.

  · 

See original

  · 

Rate this translation

VIDEO HERE 

0:00 / 1:04:45

• Roman Wigienka

  Despite some interesting information in this lecture, I generally disagree with the author's comments on Ezek.38 and chapter 39. The main mistake in this lecture is to mix the literal translation with the symbolic one, to verse 20 of this the comments are literal, from verse 20 the author of the lecture mixes the literal translation with the symbolic one, the example: to verse 20 horses are some kind of physical weapon, then the author correctly explains that horses are teachings, doctrines. So there is a lot of confusion in this lecture, the most controversial thought from this lecture for me is that Jesus died for Gog and Magog, the satanic religious government which, as Ezek says 38:22, will be completely destroyed by fire and brimstone. Rev. 20:8-10 shows the same symbolism of Satan's religious government at the end of the millennium, which will be completely destroyed for eternity as the devil, the beast, and the false prophet. Biblical symbolism must be harmonious, it cannot be that in Ezekiel Gog and Magog represent something different than in Revelation. I understand that the entire chapter of Ezek.38 is symbolic, and not, as it is presented in the lecture, that from the 20th of this verse.

  

  • Like
  • Reply
  • See Translation
  • 2w
  • Jaroslaw Wieczorek Spina

    Roman Wigienka the question is to what extent the Bible is unambiguous? And this is not a "dictated" message - like the Qur'an - but "narrative literature"... And if we think about the fact that the time of creation of the first "editorial offices" dates back to the turn of the 7/6th century BC - and the events described date back to the exodus of the Jews from Egypt or the history of Abraham - then it is really - it is not easy to say - what is "historically true" and what is only symbolically and metaphorically ...!

    • Like
    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 2w
    • Roman Wigienka

      Jaroslaw Wieczorek Spina That's a good question, sometimes I ask myself this question when it comes to prophecies where Israel is mentioned, there are two possibilities, the prophecy can be about the Jewish people or Spiritual Israel, that is, Christian Europe. The book of Ezekiel is sometimes called the revelation of the Old Testament, so it is a symbolic book, given to Ezekiel in much the same way as to the Apostle John as a vision. I understand that we cannot translate one chapter of Ezekiel in part literally and in another part symbolically. I understand that when the prophecies speak of the house of Jacob, we are sure that it is referring to the Jewish people. The prophecy of Jeremiah 30 speaks of Jacob's tribulation, so we are sure that this is a prophecy about the Jewish people.

      

      • Like
      • Reply
      • See Translation
      • 2w
    • Roman Wigienka

      Already the first verse of chapter 38 gives us indications that there is symbolism, there has never been an enemy of Israel called Goga of Magog, so it is an allegory of an evil system, an enemy of God's people.

      • Like
      • Reply
      • See Translation
      • 2w
    • Roman Wigienka

      In the book of Revelation, the hostile satanic system for God's people is pictured as a beast with seven heads and ten horns, or a dragon.

      • Like
      • Reply
      • See Translation
      • 2w
  • Author

    Christians Chełm

    Roman Wigienka In response to the above comment, I would like to note that the lecture it concerns was presented on the website of the congregation in Chełm, not on the Internet forum, and is our way of understanding the issues raised .

    

    2

    • Like
    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 1w
    
    

    Author

    Chrześcijanie Chełm

    Roman Wigienka In response to the above comment, I would like to note that the lecture in question was presented on the assembly's website in Chelm, not on the online forum, and is our way of understanding the issues raised there. It is a good cultural habit of people to present their views on their channels rather than forcing them on someone else's pages. If the author of this comment has a different understanding, let him present it on his own website or in some discussion forum, and do not create confusion in the minds of our listeners, which are quite a few. Attacking what we understand and preach and replacing it with our own views on our own page is rude to say the least. What is it supposed to serve for example a statement that "I generally disagree with the author's comments on the book of Ezekiel. Chapters 38 and 39". What does the author want to achieve by posting such remarks on our Bible page? Why should any of our listeners care if he disagrees with this? Who do you think the author of such words: "I do not agree with this"?

    However, we will respond to what he writes here, and we will not delete his comment, so that everyone can make their own opinion about him and know for the future. Firstly, in interpreting prophecies concerning future events, there is always a risk of some mistake which I will confess as soon as I notice it. On what basis does the author of this comment think that his understanding is better than the one presented in this lecture, since it is only the future? Introduced the interpretation of Ezekiel 38 & 39 based on similar wordings from other prophecies that have already worked, so there's a good chance it's similar to them from Ezech. 38 and 39 will also come true this way.

    Secondly, symbolic and literal meanings happening side by side is not unusual in the Bible. We can see this even in one short sentence from Jesus, “Let the dead die by the dead.” In the same sentence, Jesus used the words "died" once symbolic and once literal, and the Bible student must decide whether symbolic or literal. I understand them as follows: Let them symbolically die in sins, but people still living, bury those who physically and literally end their lives and have to be buried. This accusation is therefore baseless and proves a poor knowledge of the principles of teaching in the Bible.

    Thirdly, the author of this criticism did not listen carefully to the lecture, as he was probably looking for only what he could criticize. Nowhere did I say that Gog and Magog are a "satanic religious government" but the people who attack Israel. The religious government is supposed to be the "name of the city of Horda", which will be buried together with Gog and Magog.

    For the fourth, Gog and Magog never - even in Revelation - represent the religious government, as our critic claims, but the enemies of God's people. What an idea that Gog and Magog are a religious government!

    On Friday, Gog and Magog actually represent something else in the Ese. 38 and something else in Revelation, albeit because of a 1000-year difference between the events related: Ezekiel has Israel's enemies, in Revelation - the enemies worthy of the end of the Millennium.

    I don't know what the author of the accuser has in mind that "the most controversial thought from this lecture for me is that Jesus died for Gog and Magog, a satanic religious government." Where did this idea come from? I didn't say Jesus died for any government, but that as part of His atrocity death for man, He also died for the people who as Gog and Magog will invade Israel, so their death in the mountains of Israel will not be a second death. Because of this, they will rise from their graves and have a chance to rise in restitution that some part of them will surely benefit from.

    From this entry you can see that the author is suffering from something and is making false and baseless accusations, which - additionally - reveal his poor knowledge of the teachings of the Bible and the redemption of Jesus. For this reason, we ask their author not to litter in the future of our website with such conclusions that unnecessarily waste water. Please note that this is our page and our way of telling the beauty of God's plan and His character, which we do not impose on anyone, but only suggestively present as our best understanding of Bible teachings. You can listen to us or you don't. If people disagree with something, especially in the field of religion, they usually just don't listen to those things and focus on what they like better, unless they have other goals. If so, please make them at home, not on our website.
  •  

    See more

  
  

  Reply to Roman Wigienka…

  
  
• 
  
• Roman Wigienka

  My response to the group "Christians of Chełm."

  Christians Chełm.

  "In response to the above comment, I would like to note that the lecture it concerns was presented on the website of the congregation in Chełm, not on the Internet forum, and is our way of understanding the issues raised there."

  RW.

  I do not know who is the author of this commentary, because it is published under the banner "Christians of Chełm". However, from this comment it follows that the answer was given by one person, because the phrase "I would like to notice" is used. So, dear author, this comment FB profile under the name "Christians of Chełm" is public, generally available, on my profile there were several ads encouraging to listen to this lecture, so I took advantage and listened. I did not fall from the sky, we have known each other for a very long time and we have the same friends on the FB portal. I agree that every religious group and individual has the right to express and publish their views, but when it is done in public, you have to take into account the comments of other people who may come into contact with the views of a given group, especially on the FB social networking site that was created for communication between individuals or groups of people.

  Christians Chełm

  "It is a good habit of cultured people to present their own views on their channels, not to force them onto the sites of others. If the author of this comment has a different understanding, let him present it on his own website or on some discussion forum, and not confuse the minds of our listeners, of which there are quite many."

  RW.

  As I wrote above, a FB profile that is public is also treated as a discussion forum, if the group does not want random listeners or comments, then it creates a closed group. I never force my views on anyone, I consider substantive discussions to be appropriate and necessary in order to verify my views, the group "Christians of Chełm" as well as the author of the lecture Adam Urban are not strangers and indifferent to me, the more it is justified for us to be interested in each other and discuss such important Biblical topics in the Christian spirit, they did not take offense at each other personally, but discussed the substance. Does everyone have to agree with the author of this lecture? Does everyone have to agree with my views? Of course not. I've spent most of my life in a group where everyone had to agree with the general message of that group or individual, and I'm not going to go back to that. In the group, of which I am one of the authors and moderators, we encourage discussion and criticism of our views, we have no problem with this. I understand that well-established Christians cannot be confused in their minds, everyone should decide for themselves what is true and what is wrong, it cannot be decided by a group or another person, and it does not matter whether there are many or few listeners of a given lecture. I've never said that my views on Bible topics are perfect, I'm still trying to verify them.

  CH.CH.

  "Attacking what we understand and preach and replacing it with our own views on our own side is inelegant to say the least. What is the purpose of, for example, the statement that " I generally disagree with the author's comments on the book of Ezek. Chapters 38 and 39".

  RW.

  In my opinion, the response to my comments on the lecture is inelegant. Any author of such serious Biblical thoughts should be prepared for criticism and should be prepared to substantively defend what he has said.

  To say that I generally disagree means that I do not agree with the teachings of this discourse, specifically I meant that the book of Ezekiel is a symbolic book like the book of Revelation, and in order to understand it one must understand the symbolism used there. As I wrote in my commentary, the author of verse 19 translates chapter 38 literally, as do all other translations by Christian groups dealing with the subject and recognizing the doctrine of Jacob's "second tribulation." From verse 19, the commentaries are more correct and the author applies commentaries on symbolism from the literature of parousia and epiphany, but not entirely, because if we apply the symbolism of fish, birds and field animals, then we must also apply symbolism to the great earthquake in Israel, and to Israel itself. As in revelation, the seven congregations or 12 tribes of Israel are symbolic.

  CH.CH.

  "What does the author want to accomplish by inserting such remarks on our Bible preaching page? Why should any of our listeners be interested in the fact that they disagree? Who is the author of such words: "I disagree with this"?" consider himself to be?"

  RW.

  What do I want to achieve by writing comments? The controversy between Christians over Bible truth has been going on since the beginning of Christianity, and I want to achieve the same thing as other defenders of Bible truth in the Gospel age and the author of a lecture that has also been in such disputes on other bible portals or groups, which is called defending the truth. John 8:32: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" I define myself as a free student or Bible student, independent of any person, group, or organization, so when I write that I agree or disagree with something, it is only my personal opinion. I always try to substantiate my view substantively. I do not think that my entry offends anyone, it refers only to the teachings presented in the lecture. I also think that it would be less elegant to comment on a lecture on another portal, where the author could not defend his teachings, this is my opinion.

  Ch.Ch.

  "However, we will respond to what he writes here and we will not delete his comment, so that everyone will form an opinion about it and know for the future. First, when interpreting prophecies about future events, there is always the risk of some kind of mistake, which I will admit to myself as soon as I notice one. On what basis does the author of this commentary think that his understanding is better than that presented in this lecture, since this is only the future? I have presented an interpretation of Ezek. 38 and 39 based on similar formulations from other prophecies that have already come true, so chances are that they are similar to Ezze. 38 and 39 will also be fulfilled in this way."

  RW.

  I try not to comment on prophecies that concern the future, because that would put me in the role of a prophet that I do not consider myself to be. I always try to comment on prophecies that have been fulfilled or are now being fulfilled. I will not, therefore, discuss what I think is only the speculation of the author of the lecture, which concerns the uncertain future. I also understand that Ezek. 38 and 39 are partially filled and partially fulfilled now.

  • Like
  • Reply
  • See Translation
  • 5d
  • Roman Wigienka

    Ch.Ch.

    "Second, the juxtaposition of symbolic and literal meanings side by side is not unusual in the Bible. We can see this even in one short sentence of Jesus: "Let the dead bury the dead." In one and the same sentence of Jesus, the word "dead" is once used in a symbolic sense and once in a literal sense, and it is up to the student of the Bible to decide which is symbolic and which is literal. I understand it as follows: Let them symbolically die in their sins, but still living people, bury those who physically and literally end their lives and must be buried. This objection, therefore, has no basis and is evidence of a poor knowledge of the principles of teaching in the Bible."

    RW.

    Jesus' statement, "Let the dead bury the dead," is not partly a literal but partly a symbolic prophecy. This is not a prophecy at all. Nor is it a symbolic statement, for from God's point of view all people (except those who have been begotten of the Spirit) are dead. See, for example, Pastor Russell's statement in R5371: "The whole world is already dead from the Divine standpoint. The death penalty that came upon Adam extended to all his children. The only ones whom the Scriptures recognize as having life at this time are those who are in relationship with the life-giver, with Jesus."

    The prophecies of the Book of Ezekiel, like the prophecies of the book of Revelation, are symbolic, much less is it possible to translate one part literally and the other symbolically the prophecy of one chapter which deals with the same prophetic question. The same is true of the prophecy in the book of Zechariah. This is how some churches translate the book of Revelation, translating partly literally, partly symbolically, and this way of translating has led these churches into great confusion.

    Ch.Ch.

    "Thirdly, the author of this critique did not listen carefully to the lecture, because he was probably only looking for what he could criticize. Nowhere did I say that Gog and Magog were "satanic religious governments," but people who would attack Israel. The religious government is to be "the name of the city of Horde", which will be buried together with Gog and Magog.

    Fourth, Gog and Magog never—even in Revelation—represent a religious government, as our critic claims, but the enemies of God's people. What an idea that Gog and Magog are a religious government!

    Fifth, Gog and Magog do indeed represent something different in Ezek.38 and something else in Revelation, if only because of the difference of about 1,000 years between the events in question: in Ezekiel it is the enemies of Israel, in Revelation the enemies of the Worthy at the end of the Millennial Age."

    RW.

    I did not write that the author of the lecture said that "Gog and Magog are a religious government." "Gog of Magog" or Gog of magog, this is the correct translation of Ez. 38:2, no translation translates "Gog and Magog," so it can be understood that there is one leader of this great conflict that leads to this great catastrophe.

    Why do I think that the "Gog of Magog" is an apostate system and not nations?

    1. In symbolism, a leader or king never represents an individual or a nation, but a political, religious, or political-religious system. Examples: the kings of Israel from Ahab are systems of government during the Gospel Age in Europe, the kings of Judah are U.S. political systems. The pagan king Hazael is the rule of communist Russia, etc. (E3, 195; E3, 359; compare with E11, 147).

    2. If the "Gog of Magog" and the nations in alliance with Gog represent the nations and citizens of these nations in a literal war against literal Israel, then these people would have to die a second death from which there is no salvation. Verse 22 says this, fire and brimstone in biblical symbolism symbolize complete permanent destruction, the second death. Compare with Obj. 21:8; 19:20; 20:10; E16, 260-261+275.

    Ezek. 

    38:22

     "Then I will judge him by pestilence and bloodshed; I will unleash upon him and his troops and the many peoples who are with him, heavy rain and hail, fire and brimstone."

    So there are two ways out in this situation: either the verse speaks of the events of a "small period" or Gog of Magog represents an apostate system of government that will be completely and permanently destroyed in confrontation with God.

    3. As in a small period of time, the battle referred to in Obj. 20:8 is a battle of principles, not a physical battle, analogous to the battle described in Ezek. 38 is also a battle of principles, an ideological one (E16, 182-183). 4. Gog of Magog is a deviant religious-political system which is the main enemy of God's people used by Satan to fight during Armageddon (Ezek. 38).

    5.The main battle between symbolic Israel and the army of Gog is Armageddon, a global revolution as mentioned in verse 19 where Ezekiel writes about a great earthquake (revolution) in symbolic Israel (Christian Europe) and in chapter 39 he talks about the fire of destruction - anarchy.

    6 A comparison of the book of Ezekiel 38 and 39 with Revelation 19 from verse 15 onward shows that the same time and the same events of history in God's plan are mentioned in these two books, the final battle of Armageddon is mentioned there.

    This comparison clearly shows the parallels and confirms that in both cases it is about the destruction of the same evil satanic systems of power during Armageddon.

    
    

    • Like
    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 5d
    • Author

      Christians Chełm

      Roman Wigienka It is precisely because of absurdities such as those of the meaning of Gog and Magog as such, and of Gog and Magog of Ezekiel and Revelation, please do not disturb the water on our site, for this is nonsense unworthy of commenting. We will not set up a closed group, as our critic advises us, to avoid them, for then we would block the channel for ourselves to proclaim the truth of the Divine Plan as we understand it. Once again, we remind you that this is not a discussion forum (neither open nor closed – THIS IS NOT A FORUM), but our way of preaching the teachings of the Bible, and we do not want our listeners to have to read such nonsense. The author's disregard for our request and the content of his entries indicate a far-reaching departure of their author from the letter and spirit of the Bible. Once again, please spread your views on your own pages and do not push them with us to find some readers for yourself. If there are no more people willing to get acquainted with them, we advise you to stop propagating them anywhere and limit them to the recesses of your own minds. We do not want to delete any comments, but in this case we may have no other choice.

      • Like
      • Reply
      • See Translation
      • 4d
  • Roman Wigienka

    Ch.Ch.

    I don't know what the author of the charge means that "the most controversial thought of this lecture for me is that Jesus died for Gog and Magog, Satan's religious government." Where did this idea come from? I have not said that Jesus died for any government, but that as part of His ransom-death for man, He also died for the people who, as Gog and Magog, would invade Israel, and therefore their death on the mountains of Israel would not yet be the Second Death. Because of this, they will rise from their graves and have a chance to rise in restitution, from which some part of them will surely benefit."

    RW.

    As I have explained above, I had no intention of accusing the author of the lecture of believing that Jesus died for Satan's religious rule. This is just a logical conclusion from his statement. I just wanted to point out that according to Ezekiel 

    38:22

    , Gog of Magog and the "nations" that are with him will be destroyed by fire and brimstone, symbolizing eternal destruction. Therefore, it cannot refer here to the people themselves, but only to the system that governs them. As I explained above, I do not agree with the literal translation of this chapter used by the author of the lecture, so I will not comment on the rest of this statement.

    Ch.Ch.

    "From this entry it can be seen that the author suffers from something and creates untrue and unfounded accusations, which – in addition – betray his poor knowledge of the teachings of the Bible and the ransom of Jesus. For this reason, we ask their author not to clutter up our website in the future with such arguments that unnecessarily muddy the water. Please remember that this is our site and our way of telling the beauty of God's plan and His character, which we do not impose on anyone, but only suggestively present as our best understanding of the teachings of the Bible. You can listen to us or you can't. If people disagree with something, especially in the field of religion, they generally just don't listen to those things and focus on what they like more, unless they have some other goals. If so, please implement them at home, not on our website."

    RW.

    I do not fully understand the comment "From this entry it can be seen that the author suffers from something and creates untrue and unfounded accusations, which – in addition – betray his poor knowledge of the teachings of the Bible and the ransom of Jesus." I consider it a duty to defend the truth as I understand it. I think that the author of the lecture, with whom we know a little, is too allergic to his point. I have commented on many such lectures by other speakers, so Adam Urban is not the only one whose lectures I have commented on. Recently there has been a long and fruitful discussion about a lecture by a speaker from the LHMM on revolution and anarchy. Some supporters of this site criticized my lecture. I do not see anything extraordinary and wrong with this, I started to discuss and defend what I presented in the lecture. I will not comment on my poor knowledge of Jesus' ransom, because I think that the author of the lecture did not understand what I meant. It is possible that after my explanations he will change his mind, if not then it is difficult.

    As for cluttering the site with my arguments, of course I can apply not to comment on this page, although I have some objections to this, because the above comments are sometimes written as a community, and sometimes it follows that it was the author of the lecture who wrote. Therefore, I do not know whether this comment represents the opinion of the group "Christians of Chełm" or just the opinion of the author of the lecture. If no one else in this community speaks on this subject, I will consider that the Christians of Chełm accept this somewhat unchristian comment. I greet the whole community from Chełm.

    • Like
    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 5d
  • Roman Wigienka

    Sorry but the comments are not pasted in a good order, the third comment should be in second place.

    • Like
    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 5d
    • Martin Reuter

      Roman Wigienka For me, comments appear in the correct order.

      

      • Like
      • Reply
      • See Translation
      • 5d

    
    
• December 9, 2020

  
  

  Dear friends,

  
  

  Although I do not speak Polish and although I was not privy to the original talk on this topic, I do want to thank the brother for his work that does closely corroborate my own views. I have done lengthy studies on Ezekiel 38 in conjunction with Zechariah 14 and I am convinced that they have been fulfilled in history between the years 1948 and today.

  
  

  First, I want to reiterate brother Romans' thought that I do not ever consider myself wise above the star members. I do not like presenting my own views, in fact I do not wish to HAVE my own views, believing simply that Pastor Russell was indeed the hand, eye and mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ at His Second Advent.

  
  

  Therefore I believe brother Russell's comments regarding Ezekiel 38 and Zechariah 14 (which he viewed as synonymous) as found in Vol. 4 "The Battle of Armageddon" provide very plain clues when looking at our recent history in retrospect.  Some of these well documented events include the dividing of Jerusalem in 1948 when Israel survived a war of annihilation through divine help.

  
  

  Many Bible students have mistakenly looked for a so- called second Holocaust to come upon Israel. I would like to point out that Ezekiel 38 does not teach any such thing but rather teaches Israel's deliverance from such a Holocaust! That is exactly what has occurred.  Now we are seeing the aftermath as the surrounding Arab nations are coming to terms with Israel and signing peace deals.  [See stories such as UAE allows Jews to visit, embassy moves and more...]

  
  

  So I do not believe brother Russell ever taught a second Holocaust of Jews. The only reason I even look for something called "Jacob's Trouble Phase 2" is because of remarks made by brother Johnson, but not because of remarks made by Pastor Russell. Still, the events as ably interpreted by them did eventually find their fulfillment in history.  It never amounted to anything akin to a second Holocaust, which as Roman suggests, likely came from the views of Churchianity.

  
  

  As to the futurist view held by so many, for many years I've been completely uneasy with the fact that Bible Students hold to a view that is the same as that held by evangelicals.  I've never understood how Bible students in general could ever hold a viewpoint that was so similar to that held by preachers of Christendom such as Hal Lindsey, author of the fallacious book "The Late Great Planet Earth". He offered the date for said event as 1985.  They all teach a great literal all out destructive attack on Israel.

  
  

  Yet I believe each verse is symbolically matched by it's historical counterpart. And when it comes to Ezekiel 38:22 we seem to be living through it right now which is why we can't be too clear yet on the particulars.  However the symbols are clear.  For instance, hail is a reference to hard destructive truth, none harder than that falling on Christendom right now.  And the fire is certainly a reference to the Anarchy which I believe we are experiencing now, especially regarding the current 2020 election.

  
  

  And so in closing, as brother Roman aptly said, I also believe anyone commenting on these things should be able and willing to discuss it. My door is completely open as I have been presenting these views for some years now with almost no interest from anywhere, least of all within the Bible Student movement.  Perhaps the quickening of events may prompt some to look a little deeper.

  
  

  Thanks for the discussion, and my apologies for anything said amiss. 

  
  

  Yours in Truth,

  
  

  Bro. Regan Balman