E. W. Bullinger
E. W. Bullinger
Philologos Religious Online Books
Philologos.org
September, 1897 | Vol. IV July 1897 - June 1898 | Main Index
The Official Organ of Prophetic Conferences.
E. W. Bullinger
September, 1897
"Russia's Destiny by the Light of Prophecy"
(By A. H. Burton, S. W. Partridge & Co., sixpence.)
The pamphlet published under this title is no product of the usual text-garbler, with money to throw away on airing his nostrum, and designed to tell us about the Eastern Question. It is the thoughtful effort of a spiritually-taught Christian to further the knowledge of God's children as to His plans for the government of the earth—from a practical point of view.
The author has evidently availed himself of Darby's voluminous writings in his studies. He has regarded in its proper light the fact that God gave the leading keys of the recovered truth that for seventeen centuries had been lost, to Mr. Darby, i.e., he sees God in the matter, not man.
When, however, he wishes to persuade us that the Gog of Ezekiel is the Assyrian of Isaiah, and by making a vassal of Turkey represents the empire of Russia as at present constituted, we cannot accept the conclusion. It will not bear close criticism.
Nothing is to be founded upon the analogy between Isaiah in 10 and 14:24-28 and Ezekiel in 38 and 39. Because the Assyrian and Gog are alike destroyed upon the mountains of Israel, that does not prove God to be the Assyrian. There is "false analogy" arising from what is known in terms of logic as "undistributed middle"—i.e., the inference of identity of two or more objects on the mere ground of their having some qualification in common. The chapters themselves show distinction between Gog's onslaught and that of the Assyrian. The Assyrian has a yoke over Israel which needs breaking whereas Gog comes upon the scene at a time when they are under no yoke, but dwelling comfortably in unwalled villages and free as air.
But there is a radical difference between Gog himself and the Assyrian. The former is raised up by God as the rod of His anger, being the opponent of the house of David, the unbelief of Ahaz being the immediate cause of the decree, and consequently his yoke is finally broken by Messiah, the Son of David, the deliverer coming out of Zion; whereas the latter is raised up by Him according to His purpose that the Gentiles should know that He sanctified Israel. Let anyone compare the argument in Isaiah 7 to 14 with the argument in Ezekiel 36 to 48, and the fallacy will become manifest. Messiah, the main subject of Isaiah, is not in question in the prophecy of Ezekiel, is not even named. Ezekiel's mission was based upon the fact that God had not been sanctified in the presence of the Gentiles by the nation of Israel, and that this purpose of His was not going to fail. Ezekiel 36 to 48 reads simply enough if we consider the interval that is to elapse between the close of the Apocalyptic judgments and the full establishment of Israel over the Gentiles.
Russia is clearly a member of the European Concert, and has part in the clay-iron of the feet of the image of Daniel 2, which passes away under the Apocalyptic judgments. Very likely Meschech and Tubal were the ancestors of the people of Russia; but as the families of the earth are to remain after the destruction of the image, that argument has no bearing on the case. We cannot close without alluding to another fallacy, which is almost universal amongst authors of books on prophecy, viz., the supposed identity between the kingdoms of Daniel 2 and those of Daniel 7. The keenly discriminating legal mind of Dr. Anderson has exposed it in The Coming Prince, and we refer our readers to his remarks.
Our own observations are these: To argue that because the kingdoms in the former chapter are four, and those in the latter chapter are four, and because the same prophet predicts the rise in each case, they are necessarily the same identical kingdoms, from the first to the fourth, is another instance of what is called in Logic, the "undistributed middle." Here again the chapters themselves show distinction. The kingdoms of Daniel 2 follow one another in succession, whereas those of Daniel 7 all arise together; the kingdoms of Daniel 2 all pass away at the judgment, whereas some of those of Daniel 7 remain afterwards "for a season and a time." A full understanding of the Book of Daniel must be hopeless until current expositions of Daniel 7 have been thoroughly overhauled, and the present aspect of the Eastern Question will not become clear by the light of prophecy meanwhile.
Limited space prevents our saying more about the matter at present. Students of prophecy who wish to discern the danger of relying upon an analogy, or a congeries of analogies, to prove identity, without first scrutinizing the text by searching to see if there is not also distinction, should analyze Anglo-Israelite publications, where the "undistributed middle," appearing in its grotesque and exaggerated form, is more clearly marked. The authors of them make it their practice to search for a qualification common to England and the Israel of prophecy, and call it an "identification."
September, 1897 | Vol. IV July 1897 - June 1898 | Main Index
Philologos | Online Books | Bible Prophecy Research | The BPR Reference Guide | About Us