The Gowan Invasion: Resurrection

The following extract from a letter from Margery McGregor deals mainly with points from The Apocalypse magazine No. 12.

You don’t of course expect all your readers to agree with all your argument. I would therefore like to mention two points.

The first is your assertion, repeated in No.12, that Ezekiel 37 has already been fulfilled and we are on the threshold of Ch. 38, awaiting Russia’s annexation of Constantinople. It would seem to me that Ez. 36 v 25 onward, and ch. 37 v 22 onward refer to a people brought back into covenant relationship with their God – only then can they receive His blessing and be in the situation of ch.38. I cannot see that the present State of Israel fulfils this prophecy.

The other point is your suggestion that those living at the time of our Lord’s return, may not be called to His judgement seat at that time. No.12, j and k. You instance those who have been only a short time “in the Truth”.

Apart from in the Book of Revelation itself which speaks of two judgements, can yo give any specific proof of this? Would you not agree that the Christians of the 1st Century were hoping that the Lord would return before they died so that they would receive judgement and “change” before tasting physical death? Nowhere are they told that they must physically die before they can be judged but they are told that they must die with Christ.This death in baptism seems to be of far greater importance in the sight of God than any cessation of breathing.

The parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (although perhaps not strictly opposite to this argument) does talk of those who have only laboured one hour, and indeed mortality being what it is, many saints do not reach even middle age, let alone old age, physically, before dying, would not your argument put these “young dead” at a decided disadvantage in comparison with the young alive at the Lord’s return?

May I ask one further question. Have you any explanation as to why Dan is omitted from the Tribes? Joseph’s double portion plus the reintroduction of Levi means that one tribe has to be omitted, but why Dan particularly? Why not Reuben, for instance, who received more of a curse than a blessing!


Responses

Ray Walker responded in The Bible Student, Vol 1, No 3, May - June, 1971

  • Thank you very much for an interesting and thoughtful letter. We will give as good replies as we can, but we accept that everyone may not agree with our viewpoint on everything - and so we give our reasons, and leave you to judge for yourself.

    First, Ezekiel 37 and 38. We do not see the prophecies in this part of Ezekiel as strictly chronological. It seems that they all deal with one particular time - the time of Israel's final redemption - but that each looks from a different angle. Each of them, however, ends-with Israel back in cov­enant relationship, at peace in the Land. Each puts the same order of events - I. Regathering 2. Entry into Land. 3. Spirit poured out on them by God.'

    Now, if you look at the prophecies of Ez.36 - 39, you will see these three elements occurring in at least three of the prophecies in these chapters-First, in v.24, and the gift of God's spirit in vv 25 - 27. Then there is the dry bones prophecy, which has the regathering and entry into the land in 37:12. and the giving of the spirit in v.14. But now look at chs. 38 and 39. This has the regathering and re-entry into the land spoken of in 38:8; but not until 39:29 is the spirit poured out on Israel.

    We assume therefore that the events of Ez.38, the Gog - Magog invasion must be inserted into the other visions, between the regathering and the pouring of the spirit. That is, it seems likely that the invasion is a way of preparing Israel for this "new heart". Ez.39:26 is very illuminating. It shows that when Israel dwelt safely in the land (see 38:8) she sinned against God, and therefore had to be taken once more into captivity - a short captivity, perhaps, but a salutary lesson for a proud nation. Only after this lesson would Israel "know that I am the LORD their God" (v.28).

    Our view is that today Israel is regathered in the land in fulfilment of Ez. 37:12; but before v.14 is fulfilled, the events of Ez.38:9 - 39:21 must take place. Thus Israel in 38:8 is not yet in covenant relationship, but is in fact offending against God as stated in 39:26.

    Now the second point - the two judgments We are afraid you have misunderstood what we were trying to say here, and regret that this is certainly our fault, for on re-reading the sections you refer to, they do not read very clearly to us either.

    We accept the teaching of Scripture that the dead saints are raised from the dead, and that then the living saints are 'raised' from their mortal state to that of immortality. This is taught in I Thess.4:I6 and 17, in I Cor. 15 and we believe in Revelation also. Our only point here was that though the dead were always spoken of as being raised at a particular time (at the last trump), all that is ever said of the living is that these are 'raised' after the rising of the dead. (In both cases by using the word 'rising' we mean 'raising to immortality', whether of dead or living.)  We suggested - and this is more speculation - that this 'raising' of the living might not take place at one particular time - and that each living saint as he was found worthy could be made immortal by the Lord Jesus. While this is admittedly speculation, it would explain why there is no 'second' resurrection ever referred to - and why the apostle Paul speaks of the 'dead' as the subject of the first resurrection, and says no more but "then...we which are alive", etc.

    Thus we would suggest that after the return of the Lord Jesus to the earth, no faithful Christian ever dies, but is at some time "caught up" to be with the Lord and with those who have been raised from the dead, as immortal rulers of the Kingdom. As far as length of probation would go, some might be "caught up" at an early age, some after a long time, according to the judgment of the Lord. In fact, things would be much as they are today, as far as the question of probation goes, for some, as you say, die early - and this must mean their probation has been judged sufficient by the Lord. But if at a single point of time all the living existing at that time were called to judgment, there appears to be no individual judgment on this matter, but only an arbitrary line drawn. However, we are most un-dogmatic on this, as you may imagine.

    As for your last point, we are afraid we have no very helpful answer to give on the question as to why Dan is omitted from the tribes. One can think of the early apostasy of Dan after entering the Land. But as you say other tribes have equal claims to notoriety. If you look at Ez.48, which appears to refer to a time later than that prophesied by Rev.7, Dan is again included, and Levi absent, being once again taken for temple duties. This must, however, deal with Israelite things; and the 144,000 are 'the Israel of God', i.e., the saints. Which admittedly doesn't get very far.