Ezekiel's Horses Still Aren't Apache Helicopters

I told you so, but I don’t hate to say it. I plastered it all over my social media, saying that last month’s Israel-Iran kerfuffle wouldn’t lead to World War III, nor would it lead to a fulfillment of Ezekiel 38 and 39.

And because people seem to enjoy it when I write on eschatology, I figure now is as good a time as any to get something on the record so the next time our dispensational brethren start freaking out about Ezekiel, you can point them to this and move on with your day.

Now, I’m gleaning this from a sermon outline provided by Philip Kayser, who was using James Jordan’s argumentation that Ezekiel 38 and 39 were fulfilled in the events contained in the book of Esther. None of this is original research on my part, but I simply want to elaborate on some of Kayser’s points that I think can shed some preterist light on these chapters that have caused so much consternation, mostly by poking holes in the futurist interpretation of an end-times war against modern Israel.

Rosh
I lied. I’ll start with something not in the aforementioned outline, but only because this is such a common mistake.

For some reason, the NKJV, NASB 1995, and a couple of other Bible translations refer to a “prince of Rosh” in Ezekiel 38:2-3, leading English-speaking Christians to combine this with the references to armies coming out of the north in verses 6 and 15 and coming to the conclusion that an end-times battle will absolutely involve Russia. It’s just too plain. It’s from the north, after all, and “Rosh” sounds like “Russia,” and that’s how you do exegesis.

However, the LSB, ESV, KJV, and the vast majority of English Bible translations correctly translate “Rosh” as “chief prince,” “chief ruler,” or something along those lines. The Hebrew word rosh is never elsewhere translated as a geographic location in the Bible and is always closer to “chief” or “head” or even “top.” This is why the Jewish new year is called Rosh Hashanah. It’s the top of the year.

And, for the record, the Hebrew word for Russia is Roosiya. You’d think that if God meant the modern nation whose capital is Moscow, he’d call it out. He did it with Cyrus, after all (Isaiah 45).

What’s in a name?
And while we’re on the subject of names, there is a good case that an individual is named beforehand in 39:11, 15, and 16, by the name of Hamon. If these places are named after Haman, the antagonist from the book of Esther, who met his untimely demise while plotting a Jewish genocide, that would make perfect sense.

It would also make sense that the pronunciation and spelling would differ between Persian in Esther and the Hebrew in Ezekiel. This would then be no different than Acts’ seamless transition from the Apostle’s name of Saul to Paul (Remember, there’s no verse saying God changed his name), or going from Spanish to English with a name like Juan to John.

And if we want to be even more consistent, it’s the same thing as going from Yeshua in Hebrew to Iésous in Greek to Jesus in English, but don’t tell the Hebrew Roots guys.

I will, of course, grant that this is the weakest point in this blog.

Now, in terms of names of nations and kingdoms given, we’ve already eliminated rosh, but Iran often gets lumped in because Persia is mentioned, yet I noticed that no one ever brings up that Cush and Put are also counted among the aggressors. For the former, Cush is Ethiopia in some translations, but this would also include Somalia and northern Sudan, while Put is the region including modern day Libya and Algeria.

Pardon my skepticism, but not only is Iran simply not a major world military power, but we’re supposed to believe that some of the most impoverished nations in the world are supposed to muster their forces against Israel and the US by extension?

And we won’t get into how Ethiopia was one of the first Christianized regions in the world and how it’s still majority Christian.

It’s about time
While I am a believer in the historical-grammatical method of interpreting Scripture, too often we jettison the historical part and only focus on the grammar, completely ignoring the historical context in which certain words were said. And the fact is that Ezekiel received his revelation from God in the 500s BC, during the Babylon exile, pretty much right after the first temple was destroyed.

Ergo, these words had to mean something to the people receiving them, especially when chapter 40 gets into visions about the temple, so I’m not so sure why a third temple would be required for that vision when the second hadn’t even been built.

Additionally, we have to look at what details are given, and Ezekiel gives what type of weaponry will be used, particularly swords and shields with soldiers riding horses (38:4). It will never cease to amaze me that the ones who insist they’re the only ones “taking the Bible literally” will also insist that Ezekiel just didn’t understand what motorcycles and humvees and grenades were, so he did the best he could.

But we will also note that 39:9-10 describes the weapons used in this battle then being used as firewood, and it’s pretty hard to safely burn mortar shells. And a bonfire of 5.56mm rounds? Probably not a great idea.

And let’s not forget that 39:28 puts a bullet in the futurist argument all by its lonesome.

Then they will know that I am the LORD their God because I made them go into exile among the nations, and then gathered them again to their own land; and I will leave none of them there any longer. - Ezekiel 39:28

God through Ezekiel doesn’t mince words. During the time of the exile, God was going to bring His Old Covenant people back to the land, ultimately to bring about the Messiah. It’s amazing what happens when you just walk through texts.

Forgive my snark throughout this blog. I’m just done with teachers who treat biblical prophecy as a way to keep you in a state of panic about what’s totally just around the corner. I have a great rule of thumb regarding teachers and theologians: the more freaked out they sound, the less I listen.

The issue at stake is the need for consistent biblical interpretation and hermeneutics. I’m far from one of those “the world is watching” guys, but when we run around with our hair on fire every three months and we can’t use the same method of interpretation for Christ’s deity as we do for our eschatology, we have a severe problem. Allow me to suggest taking a contextual approach to every biblical passage, all the time. I think you’ll be pleased with the results.

You can hear this podcast on the Westminster Effects Doxology Podcast feed on Apple and Spotify.