Q&A 2017

The Identity of Gog Versus the King of the North … Continued

Several days ago, I wrote that I had not received any constructive criticism of my recent blogs on this subject, but I indeed had received two replies to my original blog (#1) in the series of propositions recently published under the above general heading.

I was in error in stating that as fact, for I had actually received two comments on that first article. But since the correspondents did not comment on the remaining series I assumed I had made my point successfully …


So the first respondent, after being asked to be removed from our circulation list (which I did immediately), emailed me a copy of his original comments.

Apparently, even after we thought we had conclusively proven our point, the respondent re-stated it as firmly as ever. Had he even read our comments??

Well …!

Further discussion is apparently required. However, we expect no change of beliefs on the subject, so we will allow our copious and detailed articles to stand as a comprehensive reply to this communication. Unfortunately, the respondent, Andy Walton (name included at his request), may not receive our reply because he has been expunged from our list at his own request.

But for the record, here is his note in its entirety.

In it, some good points are made. Points such as in blog #1, I did put forth the argument that the named confederates in the two accounts of Daniel 11: 40-45 and Ezekiel 38/39 were presented in opposite postures, and that three entities mentioned by Daniel are not mentioned in Ezekiel. Admittedly, it is a relatively weak tactic to “argue” from a point of non-mention. So we conceded this point – let it be moot for the time being.

Then as you will see, the correspondent addresses some instances of varying accounts which have dissimilar narratives but which may be the same event from another slant.

Again, conceded. Such variations do occur.

The trouble is … that the respondent did not address any of the twenty-plus other blogs which I sent out following the first (weak) one.

So, here is the full Monte from our correspondent. Unfortunately he will not receive my reply, or see this discussion, because he has requested to be expunged from our List. I’m sorry for loss of his end of the discussion.

In November the reader wrote this … and remember that it is in response only to blog #1 in the series. More than twenty others followed that one, to which there is no reply. I insert my thoughts within the following text in red type face for easy separation of our comments …

Dear Bro Harold,

Here is why I do not accept your argument that Daniel 11 v 40 to the end is not the same event as Ezekiel 38.

Your main premise is that 3 nations are not mentioned in Ezekiel 38 but are mentioned in Daniel 11. This reference is to Moab, Ammon and Edom.

Therefore you conclude they cannot be the same event.

But for this logic to be true it means that every parallel account must be identical for it to be talking about the same event.

Take this example in the gospels….

In Matthew 20:30 we read of TWO blind men. In Luke 18:35 and Mark 10:46 we only have ONE blind man. Your logic would say that these must be two different events because one man is missing. But they are not different events. They are the same event. The reason they are different is simply we are being given a different perspective.

So how we do know the Matthew event is the same as Luke and Mark?

Cross references – you will note that your Bible links marginal cross references to the other chapters in the other gospels. Our comment is that man-created “cross references” mean little beyond their obvious utility in connecting similar language; a great number of them in any Bible are often irrelevant to the subject under consideration.

Detail – there are exact phrases and words in all three accounts not found elsewhere, e. g., Jesus says “What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee”.

Context – when you look at the events prior to and following you can see it fits perfectly. Note that James and John make requests to Jesus before this event.

So even though 2 gospels say there was one blind man and 1 gospel says there were 2 we know there were 2. The extra detail must be added in not taken away. We may then ask why – and that is another subject in this case! But suffice to say it is a jigsaw puzzle that is fitted together.

This statement is true – when the pieces FIT. And they happen to fit in this case. Point conceded.

But this principle is null and void when applied to two situations in which many of the facts as to context; participants, historical time, documentation, significance, and outcome are mutually exclusive … as I believe we have shown to be the case in Gog vs. K of N. They very effectively reveal themselves to be entirely different accounts of two entirely different episodes in prophecy/history.

If we apply the same logic to Ezekiel 38 and Daniel 11:40 to the end we find it is the same.

Cross references – my Bible has cross references from Daniel 11:40 to Ezekiel 38:4. Daniel 11:41 to Ezekiel 38:8-9. Daniel 11:43 to Ezekiel 38:5. Daniel 11:45 to Ezekiel 38:22. Clearly we are being directed to the other account. As already stated … cross references are reflective of the thinking of men, and may be nearly totally irrelevant.

When a prophet is describing warfare, there are a limited number of terms available for its description. Of course many of the terms are similar; so one must consider the context and the other details of the prophecy to arrive at a rational conclusion about these ...

Do all the other revealed facts fit together? No.

Are these two events occurrent at the same time in history? No.

Are the preceding conditions even similar? No.

Is the outcome similar, or identical? No.

Are the named participants comparable? No.

Does an historically verifiable series of events fit either prophecy as being already fulfilled? Yes!

The historical account of the Ottoman affair perfectly integrates with the LAST King of the North narrative of Daniel (see our insertion of reference to an earlier detailed article on this subject), and is significantly different in multiple ways from the Gogian account of Ezekiel 38/39. Daniel’s prophecy of Chapter 11 is a continuous narrative (meaning that there is no “gap” in the coverage) of the occupants of “Palestine” during and after the Seleucid-Ptolemaic era when the terms “King of the North” and “King of the South” are introduced (cf., verses 5 and 6).

One main point here, concerning that proposed “gap” as implied in our correspondent’s convictions, is that, if the expectation of a future invasion by the “King of the North” is valid, just who is presently the “King of the South?” There must be one in power at this moment if neither have come to their end!

Although inane to suggest it … Israel must be the present King of the South, for Israel is now in possession of Jerusalem and God’s Holy Land, which is the main identifier of either of these Kings at every instance in Daniel’s narrative. (But don’t ever let anyone convince you that we believe that thesis, for it is absurd!)

And as such, it reveals yet another plane in which the entire construct of Gog’s equivalency to the King of the North is entirely unworkable and abjectly false.

Detail – there are exact phrases and words in both accounts. See table below. The colour coding link the phrases. Without any doubt these passages link together. Even though the words are slightly different the meanings are the same, i.e., “time of the end” = “in the latter years”. “The glorious land” = “mountains of Israel” etc. And yes there is some additional detail in both depending on which one you are looking at. Daniel 11 explains how Russia not only comes down into Israel but goes beyond into Egypt.

We cannot accept this interjection after detailed inspection of Ezekiel 38 and 39, a narrative which indicates no possibility of this action (of Russia “going beyond into Egypt”) because Ezekiel’s narrative (the acknowledged, and provable, base narrative of this prophecy) entirely negates any such possibility; Ezekiel indicates NO success whatever for Gog (his narrative conclusively precludes such a possibility!); God’s “fury” of 38:18 requires no long period of war prosecution; it is instantaneous and pervasively destructive.

So instead of enjoying any successes at all, the entire Gogian host is destroyed (in one day?) upon the mountains of Israel, and buried at Hamon-gog. Just where is there any indication of a successful foray into Egypt??? Not only does the narrative not address such a possibility … it conclusively denies it. Ezekiel 38 explains that Persia is also part of the confederacy. Daniel 11 explains the “push” whereas Ezekiel 38 explains the “pull” (hooks in jaws).

Yes, your premise is partially correct and the details are decisive: there ARE pushes and pulls. But the “pull” of the Gogian host is plainly described as “a spoil and a prey from ISRAEL and Egypt is not even under consideration by Gog. And the “push” of the King of the North (Ottoman Turkey as king of the north) was THE TREASURES OF EGYPT. Today, Egypt is bankrupt; it contains no “treasures.” But when the Ottomans overthrew the Mamluks who controlled Egypt in 1517AD, her riches were vast and deep, and were drained by Turkey for 400 years!

These two factors are therefore mutually exclusive – and cannot possibly be just two different views of the same event! Daniel 11 explains that Moab and Edom etc are bypassed whereas Ezekiel 38 focuses on the spoil in Israel.

So can both passages work together – answer YES.

Do they give different perspectives – answer YES.

By putting them together to they give a clearer picture - answer YES.

We may then need to ask the question – why does Russia bypass Edom and Moab and the children of Ammon?

The answer to that you allude to in your article. There is actually an initial war between Israel and her neighbours prior to Russia invading.

]At this place in Bro. Walton's paper, he inserted a chart. For mechanical reasons we could not reproduce it here; it illustrates some common terms in both accounts.\

I am happy to see this relatively “new” admission from your camp, as for many years you never mentioned it that we detected. Yes, there IS a decisive War which has been plainly revealed in God's Word, and has been our premise for years. It is the CRUX of the whole matter! It is THIS earlier exhaustive conflict that destroys the Islamic squatters within the Land between the Rivers (the Promised Land), and it is these who are the object of the lethal aggression of Christ and the Saints – all well in advance of the Gogian conflict.

John Thomas hardly even conceded this point, but you have; congratulations!! The entirely scriptural sequence that follows is the immediate ascension of Christ to His Throne in Mt. Zion, and the beginning stages of the First Dominion of the Kingdom of God.

It is unnecessary (but helpful) to point out that it is THIS conflict which sets the stage for the Gogian adventure, and its ultimate failure. And for this reason we can confidently assert that there is no possibility of a Gogian invasion through Christ’s Kingdom leading to Gog’s possession of Egypt. When Damascus is destroyed (as you reference – Isaiah 17) all the other events involved in the war of Psalm 83, of Obadiah, of Isaiah 11, of Ezekiel 28-38, of Zechariah 10-14 occur – our view being that since those events are mutually inclusive and cannot be fulfilled twice, that they all occur at the same time … and that they lead inevitably to the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the earth – all PRIOR to the Gogian adventure. It is a war that will involve the surrounding nations of Israel. It is a war that will see the demise of Syria and Damascus detailed in Isaiah 17. This very chapter talks of the cities of Aroer. These cities are found in Jordan which is also Moab. The cities of Aroer we are told in Isaiah 17:2 are forsaken. Russia is not interested in the forsaken land of Moab but in Israel that survived the war.

This may not be the answer but it could be. We concede … that it is not!

Either way it is much more difficult to argue these are different events at different times - purely on the basis that 2 nations (on the sidelines) are not mentioned.

We can do little more than ask your serious consideration and prayerful evaluation of our twenty-odd added blogs on this subject which you have received. Please let me know your thoughts if you have some new insight, but I am sincerely not interested in hearing all the old arguments yet again.

Context – the context of Daniel 11 is about the king of the north – Antiochus Epiphanes and the king of the south the Seleucids. Ezekiel 38 fits this context. We are told in Ezekiel 38 that the new king of the north is actually Russian. The reason for this is because the ancient king of the north (based in Syria) has been destroyed (in Isaiah 17). We know that the king of v36 – 39 is Gog himself because again we can track all these attributes to Daniel 8 and the little horn (that grows) which is a latter day Antiochus Epiphanes. Again we have key phrases that only occur in these two passages. Daniel 11:36 cross references to Daniel 8:25. It is exactly the same language. So the context fits.

I hope you find this helpful

YBIC , Andy Walton (name used by author’s request – Ed.)


We thank this correspondent for his input, and are looking forward hopefully to further discussion of these fascinating and deeply divisive views, but not necessarily with this respondent. We urge readers not to become tired of this discussion –nor complacent in their watchfulness, as we are on the threshold of the Event of the Ages – the Second Advent of our LORD, and the call to His Judgment.

The hopeful aspect of this current “argument” is that the outcome is not crucial to anyone’s attainment of salvation; these are not basic doctrinal subjects – not ones which should divide believers in these crucial end times.

With fraternal regards, Harold Lafferty, Editor and Publisher eTPL

January 31, 2017

Should Believers Pray to Christ?

Harold Lafferty

This article offers further observations upon the practice of praying to Christ rather than to our Father, YHVH. It is a consideration in which we do not wish to denigrate the importance of our LORD Jesus in the entire scheme of salvation for mankind, but rather to emphasize the ultimate Source of Salvation Himself.

A correspondent has suggested these words written in 1873 by a Bible scholar of note – Robert Roberts, Editor of The Christadelphian Magazine, Birmingham, England.

"The blind man at the temple, cured by Christ,'worshiped him' (John 9:38), and Jesus did not say as Peter said to Cornelius, when Cornelius 'fell down at his feet and worshiped him,' `Stand up; I myself also am a man.' His disciples worshiped him (Matt 28:17, Luke 24:53). So did the women who met him after his resurrection (Matt 27:9). So also a ruler came and worshiped him (Matt 9.18), A leper did the same (Matt 8:2). They that were with him in the ship worshiped him (Matt. 14:33). The angels were commanded to worship him (Heb 1:6). The saints in glory are represented as worshiping him, saying `Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and wisdom, and riches, and honor, and glory, and blessing.' (Rev.5:12-13 ...

"Now, though the Father is the highest object of reverence, is not Jesus an object of reverence also? Yes, verily, for God hath given him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow and every tongue confess (Philippians 2:9-10). To him will we sing the song of praise, and make the completest obeisance in the day of his glory ...

“Jesus did not teach the disciples to make their supreme petitions to him, but to the Father through him: 'Ye shall pray the Father in my name' … Yet this need not exclude such prayer and thanks (subordinately permissible to him) as are illustrated in 'Lord Jesus, come quickly' (Rev. 22:20); 'Lord, save me' (Matt. 14:30); 'I thank Christ Jesus our Lord.' (1Tim. 1:12).

“If Jesus were on earth, and we were to meet him, would we not do homage and make request of his favor? Undoubtedly. Well, he lives, and though we see him not, he sees us, and has all power; for it is given to him (Matt 28:18); and symbolized in the seven horns and seven eyes of the slain Lamb (Rev 5:6). He is able to succour those who are tempted (Heb. 2:18), and shall we not make request?

“But this does not conceal the fact that 'the head of Christ is God' (1Cor 11:3), and that 'out of him, are all things.' (1Cor 8:6). There is a place for every element of truth. The difficulty is sometimes to find it: and the misfortune often finds illustration in one man with one element of truth fighting another man who holds another element, both equally making havoc of that which properly blended is harmony itself.”

Robert Roberts' response to question "Is Jesus an object of worship?" (Full citation is The Christadelphian, May 1, 1873, pg. 234.)

We can well understand every Believer’s gratitude to the LORD Jesus Christ for the redemptive work which He has provided for His fellow members of the human race.

His life of obedience and submission to His Father – His perfect overcoming of the sin principle of diabolos (sin in the flesh) – cannot be overemphasized. That achievement resulted in His being the first begotten of the dead – that is, the first human being to be raised from the dead and immortalized.

Recently we happened to scan across the Eternal Word TV presentation of a “mass” being broadcast and were struck by the presiding priest offering adulation to God the Son, Jesus Son of Mary, Creator of the universe and God of gods. He continued the “mass,” praying directly to Jesus as God the Son – an entirely logical procedure IF one considers Jesus to be “God the Son.”

Problem is, the Bible contains no such title. It contains no such concept – no such doctrine of truth. Indeed, that phrase is the result of the Church’s having “changed the truth of God into a lie,” a phrase that is used in more than one context in God’s word. Paul utilized this phraseology in Romans when he referred to some … Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. Romans 1:25.

Although Paul was not directly referring to the worship of Christ, we might take his words in that context – pinpointing the same principle of denial – of some worshipping the Creature (Christ – God’s creation) more than the Creator (God Himself).

This concept agrees completely with the comment of John in which he noted that … And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. 1 John 5: 19, 20.

<HEL> Q&A inserted March 5, 2017

Q & A: Discussion of Armageddon

June 8, 2017

Dear Harold,

In your latest [PDE 504] prophetic article – “Zechariah 14:12 Nuclear Question Where? And When?” you state, “Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.” You then, toward the end of your article proceed to correctly emphasize Israel’ssuccessful defense against Islam as … one sided… which (is viewed) … as miraculous by military experts who don’t even believe in miracles.”

Do you not realize by correctly claiming Israel’s superior military accomplishment of the past, and Israel’s present possession of today’s superior military technology (including the F-35), that you are directly undercutting your often stated prophetic position for an early chronological 2nd Advent in order to protect and prevent the Jews from the horrific slaughter that the Futurist prophetic interpretation demands?

The two prophetic perspective are diametrically antagonistic the one against the other. You cannot (should not), say Christ comes to deliver (protect), “Jerusalem” from a possible horrific Islamic destruction and at the same time emphasize Jewish (Jerusalem’s), successful and impressive military power against inordinate superior military Islamic numbers.

Harold, you cannot sit on the fence on this issue. You must choose the one or the other.

Prophetic Suggestion:

Christ’s 2nd Advent does not come at the very beginning of the process of the Armageddon events (as the Futurist’s prophetic exposition demands), but rather at almost the very end of the Armageddon events (as the Historical and Chronological prophetic interpretation demands).

· The Futuristic prophetic exposition has Christ’s appearance at the very beginning of the Armageddon events.

· The Historical and Chronological prophetic exposition has Christ’s appearance almost at the very end of the Armageddon events.

After natural Israel has been given undeniable divine evidence by the visible heavenly destruction of Gog (Russia proper – Ezek. 38:18), which is preceded by the 7th and final Arab/Israeli War, that the United Nations sends the “all nations army” (Zech. 12 & 14, Rev. 16 & 17) in which the Pope of Rome becomes the spiritual (religious) leader (rides the beasts of Rev. 13 & 17) that produces the 2nd Advent of Christ. Which is just prior to this world’s third (attempted) destruction of Jerusalem that must and will fail.

Between the destruction of God and just slightly prior to Christ’s 2nd Advent, the natural Jew must make a choice between one of the two main philosophies within Judaism – the Secularist

viewpoint or the Zionist viewpoint. The Secularists will be utterly befuddled and bemoaned, and the Zionists will “willingly” embrace their Jewish Messiah.

As always, your faithful friend in Christ Jesus, __________________

PS: Harold, why don’t you start your prophetic modification by printing this letter and asking comments on it? Whether you choose to print my name at the bottom, I leave it entirely in your capable hand (Author).

Editor’s note: We are taking the author’s suggestion and printing his letter exactly as written. We will be interested to find out whether readers have been paying attention to the hundreds and hundreds of scriptural passages which we have been discussing for 26 years which paint a much different picture than depicted in this letter.

We must make a few preliminary observations … but we hold our main ammunition for later possible discussion!

1. The Editor and Publisher of eTPL does not believe that the pope of Rome will ever attack Jerusalem with any military force. That is not supported by scripture.

2. The Editor and Publisher of eTPL does not believe that the United Nations will ever lead a force to attack Israel and Jerusalem. That is not supported by scripture.

3. The Editor and Publisher of eTPL does not subscribe to the notion that the future war to be fought over Jerusalem is identifiable as “Armageddon.” Armageddon, as scripturally defined, occurs only during the events of Revelation 16, the details of which depict the military destruction of Rome and the Harlot and the Beast, namely “… the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image (Rev. 16: 2). Also against those who … have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink (vs. 6). Also here we see that … the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast … (in Rome, not elsewhere (vs. 10). We must also notice that the “drawing power” for this conflict consists of “the three unclean spirits like frogs” of verse 13. With this introductory précis, the words of the LORD (the Revelator) begins the next chapter based on the scenes depicted by the previous chapter, using the singular words which address modern Rome and her “religion” as “… I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters (Revelation 17:1).

In our simple understanding, these events – the only ones in all scripture which are named “Armageddon” – are directed against Rome and the Beast upon which the Harlot sits, and occurs some time after the destruction of the Gogian Host by the direct intervention by YHVH. Armageddon is not applicable in any rational sense to Jerusalem or Israel! We are not at liberty to apply that term to any other series of conflicts although others toss the term about with reckless abandon in describing various end-time events. In our view, these recorded events come as a result of His sending forth the “everlasting gospel” to the world and demanding that they “… fear God and give glory to Him,” as Revelation 14:7.

4. The return of the Lord Jesus predates Armageddon as it also does the invasion of Gog, by some unknown period of time, in order to accomplish the hope of Zacharias, the father of John Immerser, who voiced his inspired, fervent hope as not only the Master’s visitation and redemption of His people of Luke1: 68, BUT ALSO these words indicating that Israel shall at that time be in dire need of being saved “from our enemies” as voiced so fervently in these words. Zacharias’ words are undeniable and must be integrated with other end-time events … we have left the highlighting which emphasizes this dire need for Israel’s salvation!

Luk 1:69 And (God) hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

These words voice a certainty of salvation of Israel from physical enemies – presumably enemies which could overwhelm them (otherwise Israel should save itself). At this future time, it appears that Israel will be in need of His physical salvation! To deny this concept and claim that Israel can save itself, thank you, is to deny these inspired words of Zacharias as to the mission of the returned Lord Jesus Christ.

5. There is a serious inability of our correspondent to realize that the wildly scattered, pitched battles of Israel with the nations “round about” appears to BE the seventh Arab-Israeli war, and that many of the prophetic references to it indicate that it is the LORD Jesus Who actually seems to initiate that conflict – which is our “take” on Isaiah 63: 1-6, where we see Him for the first time combating the forces of Edom, at the same time fulfilling Obadiah, Ezekiel 35, Psalm 83 and several other scriptural revelations! All these conflicts are the details of the Phase One End-time Wars of Israel, and precede both the Gogian conflict and that of the Beast, the Harlot and the False Prophet of Revelation 16-19.

‘Nough said … for now. <HEL 6P> ~1350 words. Published June 8, 2017: Q &A 2017.