EZEKIEL 38 AND 39

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39
Part VII

by Thomas Ice
“And I will turn you about, and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them wielding swords;’”
—Ezekiel 38:4
As we look deeply at this prophecy we see that God will put hooks into the jaws of Gog, who is the prince of Rosh, which we have seen is a reference to modern day Russia. Thus, Gog appears to be a Russian individual who will lead the Russian nation and her allies in an attack on regathered Israel. This is the basic situation that we see today as we scan the geo-political landscape. The stage is already set for just such an attack.
A ROD OF DISCIPLINE?
Some might argue that the Gog invasion has already taken place in conjunction with God’s discipline of Israel in the sixth century B.C. Randall Price notes the following:
The role of Gog, however, is different than that of past invaders such as the Assyrians and Babylonians who had been called the “rods of God’s wrath” (cf. Isaiah 10:5). On the one hand Gog’s willful decision to invade (verse 11) is based on his own passions (verses 12-13), but on the other hand he is drawn (as with hooks in his jaw, verse 4) in order to make possible a divine demonstration of God’s power and intervention for Israel to the nations (verses 21, 23; 39:27) and Israel itself (39:28).1
Thus, it seems unlikely that this prophecy refers to a past disciplinary action by God where He uses other nations to chastise Israel, as He did with Assyrian against the Northern Kingdom (722 B.C.) and against the Southern Kingdom with the Babylonians (586 B.C.). If such were the case then God would not intervene on behalf of Israel as He does in this passage. When God uses a pagan nation to discipline Israel, He never intervenes to protect Israel during such an invasion.
I WILL BRING YOU OUT
As we continue to look more closely at Ezekiel 38:4 we see that the Lord, after having put hooks in Gog’s jaw will bring him out of his place. The Hebrew verb translated “I [God] will bring you [Gog] out” is in a causative stem meaning that God will use the hook in the jaw to bring Gog out of his place.2 Once again, this is not something that Gog would have instigated had not God intervened to bring him out to their eventual destruction.
GOG’S MILITARY RESOURCES
When Gog comes down against Israel it will be with “all your army, horses and horsemen.” The Hebrew word for “army” (chayil) has the basic meaning of “strength or power,”3 depending upon what is referenced in the context. It is the primary word for army in the Old Testament but has the abstract idea of “strength,” “wealth,” or more
-2-
concretely “military forces,”4 since it takes great wealth to field a strong military. The word is used again to describe Gog and his allies in 38:15, this time with the adjective “mighty.” In other words, the chayil is a term that carries the idea of military might and the semantic range would not be limited to an ancient army. Since the word “all” is used with army, it means that their entire army, not just part of it, will come in this invasion of Israel.
The next textual description is that this invading army will have “horses and horsemen.” It is obvious what horses mean, while horsemen would be those soldiers riding horses for military purposes. Horsemen are often distinguished from those riding chariots in the Old Testament. Charles Feinberg concludes: “The mention of horses and horsemen is not to be taken to mean that the army would consist entirely or primarily of cavalry.”5 Feinberg’s statement is supported by the fact that previously the text said “all your army,” which would include all aspects of an attacker’s resources. If this is the case, perhaps cavalry is singled out and mentioned specifically since it was the most potent offensive force for an invader in Ezekiel’s day. Also, horses denote a form of military conveyance, while horsemen the military personnel.
The last part of verse 4 describes how the military personnel are outfitted: “all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them wielding swords.” This is a reference to the horsemen, all of which are splendidly attired. The Hebrew word translated “splendidly” (miklol) is an interesting word found only here and in Ezekiel 23:12. It is defined variously as “most gorgeously” or “all sorts of armor.” “There is little agreement over the correct translation of this word,” since it is only used twice. “In both cases it is used in contexts describing the splendid appearance of military men. A literal translation would seem to be ‘clothed fully,’” or “all fully equipped.”6 In other words, these attackers will all have the best military equipment available in their day. They will not be ill equipped for the task they intend. Not only will the invaders be well equipped, there will be a great number of them who will come down to Israel.
This great company is said to have both “buckler and shield” to protect themselves. The Hebrew word for “shield” (sinna) refers to a “large shield covering the whole body.”7 While the Hebrew word for “buckler” (magen) refers to the smaller “shield or buckler carried by a warrior for defense.”8 This military equipment would be examples of the well-equipped condition of the invaders. “Besides the defensive arms, the greater and smaller shield,” declares Keil, “they carried swords as weapons of offense.”9 The Hebrew word “sword” (hereb) “can designate both (1) the two-edged dagger or short sword (Jgs. 3:16, 21) and (2) the single-edged scimitar or long sword.”10 Since these soldiers are riding on horses, it would make the most sense to think that the long sword is pictured here, which has historically been the weapon of choice for cavalry. The short sword would not be as practical from atop a horse. “The verse explains that Yahweh is bringing out Gog fully armed.”11 The greater the opponent then the greater the possibility that Israel will find herself in an impossible situation. An impossible situation calls for Divine intervention. Thus, there will be greater glory for God when He totally destroys the invaders.
WHAT ABOUT THE WEAPONS?
Critics of our futurist understanding of this passage point to the fact that the text says that invaders will be horsemen riding on horses and using weapons like swords and spears, “indicators of an ancient battle in a pre-industrial age,”12 insists preterist Gary DeMar. Without dealing with other textual details, DeMar argues primarily on
-3-
the basis of weapons described in the passage that it has already been fulfilled. “The weapons are ancient because the Battle is ancient.”13 When in the past was it fulfilled? DeMar, apparently with a straight face, insists it was fulfilled in the days of Esther.14
“These, of course, are antiquated weapons from the standpoint of modern warfare,” acknowledges John Walvoord. “This certainly poses a problem.”15 However, without abandoning the principles of literal interpretation, Walvoord believers that there is a solution to this problem. He cites three suggestions that have been made as follows:
One of them is this that Ezekiel is using language with which he was familiar—the weapons that were common in his day—to anticipate modern weapons. What he is saying is that when this army comes, it will be fully equipped with the weapons of war. Such an interpretation, too, has problems. We are told in the passage that they used the wooden shafts of the spears and the bow and arrows for kindling wood. If these are symbols, it would be difficult to burn symbols. . . .
A second solution is that the battle is preceded by a disarmament agreement between nations. If this were the case, it would be necessary to resort to primitive weapons easily and secretly made if a surprise attack were to be achieved. This would allow a literal interpretation of the passage.
A third solution has been suggested based on the premise that modern missile warfare will have been developed in that day to the point where missiles will seek out any considerable amount of metal. Under these circumstances, it would be necessary to abandon the large use of metal weapons and substitute wood such as is indicated in the primitive weapons. Whatever the explanation, the most sensible interpretation is that the passage refers to actual weapons pressed into use because of the peculiar circumstances of that day.16
(To Be Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
1 Randall Price, Unpublished Notes on The Prophecies of Ezekiel, (2007), p. 42.
2 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford, 1907), electronic edition.
3 G. Johannes Botterweck, & Helmer Ringgren, editors, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. IV (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 349.
4 Botterweck, & Ringgren, TDOT, vol. IV, p. 353.
5 Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), pp. 220–21.
6 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, editors, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), vol. I; p. 442.
7 Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, electronic edition.
8 Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, electronic edition.
9 C. F. Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 162.
10 G. Johannes Botterweck, & Helmer Ringgren, editors, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. V (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 155.
11 John W. Wevers, The New Century Bible Commentary: Ezekiel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 202.
12 Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), p. 367.

-4-
13 Gary DeMar, “Ezekiel’s Magog Invasion: Future or Fulfilled?” Biblical Worldview Magazine, vol. 22 (December, 2006), p. 6.
14 DeMar, Last Days Madness, pp. 368–69; see also Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), pp. 12–15.
15 John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), p. 115.
16 Walvoord, Nations, pp. 115–16.

EZEKIEL 38 & 39 Part 6

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39
Part VI
by Thomas Ice
“Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal. And I will turn you about, and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses and horsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of them wielding swords;’”
—Ezekiel 38:2–4
Now that the participants have been identified in verse 2, I now will look at what the Word of the Lord says about them. We have already seen in the first part of the verse that Ezekiel is told to set his face toward the direction of the coalition nations. Such a statement implies that they are a real, historical group of peoples. We learn at the end of verse 2 that Ezekiel is to “prophecy against him.” The “him” refers back to Gog, the leader of the invasion. The Hebrew word for “prophecy” is the usual word and in this context carries the notion that Ezekiel will be telling future history about Gog and the coalition that he will head. The Hebrew preposition “against” tells us that this is not a positive prophecy benefiting to Gog and his associates. Instead, the prophecy is against Gog because God is opposed to him, as we shall see as the passage unfolds.
GOD AGAINST GOG
The Lord God tells Ezekiel to announce that He (God) is against Gog in verse 3. The preposition “against” in verse 3 is different than the one used in verse 2. Here in verse 3 “against” has the idea of motion, thus, the action of the prophecy by God is against Gog. The two prepositions are very similar and it would appear that the two are used to emphasize the obvious fact that God is against Gog. As we will learn later in the passage, Gog may think that he is getting together the coalition to attack Israel, but it is God who ultimately is the cause of this great event (see verses 4, 8). God’s disposition being set against Gog in verses 2 and 3 paves the way nicely for His clear declaration in verse 4.
HOOKS INTO YOUR JAWS
The first phrase in verse 4 says, “I will turn you about.” The Hebrew word for “turn” is sub. Its basic meaning is “to move in an opposite direction from that toward which one previously moved. . . . turn around, turn.”1 In theological contexts it is the classic word in the Old Testament for “repent,” as used so often by Jeremiah. “The verb, with over 1,050 occurrences, ranks twelfth in frequency among words in the OT.”2 The sense in which this word is used so often in the Old Testament has the notion of repentance, as in Israel repenting and turning from their sin to the Lord. This is the same way in which repentance is used by preachers like John the Baptist in the New Testament. In fact, today in Orthodox Judaism when a non-observant Jew begins to practice their religion, this is called “doing subah,” or repenting. However, in the context of Ezekiel 38, this use of an intensive form of sub (the polel stem) in relation to Gog does not refer to religious repentance, but rather to a change in ones plans. “Here
-2-
and in ch. xxxix. 2,” notes C. F. Keil, “it means to lead or bring away from his previous attitude, i.e. to mislead or seduce, in the sense of enticing to a dangerous enterprise.”3 What more dangerous enterprise could there ever be than warring against God or His people—Israel?
Since the Lord wants to move Gog in the direction of coming down to attack Israel, the verb natan is used to explain the means that God will employ. The Lord will “place” or “put” hooks into the jaws of Gog. Keil tells us, “Gog is represented as an unmanageable beast, which is compelled to follow its leader (cf. Isa. xxxvii. 29); and the thought is thereby expressed, that Gog is compelled to obey the power of God against his will.”4 Lawson Younger explains the meaning and use of the Hebrew word for “hook” as follows:
While the literal meaning of hah is “thorn,” in the OT it is used metaphorically for a hook. In the majority of occurrences, hah is employed in military contexts for a hook put through the nose or cheek of captives: of Sennacherib, in whose nose God will put a hook (2 Kgs 19:28; Isa. 37:29); of Jehoahaz taken to Egypt by hook (Ezek 19:4); of Zedekiah taken to Babylon by hook (19:9); of Pharaoh, in whose jaw God will put a hook (29:4; and of Gog, in whose jaw God will also put hooks (28:4).5
Just as a whole host of Israel’s enemies down through history have not wanted to do what God has asked them to do, so will Gog, like Pharaoh be made to follow His will, even though their intentions are 180 degrees in the opposite direction, which demonstrates the use of the hook imagery by God. “Like a ring in the nose of a captive or a great hook in the jaws of a crocodile, God will pull Gog and his allies out for this invasion when he is ready for them,” notes Mark Hitchcock. “God will do God’s bidding and will act according to God’s timetable.”6 Arnold Fruchtenbaum summarizes this section by reminding us:
It is God Who is in control; it is He who is bringing the invasion about. Thus, while studying this passage, one should note the sovereignty of God in this invasion. This will be the means by which God will punish Russia for her sins. The key sin is her long history of anti-Semitism, a problem that persists in Russia to this day.7
STAGE SETTING IN RUSSIA AND IRAN
How are some of the issues from the first few verses of Ezekiel 38 setting the stage today for future fulfillment? While other nations in the Gog coalition have been in the news at one time or another, right now Russia and Iran are making a lot of noise on the geo-political scene. Also, for those who are not watching Turkey, they are on the verge of being taken over by radical wing of Muslims in their Parliament. If they succeed, they will return Turkey to Muslim rule, which will result in their dismissal of democracy.
Mart Zuckerman, editor of U. S. News & World Report has said, “Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview several years ago, criticized America's decision to go to war against Iraq and told me, "The real threat is Iran." He was right. But Russia has become part of the problem, not the solution.”8 It is no secret that Russia has played a role of enabler to Iran, which has risen to the top of the list of rogue states that threaten to bring great destabilization to the current world order. “And Russia has made the
-3-
threat more real. It sold the nuclear power plant at Bushehr to Iran and contracted to sell even more to bring cash into its nuclear industry. As one American diplomat put it, this business is a ‘giant hook in Russia's jaw.’"9 What? Could you repeat that last statement? The American diplomat said, “this business is a ‘giant hook in Russia's jaw.’” That’s right, the diplomat used a phrase right out of Bible prophecy to describe Russia’s current role with Iran.
Some detractors of our view of Bible prophecy have said that with the fall of the Soviet Empire a Russian led invasion seems very unlikely from a geo-political standpoint. It has always been the case that this prophecy speaks of a Russian led, not a Soviet led, attack against Israel. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Empire Russian has continued to maintain close relations with most of the Islamic nations, especially those in the Middle East. It would not be surprising from a geo-political perspective to see Russia join with Islamic states like Iran in a surprise attack against Israel.
For over fifteen years I have speculated that the “hook in the jaw” of Gog that God could use to bring a reluctant Russia down upon the land of Israel could be some thing like the following scenario that I articulated to Hal Lindsey on a National television show10 in 1991 on the day the first Gulf War ended: I could see the Muslims approaching the Russians and telling them that America has set a precedent for an outside power coming into the Middle East to right a perceived wrong. (America has done it again in recent years by going into Afghanistan and Iraq.) On that basis, Russia should help her Muslim friends by leading them in an overwhelming invasion of Israel in order to solve the Middle East Conflict in favor of the Islamic nations. Will this be the “hook in the Jaw” of Gog? Only time will tell. But something is up in the Middle East and Russia appears to have her fingerprints all over things. We know that the Bible predicts just such an alignment and invasion to take place “in the latter years” (Ezek. 38:8).
(To Be Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
1 G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, & Heinz-Josef Fabry, editors, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. XIV (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), p. 464.
2 Botterweck, Ringgren, & Fabry, TDOT, vol. XIV, p. 472.
3 C. F. Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin (Reprint; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 161. 4 Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, p. 161.
5 Willem A. VanGemeren, gen. editor, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 5 vols., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), vol. 2, p. 44.
6 Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: Bible Prophecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p. 104.
7 Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events (Tustin, CA: Ariel Press, [1982] 2003), p. 109.
8 Mortimer B. Zuckerman, “Moscow’s Mad Gamble,” U. S. News & World Report, Internet Edition (Jan. 30, 2006), p. 1.
9 Zuckerman, “Moscow’s Mad Gamble,” p. 1.
10 On “The Praise the Lord” show on Trinity Broadcasting Network.

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39 Part 5

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39
Part V

by Thomas Ice
“Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him.”
—Ezekiel 38:2
As we have seen previously, the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew took Rosh as a proper noun and identified them with the people of Southern Russian and the Ukraine. Such a translation indicates that the Greek-speaking Jews in North Africa believed that Rosh was a proper noun and referred to a known people. After providing an impressive amount of data to support the notion that the Rosh people refer to modern day Russians, Clyde Billington declares:
Therefore, it is almost certain that the ancient people whom the Greeks called Tauroi/Tursenoi were identical to the people known as “Tiras” in the Bible. These same Tiras people of Genesis 10:2 were also called in other languages by a variety of names based upon the name Tiras. For example, note the names: Taruisha [Hittite], Turus/Teresh [Egyptian], Tauroi/Tursenoi [Greek], and Tauri/Etruscan [Latin].1
Second, Billington tells us, “From a variety of sources it is known that a people named the Ros or Rus lived in the same area near the Black Sea where the Tauroi people lived.”2 Billington also tells us that “early Byzantine Christian writers identified the Rosh people of Ezekiel 38–39 with an early group of people of southern Russia whom they called the “‘Ros.’”3 We further learn that “the Byzantine Greeks used the LXX spelling [Ros] of the name because they unquestionably identified the Ros/Rus/Russian people of southern Russia with the Rosh people mentioned in Ezekiel 38–39.”4
Third, “it is well-known that the first Russian state was founded by a people known as the Varangian Rus.”5 Many current scholars like Edwin Yamauchi support the notion that the name Rus, from which the modern name for Russia is derived, is a Finnish word and refers to Swedish invaders from the North, not from the Rosh people in the South. He says that the name Rus did not come to the region until the Middle Ages when it was brought by the Vikings.6 However, while Yamauchi is a respected scholar, his dogmatic conclusion stands in direct opposition to the substantial historical evidence presented by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius, James Price, and Clyde Billington.
Billington provides six objections to Yamauchi’s claim of a Northern origin of Rus instead of a Southern one. First, the Byzantine use of the word Rus for those who became the Russians pre-dates by hundreds of years the later Northern claim. Second, Byzantine sources never speak of these people as having immigrated from the North to the South. They “were long time inhabitants of the Black Sea—Russia—Ukraine—Crimea area, and none of the Byzantine sources states that the original homeland of the Ros was Scandinavia.”7 Third, since various forms of the Rosh people are found in use all the way back to the second century B.C., it is most unlikely that the Finns invented the name Rus. Fourth, “there is no logical reason why the Ros people should have adopted the foreign Finnish name of “Ruotsi” after migrating to southern Russia.”8 Fifth, “all modern scholars agree that the Varangians never called
-2-
themselves (and they were never called by others) ‘Ros’ while they still lived in Scandinavia near the Finns.”9 Finally, Byzantine and Western records indicate that there were people in Southern Russia who were already calling themselves by the name of “Rus” many years before the Northern invasion.10
It is clear when one sifts through the evidence that the Varangians who migrated from Scandinavia into Southern Russia were called by the name of “Rus” when they moved into that area which had already been known by that name for many years. Billington summarizes: “As was argued above, the Varangian Rus took their name from the native people named the Ros who had from ancient times lived in the area to the north of the Black Sea. In other words there were two Ros peoples: the original Sarmatian Ros people and the Varangian Rus people.”11
It should be clear by now that Rosh does indeed refer to the modern day Russian people. Both grammatical and historical evidence have been provided. This is why I agree with the overall conclusions of Billington, who says:
1. Ezekiel 38–39 does mention a people called the “Rosh” who will be an allies of Meshech, Tubal, and Gog in the Last Days.
2. There were Rosh peoples who lived to the north of Israel in the Caucasus Mountains and to the north of the Black and Caspian Seas.
3. Some of the Rosh people who lived to the north of Israel came in time to be called “Russians.”
4. The name Russian is derived from the name Ros/Rosh which is found in Ezekiel 38–39.
5. And, in conclusion, it is clear that Russian peoples will be involved along with Meshech, Tubal, and Gog in an invasion of Israel in the Last Days.12
WHO IS MESHECH?
I now move on to the much easier task of identifying to whom Meshech refers. Meshech appears 10 times in the Hebrew Old Testament,13 including its first usage in the Table of Nations (Gen. 10:2). In Genesis 10 Meshech is listed as a son of Japheth. The genealogical descent from Genesis 10 is repeated twice in 1 Chronicles (1:5, 17). Other than references in Psalm 120:5 and Isaiah 66:19, the other occurrences of Meshech are all found in Ezekiel (27:13; 32:26; 38:2, 3; 39:1). The three references in Ezekiel 38 and 39 all group “Rosh, Meshech and Tubal” together, as does Isaiah 66:19 but in a different order. Mark Hitchcock tells us:
All we know about Meshech from the Old Testament is that Meshech and his partners Javan and Tubal traded with the ancient city of Tyre, exporting slaves and vessels of bronze in exchange for Tyre’s merchandise. That’s all the Bible tells us about ancient Meshech. However, ancient history has a great deal to say about the location and people of ancient Meshech.14
Some Bible teachers in the past have taught that Meshech is a reference to Moscow and thus refers to Russia. This is the view of The Scofield Reference Bible, Harry Rimmer15 and Hal Lindsey.16 Rimmer says of Meshech: “his descendants came to be called ‘Mosche,’ from which derived the old term ‘Muscovites.’ While this later word is and has been applied to all Russians who come from Moscow and its vicinity.”17 The identification of Meshech with Moscow is merely based upon a similarity of sound. There is not real historical basis to support such a view, therefore, it must be rejected.
-3-
Allen Ross, based upon historical and biblical information in his dissertation on the table of nations says:
Tubal and Mesek are always found together in the Bible. They represent the northern military states that were exporting slaves and copper (Ezekiel 27:13, 38:2, 39:1, 32:26 and Isaiah 66:19). Herodotus placed their dwelling on the north shore of the Black Sea (III, 94). Josephus identified them as the Cappadocians. . . . Mesek must be located in the Moschian mountains near Armenia. Their movement was from eastern Asia Minor north to the Black Sea.18
The area southeast of the Black Sea is modern day Turkey. “At every point in the history” of Meshech, notes Hitchcock “they occupied territory that is presently in the modern nation of Turkey.”19 Such a conclusion is not a controversial one since virtually all scholars agree with this view.
WHO IS TUBAL?
“Tubal” appears eight times in the Hebrew Bible20 (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5; Isa. 66:19; Ezek. 27:13; 32:26; 38:2, 3; 39:1). Tubal is identified as the fifth son of Japheth and the brother of Meshech in the table of nations (Gen. 10:2). As noted above by Ross, Tubal is always grouped together with Meshech in the Bible and Ezekiel 38 is no exception.
Some prophecy teachers have taught that Tubal is the derivative that became the modern Russian city Tobolsk. This view was popularized by The Scofield Reference Bible and a number of other teachers. However, as was the case with Meshech, such a view is developed from similarity of the sound of Tubal and Tobolsk. This view lacks a solid historical basis. The historical record, as was the case with Meshech, is that Tubal and his descendants immigrated to the area southeast of the Black Sea in what is modern day Turkey. Meshech and Tubal clearly provide the population base for the country we now call Turkey.
Today Turkey is considered a secular country. However, Turkey has a long history as a Muslim dominated country that for hundreds of years headed up the Muslim empire. Turkey is just a step away from returning to its Islamic political heritage, which would provide a basis for aliening with the other Muslim dominated territories that will one day invade Israel. Maranatha!
(To Be Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
1 Clyde E. Billington, Jr., “The Rosh People in History and Prophecy (Part Three),” Michigan Theological Journal 4:1 (Spring 1993), pp. 42–43.
2 Billington, “The Rosh People (Part Three),” p. 44.
3 Billington, “The Rosh People (Part Three),” p. 48.
4 Billington, “The Rosh People (Part Three),” p. 50.
5 Billington, “The Rosh People (Part Three),” p. 51.
6 Edwin M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982), p. 20. 7 Billington, “The Rosh People (Part Three),” p. 52.

-4-
8 Billington, “The Rosh People (Part Three),” p. 53.
9 Billington, “The Rosh People (Part Three),” p. 53.
10 Billington, “The Rosh People (Part Three),” pp. 52–53.
11 Billington, “The Rosh People (Part Three),” p. 57.
12 Billington, “The Rosh People (Part Three),” p. 62.
13 Based upon a search conducted by the computer program Accordance, version 6.9.2.
14 Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: Bible Prophecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p. 56.
15 Harry Rimmer, The Coming War and the Rise of Russia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940), pp. 55–56.
16 Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970).
17 Rimmer, The Coming War, pp. 55–56.
18 Allen P. Ross, “The Table of Nations in Genesis” (ThD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1976), pp. 204–05.
19 Mark Hitchcock, Iran The Coming Crisis: Radical Islam, Oil, And The Nuclear Threat (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2006), p. 184.
20 Based upon a search conducted by the computer program Accordance, version 6.9.2.

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39 Part 4

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39
Part IV

by Thomas Ice
“Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him.”
—Ezekiel 38:2
Fifth, the most impressive evidence in favor of taking Rosh as a proper name is simply that this translation is the most accurate. G. A. Cooke, a Hebrew scholar, translates Ezekiel 38:2, “the chief of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal.” He calls this “the most natural way of rendering the Hebrew.”1 Why is it the most natural way of rendering the Hebrew? Rosh appears in construct form in the Hebrew with Meshech and Tubal meaning that the grammar forms a list of three nouns. Some want to say that rosh is a noun functioning as an adjective since there should be an “and” if it were intended to be a list of three nouns. The same exact Hebrew construction appears in Ezekiel 38:5, as well as 27:13 and these are clearly recognized as a list of three nouns by grammarians even though “and” does not appear in either list. Normal Hebrew and Arabic grammar supports rosh as a noun (see also 38:3 and 39:1). Actually, Hebrew grammar demands that rosh be taken as a noun. No example of Hebrew grammar has ever been cited that would support taking rosh as an adjective. Instead, in Hebrew grammar one cannot break up the construct chain of the three nouns that have this kind of grammatical arrangement.2 Hebrew scholar Randall Price says, “on linguistic and historical grounds, the case for taking Rosh as a proper noun rather than a noun-adjective is substantial and persuasive.”3
In light of such overwhelming evidence, it is not surprising that Hebrew scholar James Price concludes the following:
It has been demonstrated that Rosh was a well-known place in antiquity as evidenced by numerous and varied references in the ancient literature. It has also been demonstrated that an adjective intervening between a construct noun and its nomen rectum is highly improbable, there being no unambiguous example of such in the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that regarding Rosh as a name is in harmony with normal Hebrew grammar and syntax. It is concluded that Rosh cannot be an adjective in Ezekiel 38–39, but must be a name. Therefore, the only appropriate translation of the phrase in Ezek 38:2, 3, and 39:1 is “prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.”4
Clyde Billington says, “the features of Hebrew grammar . . . dictate that Rosh be translated as a proper noun and not as an adjective, . . . It should, however, be noted that the grammatical arguments for the translation of ‘Rosh’ as a proper noun in Ezekiel 38–39 are conclusive and not really open for serious debate.”5 What would Gary DeMar say about such evidence? I do not know, since I have never seen him address these arguments. DeMar is merely prone to making dogmatic statements to the contrary based upon no real evidence for his position.
Therefore, having established that Rosh should be taken as a proper name of a geographical area, the next task is to determine what geographical location is in view.
-2-
HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL SUPPORT FOR ROSH AS RUSSIA
Clyde Billington has written a series of three scholarly articles in a theological journal presenting extensive historical, geographical and toponymic6 evidence for why Rosh should be and is traced to the Russian people of today.7 He interacts with the leading commentaries and authorities of the day in his research and presentation. Billington notes, “it is also clear that Jerome, in deciding to translate Rosh as an adjective rather than a proper noun, based his decision on a nongrammatical argument, i.e. that a people called the Rosh are not mentioned either in the Bible or by Josephus.”8 However, there is considerable historical evidence that a place known as Rosh was very familiar in the ancient world. While the word appears in a multitude of various languages, which have a variety of forms and spellings, it is clear that the same people are in view.
It is very likely that the name Rosh is actually derived from the name Tiras in Genesis 10:2 in the Table of Nations. Billington notes the Akkadian tendency to drop or to change an initial “t” sound in a name especially if the initial “t” was followed by an “r” sound. If you drop the initial “T” from Tiras you are left with “ras.”9 It makes sense for Ras or Rosh to be listed in Genesis 10 since all the other nations in Ezekiel 38:1-6 are also listed there. This means Jerome’s claim that Rosh did not appear in the Bible or in Josephus is erroneous. Since Tiras and his descendants apparently are the same as the later Rosh people, then Rosh does appear in both the Table of Nations and Josephus.
Rosh (Rash) is identified as a place that existed as early as 2600 B.C. in Egyptian inscriptions. There is a later Egyptian inscription from about 1500 B.C. that refers to a land called Reshu that was located to the north of Egypt.10 The place name Rosh (or its equivalent in the respective languages) is found at least twenty times in other ancient documents. It is found three times in the Septuagint (LXX), ten times in Sargon’s inscriptions, once in Assurbanipal’s cylinder, once in Sennacherib’s annals, and five times in Ugaritic tablets.11 Billington traces the Rosh people from the earliest times in recorded history up to the days of Ezekiel, as they appear multiple times throughout this historical period.12
Clearly, Rosh or Tiras was a well-known place in Ezekiel’s day. In the sixth century B.C., the time Ezekiel wrote his prophecy, several bands of the Rosh people lived in an area to the north of the Black Sea. As we approach the eighth century, Billington cites a number of historical references showing that “there is solid evidence linking one group of Rosh People to the Caucasus Mountains.”13 From the same general period of time, Billington notes: “There is even one cuneiform document from the reign of the Assyrian King Sargon II (ruled 722-705 B.C.) which actually names all three peoples [Rosh, Meshech, Tubal] mentioned by Ezekiel 38–39.”14 Billington concludes this section of his historical studies as follows:
Therefore, there is irrefutable historical evidence for the existence of a people named Rosh/Rashu in 9th-7th century B.C. Assyrian sources. These same Assyrian sources also mention Meshech and Tubal whose names appear in conjunction with the name Rosh in Ezekiel 38–39. Clearly the Assyrians knew of the Rosh people, and so also did the prophet Ezekiel. It should be noted that Ezekiel wrote the Book of Ezekiel only about a 100 years later than extant Assyrian texts which mention the Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal peoples.15
DOES THE NAME RUSSIA COME FROM ROSH?
-3-
The ancient Rosh people, who have been traced back to Tiras, a son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2), who migrated to the Caucasus Mountains in Southern Russia, are one of the genetic sources of the modern Russians of today. However, does the name for Russia come from the Biblical word Rosh as used in Ezekiel 38:2? We have seen that Marvin Pate and Daniel Hays have said categorically, “The biblical term rosh has nothing to do with Russia.”16 Their statement is typical of the sentiment of many critics today. But is such a conclusion where the evidence leads? I do not think so! Here’s why.
First, we need to know that the Hebrew Old Testament was translated some time in the third century B.C. and it is known as the Septuagint (LXX is the abbreviation). The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word Rosh in all its uses by the Greek word “Ros” or “Rhos.” The early church more often than not used the Septuagint as their primary Old Testament. It is still used in the Greek speaking world today as their translation of the Old Testament. Billington tells us: “early Greek Orthodox writers, using the LXX’s spelling [Ros] of the name Rosh, identified the Rosh people of Ezekiel chs. 38–39 with the northern Rus people of Russia and the Ukraine.”17 These people would be ones that lived near, but north of the Greek speaking peoples. Such close proximity would mean that they would have been clear in whom they were identifying and they identified them with the Rosh people. Maranatha!
(To Be Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
1 G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, The International Critical Commentary, ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936), pp. 408-09. John B. Taylor agrees. He says, “If a place- name Rosh could be vouched for, RV’s prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal would be the best translation” John B. Taylor, Ezekiel: An Introduction & Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, gen. ed. D. J. Wiseman (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-varsity Press, 1969), p, 244. Therefore, this is the superior translation. For an extensive, thorough presentation of the grammatical and philological support for taking Rosh as a place name, see, James D. Price, “Rosh: An Ancient Land Known to Ezekiel,” Grace Theological Journal 6:1 (1985), pp. 67-89.
2 Grammatical summary derived from Jon Mark Ruthven, The Prophecy That Is Shaping History: New Research on Ezekiel’s Vision of the End (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), pp. 21–23.
3 Randall Price, “Ezekiel” in Tim LaHaye & Ed Hindson, editors, The Popular Bible Prophecy Commentary (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2007), p. 190.
4 Price, “Rosh: An Ancient Land,” pp. 88–89.
5 Clyde E. Billington, Jr. “The Rosh People in History and Prophecy,” (Part One), Michigan Theological
Journal 3:1 (Spring 1992), p. 56.
6 Toponymic means the study of place names.
7 Billington, “The Rosh People,” (Part One), pp. 55–65; Clyde E. Billington, Jr., “The Rosh People in History and Prophecy (Part Two),” Michigan Theological Journal 3:2 (Fall 1992), pp. 144–75; Clyde E. Billington, Jr., “The Rosh People in History and Prophecy (Part Three),” Michigan Theological Journal 4:1 (Spring 1993), pp. 36–63.
8 Billington, “The Rosh People,” (Part One), p. 56.
9 Billington, “The Rosh People,” (Part Two), pp. 166-67. 10 Billington, “The Rosh People,” (Part Two), pp. 145-46. 11 Price, “Rosh: An Ancient Land,” pp. 71-73.
12 Billington, “The Rosh People,” (Part Two), pp. 143-59. 13 Billington, “The Rosh People,” (Part Two), p. 170.

-4-
14 Billington, “The Rosh People,” (Part Two), p. 170. 15 Billington, “The Rosh People,” (Part Two), p. 172.
16 C. Marvin Pate and J. Daniel Hays, Iraq—Babylon of the End Times? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), p. 69.
17 Billington, “The Rosh People,” (Part Three), p. 39.

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39 Part 3

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39
Part III

by Thomas Ice
“Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him.”
—Ezekiel 38:2
We have seen that Magog is a reference to the ancient Scythians, who gave rise to later descendants that settled along the eastern and northern areas of the Black Sea. “The descendants of ancient Magog—the Scythians—were the original inhabitants of the plateau of central Asia, and later some of the these people moved into the area north of the Black Sea. The homeland of ancient Scythians is inhabited today by the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and the Ukraine.”1 But who is “the prince of Rosh”?
THE ATTACK ON ROSH
The identification of Rosh is one of the most controversial and debated issues in the entire Gog and Magog prophecy, even though it should not be. I believe when one looks at the evidence it is overwhelming that this is a reference to the modern Russians. However, we need to first look at the evidence for such a conclusion.
Preterist prophecy critic, Gary DeMar contends, “In Ezekiel 38:2 and 39:1, the Hebrew word rosh is translated as if it were the name of a nation. That nation is thought to be modern Russia because rosh sounds like Russia.”2 He then quotes “Edwin M. Yamauchi, noted Christian historian and archeologist, writes that rosh ‘can have nothing to do with modern ‘Russia.’”3 On a Bible Answer Man radio broadcast in October 2002, the host, Hank Hanegraaff, asked Gary DeMar what he thought about Tim LaHaye identifying Rosh as Russia, since the two words sound so much alike. DeMar responded, “The idea that you can take a word in Hebrew that sounds like the word in English, and then go with that and to create an entire eschatological position based upon that is . . . it’s nonsense.” As I will show later, identification of the Hebrew word rosh with Russia is not based upon similarity of sound. That is a flimsy straw man that DeMar constructs so that he can appear to provide a credible criticism of our view on this matter. DeMar then declares: “The best translation of Ezekiel 38:2 is ‘the chief (head) prince of Meshech and Tubal.”4
Concerning the possibility of a Russian/Islamic invasion of Israel in the end times, Marvin Pate and Daniel Hays say categorically, “The biblical term rosh has nothing to do with Russia.”5 And later they state dogmatically, “These positions are not biblical. . . . a Russian-led Muslim invasion of Israel is not about to take place.”6
A central issue in whether rosh refers to Russia is whether rosh is to be understood as a proper noun (the Russia view) or should it be taken as an adjective (the non-Russia view) and be translated in English as “chief.” This is a watershed issue for anyone who wants to properly understand this passage.
REASONS ROSH REFERS TO RUSSIA
Now, I want to deal with reasons why rosh should be taken as a noun instead of an adjective and then I will deal with whether it refers to Russia. The word rosh in Hebrew simply means “head,” “top,” or “chief.”7 It is a very common word and is used in all
-2-
Semitic languages. It occurs approximately seven hundred and fifty times in the Old Testament, along with its roots and derivatives.8
The problem is that the word rosh in Ezekiel can be translated as either a proper noun or an adjective. Many translations take rosh as an adjective and translate it as the word “chief.” The King James Version, The Revised Standard Version, and the New International Version all adopt this translation. However, the New King James, the Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, American Standard Version, and New American Standard Bible all translate rosh as a proper name indicating a geographical location. The weight of the evidence favors taking rosh as a proper name. There are five arguments that favor this view.
First, the eminent Hebrew scholars C. F. Keil and Wilhelm Gesenius both hold that the better translation of Rosh in Ezekiel 38:2-3 and 39:1 is as a proper noun referring to a specific geographical location.9 Gesenius, who died in 1842 and is considered by modern Hebrew scholars as one of the greatest scholars of the Hebrew language, unquestionably believed that Rosh in Ezekiel was a proper noun identifying Russia. He says that rosh in Ezekiel 38:2,3; 39:1 is a, “pr. n. of a northern nation, mentioned with Meshech and Tubal; undoubtedly the Russians, who are mentioned by the Byzantine writers of the tenth century, under the name the Ros, dwelling to the north of Taurus . . . as dwelling on the river Rha (Wolga).”10
This identification by Gesenius cannot be passed off lightly, as DeMar attempts to do. Gesenius, as far as we know, was not even a premillennialist. He had no eschatological, end time ax to grind. Yet, objectively, he says without hesitation that Rosh in Ezekiel 38—39 is Russia. In his original Latin version of the lexicon, Gesenius has nearly one page of notes dealing with the word Rosh and the Rosh people mentioned in Ezekiel 38—39. This page of notes does not appear in any of the English translations of Gesenius’ Lexicon. Those who disagree with Gesenius have failed to refute his sizable body of convincing evidence identifying Rosh with Russia.11 I do not know what DeMar would saw about this evidence since he never deals with it.
Second, the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, translates Rosh as the proper name Ros. This is especially significant since the Septuagint was translated only three centuries after Ezekiel was written (obviously much closer to the original than any modern translation).12 The mistranslation of Rosh in many modern translations as an adjective can be traced to the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, which did not appear until around A.D. 400.13 James Price, who has a Ph.D. in Hebrew from Dropsie, which is the leading Jewish academic University in America says, “The origin of the translation “chief prince of Meshech and Tubal” is traced to the Latin Vulgate. The early translators of the English Bible were quite dependent on the Latin Version for help in translating difficult passages. They evidently followed Jerome in Ezek 38:2, 3; 39:1.”14 Price further explains the reason for the erroneous translation as follows:
Evidently by the second century A.D. the knowledge of the ancient land of Rosh had diminished. And because the Hebrew word rosh was in such common use as “head” or “chief,” Aquila was influenced to interpret rosh as an adjective, contrary to the LXX [Septuagint] and normal grammatical conventions. Jerome followed the precedent set by Aquila, and so diminished the knowledge of ancient Rosh even further by removing the name from the Latin Bible.
By the sixteenth century A.D. ancient Rosh was completely unknown in the West, so the early English translators of the Bible were influenced by the
-3-
Latin Vulgate to violate normal Hebrew grammar in their translation of Ezekiel 38–39. Once the precedent was set in English, it was perpetuated in all subsequent English Versions until this century when some modern versions have taken exception. This ancient erroneous precedent should not be perpetuated.15
Clyde Billington explains why Jerome went against most of the evidence and went with a deviant translation:
Jerome himself admits that he did not base his decision on grammatical considerations! Jerome seems to have realized that Hebrew grammar supported the translation of “prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal” and that it did not support his own translation of “chief prince of Moshoch and Thubal.” However, Jerome rejected translating Rosh as a proper noun because, “we could not find the name of this race [i.e. the Rosh people] mentioned either in Genesis or any other place in the Scriptures, or in Josephus. It was this non- grammatical argument that convinced Jerome to adopt Aquila’s rendering of Rosh as an adjective [“chief’] in Ezekiel 38–39.16
Third, many Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias, in their articles on Rosh, support taking it as a proper name in Ezekiel 38. Some examples: New Bible Dictionary, Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, and International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Fourth, Rosh is mentioned the first time in Ezekiel 38:2 and then repeated in Ezekiel 38:3 and 39:1. If Rosh were simply a title, it would probably dropped in these two places because in Hebrew when titles are repeated they are generally abbreviated.
(To Be Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
1 Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: Bible Prophecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p. 23.
2 Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), p. 363.
3 DeMar, Last Days Madness, p. 363. Quote from Edwin M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier: Invading Hordes from the Russian Steppes (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 20.
4 DeMar, Last Days Madness, p. 365.
5 C. Marvin Pate and J. Daniel Hays, Iraq—Babylon of the End Times? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), p.
69.
6 Pate and Hays, Iraq, p. 136.
7 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford, 1907), electronic edition.
8 Based upon a search conducted by the computer program Accordance, version 6.4.
9C. F. Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 159. Wilhelm Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949), p. 752.
10 Gesenius, Lexicon, p. 752.
11 Clyde E. Billington, Jr. “The Rosh People in History and Prophecy (Part One), Michigan Theological

-4-
Journal 3:1 (Spring 1992), pp. 62-3.
12 The ancient Greek translations of Symmachus and Theodotian also translated Rosh in Ezekiel 38—39 as
a proper noun. Billington, “The Rosh People in History and Prophecy (Part One),” p. 59.
13Clyde E. Billington, Jr., “The Rosh People in History and Prophecy (Part Two),” Michigan Theological
Journal 3:1 (Spring 1992), pp. 54-61.
14 James D. Price, “Rosh: An Ancient Land Known to Ezekiel,” Grace Theological Journal 6:1 (1985), p. 88. 15 Price, “Rosh: An Ancient Land,” p. 88.
16 Billington, “The Rosh People in History and Prophecy (Part One),” p. 60.

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39 Part 2

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39

Part II
by Thomas Ice
And the word of the LORD came to me saying, “Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him.”
—Ezekiel 38:1–2
“This was the final message in this series of six night oracles delivered by Ezekiel,” notes Ralph Alexander. “A central concern throughout all these night messages had been the possession of the land of Israel.” “This series of night oracles was given to encourage the exiles that ultimately God would remove these invaders and restore this land to Israel.”1 A wonderful message indeed to which those who love Israel still look forward to today!
This prophecy is divided into two major sections. In the first section Ezekiel reveals the invasion by Gog with his allies (38:1–16). The second section reveals to us God’s judgment that will befall Gog and his associates (38:17—39:16). This great prophecy begins with Ezekiel noting that it was not his idea to deal with the matter of Gog’s invasion of Israel instead it was God who imitated and communicated this prophecy through verbal revelation, “the word of the LORD came to me saying.”
SON OF MAN
Ezekiel is called “son of man” throughout the book. “Son of man” is used 93 times in Ezekiel to refer to the prophet, with the first use found in 2:1. Why is Ezekiel so often addressed by God as “son of man” when he is about to receive revelation from the Lord? It appears that “son of man” underscores his humanity in relation to God. In other words, God is the One who is the Revealer while Ezekiel, as a human, is the recipient of the Divine message that he is to pass on to other human beings. Thus, Ezekiel is passing on to us the infallible prophecy of these two chapters, which will surly come to pass.
SET YOUR FACE TOWARD GOG
Ezekiel is told to set his face “toward” or “against” Gog. The Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB) Hebrew Lexicon says, the Hebrew word translated “toward” is a preposition that denotes “motion to or direction towards (whether physical or mental).”2 BDB also tells us that when “the motion or direction implied appears from the context to be of a hostile character,” then it has a negative connotation and would be translated “against.” Ezekiel is told to turn his face in the direction of the nation Gog, because the Lord is against him. Later in the sentence the text says for Ezekiel to “prophesy against him,” that is Gog. The sense of this passage is that God is initiating the attack by Gog against Israel and the Lord is against or opposed to Gog and his allies. But just who is Gog? The identification of Gog has been a greatly debated issue.
The Hebrew proper noun “Gog” occurs 12 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.3 All but one use occurs in Ezekiel 38 and 39 (Ezek. 8:2, 3, 14, 16, 18; 39:1 [2x], 11 [3x], 15).
The only non-Ezekiel occurrence is in 1 Chronicles 5:4 and says, “The sons of Joel were Shemaiah his son, Gog his son, Shimei his son.” Other than demonstrating it was a real, proper name, the 1 Chronicles reference contributes nothing to our study of its use in Ezekiel and is not related to the Gog of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Whoever he is, Gog appears
-2-
in this context to be a person, leader and ruler that God has told Ezekiel to prophesy against. Because of the frequent use of Gog in this passage, “we conclude, therefore, that Gog is the most important person or nation in this coalition,”4 declare Mark Hitchcock.
The passage says that Gog is from the land of Magog. Some have said that Gog is a reference to the Antichrist. Charles Feinberg is right when he says, “but for this there is not a shred of biblical or nonbiblical evidence.”5 Some have suggested that Gog is a name “arbitrarily derived from the name of the country, Magog, but this is not valid because Gog appears in 1 Chronicles 5:4.”6 “The name Gog means ‘high, supreme, a height, or a high mountain.’”7 The only references to the Gog of Ezekiel’s prophecy appear in the passage itself and there is virtually no information about Gog outside the Bible in history. However, when Gog leads his invasion of Israel he is said to come “from the remote parts of the north” (Ezek. 38:6). Louis Bauman tells us that “L. Sale- Harrison says in his booklet, The Coming Great Northern Confederacy: ‘It is interesting to note that the very word ‘Caucasus’ means ‘Gog’s Fort.’ ‘Gog’ and ‘Chasan’ (Fort) are two Oriental words from which it is derived.’”8 So there does appear to be a faint reference to Gog in the general area of Russia that Gog is likely to be from.
Who then is Gog? Bauman says, “Without doubt, Russia will furnish the man—not the Antichrist—who will head up that which is known to most Bible students as ‘the great northeastern confederacy’ of nations and lead it to its doom upon the hills of Israel’s land.”9 Hitchcock believes “the reason Gog is singled out eleven times by God in these two chapters is because God is the general over this coalition of nations in its great military campaign against Israel.”10 Hal Lindsey tells us, “Gog is the symbolic name of the nation’s leader and Magog is his land. He is also the prince of the ancient people who were called Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.”11 Arnold Fruchtenbaum informs us: “Who Gog will be can only be determined at the time of the invasion, for ‘Gog’ is not a proper name but a title for the rule of Magog, just as the terms ‘pharaoh,’ ‘kaiser,’ and ‘czar’ were titles for rulers and not proper names.”12
THE LAND OF MAGOG
Gog the leader of the invasion of the land of Israel is said to be “of the land of Magog.” The proper noun Magog is used four times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.13 Magog is used twice in the passage we are investigating (38:2; 39:6) and twice in genealogies (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5). Genesis 10:2 says, “The sons of Japheth were Gomer and Magog and Madai and Javan and Tubal and Meshech and Tiras.” 1 Chronicles 1:5 is basically a repeat of the genealogical information from Genesis 10:2. The fact that Magog is used in the table of nations (Genesis 10)14 provides a basis for tracing the movement of one of the earliest post-flood descendants of Noah.
It appears that Ezekiel is using the names of peoples, primarily from the table of nations, and where they lived at the time of the giving of this prophecy in the sixth century B.C. Therefore, if we are able to find out where these people and places were in the sixth century B.C. then we will be able to trace figure out who would be their modern antecedents today. I believe we will be able to accomplish this task and be able to know who will be involved in this battle if it were to come to pass in our own day.
It is probably fair to say that most scholars and experts would trace Magog’s descendants to the ancient people that we know as the Scythians. Chuck Missler notes that a wide collection of ancient historians “identified Magog with the Scythians and southern Russia in the 7th century B.C.”15 These ancients include: Hesiod, Josephus, Philo, and Herodotus.16 Josephus lived in the first century A.D. and said, “Magog
-3-
founded the Magogians, thus named after him but who by the Greeks are called Scythians.”17 Bauman tells us that Magog and his descendants must have immigrated north after the Flood and that “the Magogites were divided into two distinct races, one Japhetic, or European, and the other Turanian, or Asiatic.”18
Who are the Scythians? Edwin Yamauchi tells us that the Scythians were divided into two groups, a narrow and broad grouping. “In the narrow sense, the Scythians were the tribes who lived in the area which Herodotus designated as Scythia (i.e., the territory north of the Black Sea),” notes Yamauchi. “In the broad sense the word Scythian can designate some of the many other tribes in the vast steppes of Russia, stretching from the Ukraine in the west to the region of Siberia in the east.”19
(To Be Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
1 Ralph Alexander, Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), p. 118.
2 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London:
Oxford, 1907), electronic edition.
3 Based upon a search conducted by the computer program Accordance, version 6.4.
4 Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: Bible Prophecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p. 16.
5 Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 220.
6 Feinberg, Ezekiel, p. 220.
7 Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 17
8 Louis S. Bauman, Russian Events in the Light of Bible Prophecy (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1942), p. 23. 9 Bauman, Russian Events, p. 26.
10 Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 17
11 Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 63.
12 Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events (Tustin, CA: Ariel Press, [1982] 2003), p. 106.
13 Based upon a search conducted by the computer program Accordance, version 6.4.
14 The table of nations is a term used for the records of the descendants Noah and his three sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth. Every human being on planet earth is a descendant of Noah and his three sons. If we could trace our genealogies far enough back we would find that we all descend from Noah through either Ham, Shem or Japheth.
15 Chuck Missler, The Magog Invasion (Palos Verdes, CA: Western Front, 1995), p. 29.
16 Missler, Magog Invasion, pp. 29–31.
17 Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, vol. 1, vi, i as cited in Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 19. 18 Bauman, Russian Events, p. 23.
19 Edwin M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), p. 62.

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39 Part I

EZEKIEL 38 AND 39
Part I

by Thomas Ice
The battle of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is one of the most debated items in the area of biblical prophecy. Commentator Ralph Alexander said, “One of the perennial enigmas of Biblical prophecy has been the Gog and Magog event described in Ezekiel 38 and 39.”1 Almost every aspect of this ancient prophecy has been disputed, including whether it was fulfilled in the past or is still a future prophecy. Who are the peoples involved and do they relate to modern nations? How should we understand the weapons that are described? If a future event, when does it take place on the prophetic timeline? This is why I want to attempt an in-depth analysis of this important passage.
REAL OR ONLY IMAGINED?
One of the first things to handle when dealing with this or any Biblical prophecy is whether or not the God and Ezekiel intended to communicate a message that would be fulfilled in history. Since I believe that all Biblical prophecy intends historical fulfillment, there is nothing in this passage that would suggest differently. However, there is a school of interpretation, primarily among liberal scholars, that does not believe that the Ezekiel passage (or most prophetic Scripture) was meant to give a prophecy that would be fulfilled in history. This view is often known as idealism. The idealist does not believe either that the Bible indicates the timing of events or that we can determine their timing in advance. Therefore, idealists see prophetic passages as a teacher of great truths about God to be applied to our present lives. Idealists believe that the Bible uses prophetic passages to present principles between “a message that is universal and abiding. That message is not bound to any particular time or place even though these terms and expressions represent scenes taken from countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and other places in the Middle East.”2
One who advocates a non-historical, idealist approach to Bible prophecy is Brent Sandy in his Plowshares & Pruning Hooks.3 Typical of those under the spell of today’s postmodern influence, Sandy exalts the interpretative process at the expense of arriving at a definite theology. Sandy’s doublespeak is evident in the following:
The limitations of prophecy as a source of information for the future were demonstrated with examples from various prophetic parts of Scripture. It became evident that the predicative element of prophecy is more translucent than transparent. Prophecy is always accurate in what it intends to reveal, but rarely does it reveal information so that we may know the future in advance. Figures of speech function to describe not the details of what is going to happen but the seriousness of what is going to happen.4
So typical of those evangelicals who want to assign to biblical prophecy some special category or literary genre they call “apocalyptic,” Sandy says, “interpreters must withhold judgment on many particulars of prophecy, unambiguous prophetic themes abound throughout Scripture, centering on the second coming of Jesus the Messiah.”5 Sandy concludes, “if my conclusions about the language of prophecy and apocalyptic are correct, all systems of eschatology are subject to reconsideration.”6 It should not be surprising, since Sandy is beholden to a postmodern mindset that he believes that the
-2 -
correct understanding of the Bible’s eschatological message will be composed of a blend of all the different prophetic views.7
One thing is clear about Sandy and the emerging evangelical “scholarly” view is that prophecy should not be taken literally, as has been done by dispensationalists. And they say we know this, primarily, because the prophetic portions of the Bible are apocalyptic, which were not intended to be taken literally. They may not be able to tell you what these sections of Scripture actually mean, but this one thing they know: prophecy should not be interpreted literally (that is according to the historical, grammatical approach) and prophecy is primarily about ideas and principles, not future historical events. “The ‘mythical’ understanding of these nations and the prophecy that involves them fails to convey to us,” notes Jon Ruthven, “the sense of a concrete, literal event that seems justified by what is described in Ezekiel—especially to chapters 38–39.”8
VARIOUS TIMING VIEWS
Prophecy expert, Mark Hitchcock notes: “By far, the most controversial issue in Ezekiel 38–39 is the setting or timing of the invasion. The specific time of the invasion in Ezekiel 38 is difficult to determine.”9 There is no doubt that this is the greatest problem to overcome in our understanding of this passage. In fact, the various positions are labeled according to one’s view concerning when these events will be fulfilled.
Among those who believe that the Gog-led invasion is historical, some believe that it has already occurred. For example, preterist Gary says, “The battle in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is clearly an ancient one . . .”10 When does he believe that this battle took place? Amazingly, DeMar and only a handful of commentators insist that Ezekiel 38 and 39 was fulfilled by the events described in Esther 9, occurring in about 473 B.C. in the days of Queen Esther of Persia.11 The other views that take this invasion as a historical event place its occurrence in a time future to our day.
Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins in their best-selling novel Left Behind,12 place this invasion of Israel right before the rapture of the church. The strength of this position is that it accounts for the burning of the weapons of war for seven years as mentioned in Ezekiel 39:9. However, Tim LaHaye has told me personally that even though they represented a pre-rapture position on Ezekiel 38 and 39 in their novel, he tends to place it after the rapture but before the tribulation.
The next view, which is the one I hold at this time, is that it will happen after the rapture but before the tribulation. It will be during the interval of days, weeks, months or years between the rapture and the start of the seven-year tribulation.13 This view also accounts for the seven years of Ezekiel 39:9. I have always thought that one of the strengths of this view is the way in which it could set the stage for the Biblical scenario of the tribulation. If the tribulation is closely preceded by a failed regional invasion of Israel, in other words Russia and her Muslim allies, then this would remove much of the Russian and Muslim influence currently in the world today and allow a Euro-centric orientation to arise. So the tribulation is preceded by a failed regional attack on Israel and this is why the tribulation ends with all the peoples of the world attacking Israel at Armageddon. It could also set the stage for the rebuilding of the Temple as a result of Islamic humiliation.
Perhaps the most widely held view put forth within dispensational literature is that this invasion will take place around the middle of the seven-year tribulation. This view often identifies Ezekiel 38 and 39 with an invasion of the king of the north in Daniel
-3 -
11:40. Another major argument is based upon the statement that Israel will be “living securely, all of them” (Ezek. 38:8), which is the result of the false peace brought by the anti-Christ in the first half of the tribulation. This view has a lot in its favor.
A significant number of Bible teachers believe that the Gog and Magog event is synonymous with what the Book of Revelation calls the Campaign of Armageddon (Rev. 16:16).14 Since Armageddon is a huge invasion of Israel around the time of the second coming and the invasion of Israel described in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is said to be in “the latter years” (Ezek. 38:8) and “in the last days” (Ezek. 38:16), then they must be the same event. A similar, but slightly different view is that the invasion occurs after the second coming of Christ, during the interlude between the tribulation and the start of the millennium. The main argument for this view is that Israel would be dwelling in peace (Ezek. 38:8).
The last major view is that the battle of Ezekiel 38 and 39 will occur at the end of the millennium. The basis for this view is significant since Revelation 20:7–9 speaks of a conflict at the end of the millennium when Satan is released. Verse 8 says, “(Satan) will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corner of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war . . .” The strength of this view is obvious, Gog and Magog are specifically mentioned in the text.
In our next installment I will begin a systematic study of Ezekiel 38 and 39 as we examine the issue that will help us understand our Lord’s intended meaning of this great prophecy. Maranatha!
(To Be Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
1 Ralph H. Alexander, “A Fresh Look At Ezekiel 38 and 39,” Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 17 (Summer, 1974), p. 157.
2 Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), p. 43.
3 D. Brent Sandy, Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002). 4 Sandy, Plowshares, p. 197.
5 Sandy, Plowshares, p. 203.
6 Sandy, Plowshares, p. 206.
7 Sandy, Plowshares, p. 250, f.n. 14.
8 Jon Mark Ruthven, The Prophecy That Is Shaping History: New Research on Ezekiel’s Vision of the End
(Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), p. 30.
9 Mark Hitchcock, Iran The Coming Crisis: Radical Islam, Oil, And The Nuclear Threat (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2006), p. 178.
10 Gary DeMar, “Ezekiel’s Magog Invasion: Future or Fulfilled?” Biblical Worldview Magazine, vol. 22 (December, 2006), p. 5.
11 Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), pp. 12–15.
12 Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth’s Last Days (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1995), pp. 9–15.
13 Arnold Fruchtenbaum defends this view in The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2003), pp. 106–25.
14 This view is held by Dave Hunt, How Close Are We? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992).