Does Psalm 83 set the stage for Ezekiel 38?

[ftwspursfan]

So...in answer to the thread titled quesion....YES!

Is it okay to continue drilling?

Glenn

Good question, Glenn. So Sean, do we continue on this thread or should we start a new thread for questions on the Psalms 83/Isaiah 17 War and its aftermath. I could go with one thread or I could post separate threads for each question. Do you have a preference? I know you are very busy but I think it would help those of us with questions. Would all this be easier if we started an "Isralestine" thread? I'll have the book in a week or so, as I could not wait for Fathers Day.

[GlennO]

Ouuuuuuuu....The Israelestine thread....a good one for future readers ....a record of questions and conjecture...I like the idea

Glenn

[Robert]

14 May 2010: Have you ever tried to find a black cat in a completely dark room? How about an Israeli Merkava Main Battle Tank fitted with Israel's new Eltics system (a/k/a the Black Fox Active Adaptive IR Stealth System) on a night-time middle eastern battlefield? Note to Israel's Arab enemies: you cannot shoot at and kill what you cannot see.

Sean, not for nothing, but if I saw a tank flying like that at me from out of nowhere, the first thing I would do is lose continence. The second thing would be to scream like a little girl and run for dear life!

[REV777]

Another thought to consider, is the manner and timing, of the destruction of Damascus. Being the capital city of Syria, not mentioned in the Ezekiel account, and as described in Isaiah 17 as being destroyed and left a ruinous heap, it may be apparent this destruction may possibly happen in the Psalm 83/Amos 1 accounts.

I believe we can come to some certain conclusion, Israel has retaliated for some gruesome reason, destroying Damascus. I do not believe Israel would implement such an action without a justifiable cause, such as a biological and/or chemical attack upon her civilian population by Arab forces from Syria.

I also consider the destruction of Damascus, possibly by a nuclear device, the reason Arab/Islamic nations from greater distances, having no resent history of directly attacking Israel, now joining the Russian and Iranian forces to attack her. The destruction of Damascus may be the catalyst here, especially if a nuclear weapon is used and many thousands of Islamic Arabs are killed.

Here again, I do not believe Israel would destroy this city, unless a horrific attack has been perpetrated against their population centers by Arab or terrorist forces. The Iranian government may be willing to sacrifice Syria and Damascus, by ordering Iranian agents embedded within the terror groups to initiate such an attack to provoke an Israeli response, with the intent of unifying the Arab world against Israel, as we may see transpire in the Ezekiel account.

[Robert]

All of that may be true, but we cannot assume it is Israel who destroys Damascus. Scripture, specifically Isaiah 17 states that Damascus ceases from being a city, but does not state by what means. I think we are just going to have to wait and see on this.

[ngraham]

Nancy,

Just looking over this thread and noticed that no one has yet given a response to you question. I'll take a stab at it.

I believe the answer is found in Ezekiel 38/39. During the Psalm 83/Isaiah17 and associated prophecies war, Israel takes an initial hit on its population, but it is not a devastating or incapacitating hit. Nor is it a hit which destroys the county's national infrastructure. This is why we see in Ezekiel 38/39 shortly thereafter that Israel has recovered from this war and is in possession of great wealth. The Word of God came upon Ezekiel describing Israel in the post-Psalm83/Isaiah 17 world, saying:



Notice that Israel is living in complete safety - they have zero fear of any WMD-possessing enemy, not newly Islamist Turkey, not Shi'ite Iran under the Ayatollah and IRGC, Nor Ruusia under KGB/FSB rule, nor any of the nations of the named confederations. Is this not indicative of Israel becoming a superpower? In a type-contrast, did not the United States continually live in peace and safety after WWII until very recent times due to our overwhelming military and economic superiority? This will almost pale in comparision to what Israel achieves in the near-term.

Also, notice in Ezekiel 39:21-29 the specific God-given purposes for which this prophecy and ultimate judgment against the Gog/Magog confederation will occur prior to Daniel's 70th Week.



Brethren, none of us should make any eschatological mistake about these events and what follows them in relatively short order. The prophetic fact of that matter is that Daniel's 70th Week is Satan's and his demons direct intervention in human affairs, centered on Israel and Jerusalem's Temple Mount, to physically destroy all of that which God has just accomplished through Psalm 83/Isaiah 17 and Ezekiel 38/39.

Daniel's 70th Week is brought to an end with the full and indescribably majestic Revelation of Jesus our God and Messiah to the whole world.

Thank you Sean!
I guess my first response would be: Do you think Psalm 83 is a war or a prayer? It's my belief that Psalm 83 is a prayer and Isaiah 17 is the long awaited answer to that prayer. What is everyone elses opinion?

Israel takes an initial hit on its population, but it is not a devastating or incapacitating hit.

OK, so here's my scenario: Psalm 83/Isaiah 17, then the rapture (or possibly during Isaiah 17), then Gog-Magog, the the 7 year tribulation. I figured that after Psalm 83/Isaiah 17, that Israel would then dwell in safety. But I was also taught that they would suffer a terrible blow during the Isaiah 17 war, which is why I asked the question. If Israel has suffered terribly in Isaiah 17, then where does the wealth come in at. But if they don't suffer a devastating or incapacitating hit, then I see how there would be wealth for them. I was just under the assumption that they would be hit hard, have very little weapons left to fight with, especially as big as Gog-Magog will be, and that's when God delivers them. That why their hearts are turned back to the Father... they had no way to win because of Isaiah 17.
Ideas anyone? Thanks again Sean!

[LdyinChrist]

OK, so here's my scenario: Psalm 83/Isaiah 17, then the rapture (or possibly during Isaiah 17), then Gog-Magog, the the 7 year tribulation. I figured that after Psalm 83/Isaiah 17, that Israel would then dwell in safety. But I was also taught that they would suffer a terrible blow during the Isaiah 17 war, which is why I asked the question. If Israel has suffered terribly in Isaiah 17, then where does the wealth come in at. But if they don't suffer a devastating or incapacitating hit, then I see how there would be wealth for them. I was just under the assumption that they would be hit hard, have very little weapons left to fight with, especially as big as Gog-Magog will be, and that's when God delivers them. That why their hearts are turned back to the Father... they had no way to win because of Isaiah 17.

Not sure if this has any bearing, but in 1 Thess the Thessalonians think they are in the Day of the Lord and have missed the rapture.

In chapter 5 Paul goes on to say that “that day” comes as a thief in the night. (to unbelievers)

1Thess 5:3 For when they shall say peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

We have escaped because the Lord has not appointed us unto wrath.

But in Chapter 4:17 Paul says “we who are alive and remain”…

the greek word is “perileipo” translated "remain" "survive"


So it seems to me that the rapture takes place during a very turbulent time.

Also in chapter 4:16 when the Lord comes it will be with “the voice of the archangel”

16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Not sure if it is Michael or Gabriel or another angel we don’t know about, but if it is Michael he is the “protector of God’s people.”

Daniel 12:1 says:

1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Could it be that the timing of the Rapture coincides with some major turbulent time for Israel?

[mattfivefour]

Not sure if this has any bearing, but in 1 Thess the Thessalonians think they are in the Day of the Lord and have missed the rapture.

In chapter 5 Paul goes on to say that “that day” comes as a thief in the night. (to unbelievers)

I would suggest that the parenthetical phrase "to unbelievers" is an eisegesis. There is nothing in the context that implies the coming of "that Day" will only occur like the coming of a thief in the night to unbelievers and not to believers. Jesus told His disciples that he would come "at an hour when you think not". He ends His Revelation by saying three times: "behold I come quickly." The Greek here does not support the idea that His coming was soon ... nor does history since 1900 years have passed. The import of the Greek word used here (ταχύ= takh-OO) is not "soon" (as some translations would have it) but "suddenly", "swiftly", "in a flash", in other words "without warning".) If we as Christians are not living faithfully, then we will suddenly one day find in an instant that we are standing before our Lord cloaked in shame; there will not be even a fractional warning to get ready before POW! there He is. Our warning is in His Word which we have before us now. THAT is our only warning. Are we heeding it?

1Thess 5:3 For when they shall say peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

We have escaped because the Lord has not appointed us unto wrath.

But in Chapter 4:17 Paul says “we who are alive and remain”…

the greek word is “perileipo” translated "remain" "survive"

I have difficulty from an etymological standpoint with those few who translate "perileipo" (περιλείπω) as "survive". I have consulted all of my Greek grammars, including those that bring the light of secular papyri to bear on the meaning of words and ALL of them show that the common translation of perileipo is "to leave around" in the sense of something "left over". In the passive or middle voice it means "to remain" or "to be left behind". Now while in our vernacular we can refer to those remaining alive after a catastrophic event as "surviving" I think it dangerous to use this connotation of that word when interpreting this portion of Scripture.

There is a koiné word which means survive: it is ζωογονέω (zogoneo, pronounced zoe-oh-gon-EH-owe). The only place it occurs in the NT that I can recall is in Acts 7:19 where it speaks of none of the babes surviving Pharaoh's command when Moses was born to kill all the male infants. I have confidence that if the Holy Spirit had intended for us to understand 1 Thessalonians 4:17 as "those who survive" something then He would have used ζωογονέω and not περιλείπω.

Just a caution to those who might seize on "survive" to begin constructing some point of eschatology.

[Sean Osborne]

I have difficulty from an etymological standpoint with those few who translate "perileipo" (περιλείπω) as "survive".

Matt,

I see both sides of the issue.

I use Strong's and the Greek words literally are zaō perileipomai (zä'-ō pe-rē-lā'-po-mī). These two words or repeated twice within the two verses of 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 4:17.

Zaō unquestionably refers to living people.

Perileipomai is a compound word composed of peri (meaning the persons) leipōmai (not left behind).

We, the Bride of Christ, are not appointed unto the wrath of God. However, a lot of natural as well as un-naturally deadly and terrible things are occurring and will continue to occur in this world prior to the Harpazo which are "birth pangs" of which we are subject to depending on time, location and circumstance.

Many of us alive right now will certainly be among the dead in Christ at the unspecified time of the Harpazo and therefore will be among those to be resurrected. Those who are living persons at the time of the Harpazo are not left behind and so shall they ever be with the Lord.

I see verses 15 and 17 as referring to the living, not-to-be left behind as well as the Bride of Christ who survive the increasing frequency and serverity of "birth pangs" which are not the wrath of God.

[mattfivefour]

Sean, a small disagreement ... and then a big agreement.

I use Strong's and the Greek words literally are zaō perileipomai (zä'-ō pe-rē-lā'-po-mī). These two words or repeated twice within the two verses of 1 Thessalonians 4:15 and 4:17.

Zaō unquestionably refers to living people.

Perileipomai is a compound word composed of peri (meaning the persons) leipōmai (not left behind).

Respectfully, I would disagree with your Greek in this instance, bro. Peri means "around", leipomenoi means "who may be being left". (There is no "not" there, either in the sentence or in the form verb itself. The majority Greek text is actually ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι (epeita hemeis hoi zontes hoi perileipomenoi) which literally means "then we the alive ones the who may be remaining ones (or the who may be left around ones)" etc etc.

As to Strong's it is far to general a tool to use in exegesis, therefore we need to use the best Greek scholarship we can, which is what I have tried to do. Strongs also has some notable errors. One is this verb. Strong's does give the correct Greek root: περιλείπω; but then gives the transliteration as perileipomai. Anyone who knows merely the alphabet can tell that transliteration is erroneous. The correct transliteration is perileipo. As to the proper translation of the word, ALL of my Greek grammars and exegetical reference works use "remain" or "left over" as the proper definition of the root word perileipomenoi (the present middle participle) ... and this grammatical form (ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι) is the one used in all Greek manuscripts (including the Textus Receptus) save for one— only the Tischendorf (8th edition) has ζάω ὁ περιλείπω. It is in the minority among reliable texts.

We, the Bride of Christ, are not appointed unto the wrath of God. However, a lot of natural as well as un-naturally deadly and terrible things are occurring and will continue to occur in this world prior to the Harpazo which are "birth pangs" of which we are subject to depending on time, location and circumstance.

Many of us alive right now will certainly be among the dead in Christ at the unspecified time of the Harpazo and therefore will be among those to be resurrected. Those who are living persons at the time of the Harpazo are not left behind and so shall they ever be with the Lord.

In that I agree with you, Sean. Absolutely. As you say, some of us will die natural deaths, others unnatural ones. We need to be prepared that we may be called to stand up for our faith, even to death.

If I may be permitted to modify your concluding sentence "I see verses 15 and 17 as referring to the living, not-to-be left behind as well as the Bride of Christ who survive the increasing frequency and severity of 'birth pangs' which are not the wrath of God" ... I would write: "I see verses 15 and 17 as referring to the living, remaining ones—who survive the increasing frequency and severity of "birth pangs" which are not the wrath of God—and who will not left behind but will be raised with the dead in Christ, since all form the Bride of Christ." Hope that meets with your approval, bro.

[LdyinChrist]

Well that’s all “Greek” to me lol.

I don’t know Greek at all and I had to get out my English dictionary to understand your responses.

Eisegesis- the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas.

I wasn’t trying to place the rapture at the middle of the Tribulation at all.

I added ( unbelievers) because it says:

4But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

I should have placed a “?” behind the survive making it a questioning response rather than an interpretation.

I was only attempting to respond to Nancy’s comment:

OK, so here's my scenario: Psalm 83/Isaiah 17, then the rapture (or possibly during Isaiah 17), then Gog-Magog, the the 7 year tribulation.

By showing that the Rapture could coincide with and turbulent time for Israel but prior to the Tribulation.

[mattfivefour]

No worries ... it's all good, sis! Thanks for the explanation, I see your point.

[Sean Osborne]

If I may be permitted to modify your concluding sentence "I see verses 15 and 17 as referring to the living, not-to-be left behind as well as the Bride of Christ who survive the increasing frequency and severity of 'birth pangs' which are not the wrath of God" ... I would write: "I see verses 15 and 17 as referring to the living, remaining ones—who survive the increasing frequency and severity of "birth pangs" which are not the wrath of God—and who will not left behind but will be raised with the dead in Christ, since all form the Bride of Christ." Hope that meets with your approval, bro.

I agree 100% brother Matt.

[GlennO]

So glad to see this thread is still providing much valued light!!

Glenn