Dr. Thomas Ice
Aftermany days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come into the landthat is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from manynations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual waste; but itspeople were brought out from the nations, and they are living securely, all ofthem.
-Ezekiel38:8
Verse 8 is one ofthe longest verses in Ezekiel 38-39 and describes when this invasion of theland of Israel will take place. There are a total of seven descriptive phrases used in verse 8 to tellus when this event will occur. Wehave already examined the first three and have seen that the invasion will takeplace "after many days," "in the latter years," and when the land of Israel "isrestored from the sword." We mustkeep in mind that this event will unfold when all seven indicators are in placeat the same time.
Fulfilled In The Daysof Esther?
Preterist GaryDeMar proposes a bizarre interpretation of when the invasion of Gog would betake place. He contends that thebattle described in Ezekiel 38-39 has already been fulfilled through the eventsof Esther 9 in about 473 b.c. inthe days of Queen Esther of Persia.[1] DeMar states that the parallels betweenthe battles in Ezekiel 38-39 and Esther are "unmistakable."[2] There are a multitude of problems withsuch a view, the least of which is not the seven phrases provided in Ezekiel38:8. It is not the couple ofsimilarities that are determinative when comparing the prophecy with Esther butthe multitude of differences that render DeMar's view as impossible. The only possible motive for advocatingsuch a view appears to be DeMar's obsessive desire to avoid any future prophecyrelating to the nation of Israel. Such an obsession blinds him to the clear meaning of the text.
Here are a few ofthe more apparent and problematic inconsistencies.
Ezekiel 38-39 Esther9The land of Israel isinvaded (38:16) by multiple armies. The enemies fall on the mountains of Israel (39:4). Gog, the leader of the invasion, isburied in Israel (39:11).
The Jews bury the deadbodies over a period of seven months to cleanse the land of Israel (39:12).
The invaders aredestroyed by a massive earthquake in the land of Israel, infighting, plagues,and fire from heaven (38:19-22). God destroys the enemies supernaturally.
Invaders are from asfar west as ancient Put (modern Libya) (Ezek. 38:5) and as far north asMagog, the land of the Scythians.
God even sends fireupon Magog and those who inhabit the coastlands (39:6).
Jews are attacked incities throughout the Persian empire (127 provinces, 9:30) by apparent gangsof people, not armies, and defend themselves (9:2). The enemies die throughout the Persian empire.
No need to cleanse theland because the dead bodies aren't in Israel.
Attackers are killedby the Jewish people themselves, assisted by local government leaders(9:3-5).
The Persian empire didnot include these areas. It onlyextended as far west as Cush (modern Sudan) (Esther 8:9) and a far north asthe bottom part of the Black and Caspian Seas.
There is nothing evenclose to this in Esther 9.
One importantquestion we might ask at this point is the following: If Ezekiel 38-39 wasliterally fulfilled in the events of Esther 9, why did this escape the noticeof everyone in Esther's day? Whyisn't there any mention in Esther of this great fulfillment of Ezekiel'sprophecy? The answer is quiteclear. Esther 9 did not fulfillEzekiel 38-39. In fact, animportant Jewish holiday developed out of the Esther event called Purim(9:20-32). This is a joyous annualholiday to celebrate God's deliverance from the hand of Israel's enemies. Purim's celebration includes the publicreading of the book of Esther, but no tradition has developed or even beenheard of in which the Jews read Ezekiel 38-39 in connection with thisobservance. If Ezekiel 38-39 hadbeen a fulfillment of Esther, then no doubt a tradition of reading that passagewould have arisen in conjunction with the celebration.
Further, whyaren't there any Jewish scholars down through history that have recognized thisfulfillment? The consensus ofJewish commentators has always seen the Gog prophecy as an end of days event. In fact, this battle is the focus oftheir view of end-times prophecy that will be fulfilled right before the comingof Messiah. Contemporary RabbiRafael Eisenberg summarizes Jewish tradition on the battle of Ezekiel's Gog asfollows:
Our prophets and sages haveforetold that prior to the arrival of the Messiah, the Wicked Empire, Rome(which as we have already shown, is modern Russia), will regain its formergreatness. In those pre-Messianicdays, Russia will expand over and conquer the entire globe, and her ruler, "whowill be as wicked as Haman," will arise and lead the nations of the world toJerusalem in order to exterminate Yisrael. . . . At that time, the overt miracles which will bring about thegreat retribution against Yisrael's enemies and the final destruction of theWicked Empire, will convince the world that God, alone, is the Judge and Rulerof the Universe.[3]
Another simplereason we can know that this invasion is still future is because nothing evenremotely similar to the events in Ezekiel 38-39 have ever occurred in thepast. Just think about it! When has Israel ever been invaded byall these nations listed in Ezekiel 38:1-6? Or when did God ever destroy an invading army like this withfire and brimstone from heaven, plagues, earthquakes, and infighting among theinvaders (Ezek. 38:19-22)?
The answer? Never. That's because Ezekiel is describing an invasion that isstill future even in our day. Nowwe will investigate the final four indicators of verse 8.
GatheredFrom Many Nations
Thefourth phrase says, "whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations tothe mountains of Israel." Thephrase "whose inhabitants have been gathered" is a rendering of the singleHebrew verb for "gather." Thisverb is the common word for collecting something like agricultural products atharvest time. "Gather" is used inthis passage as a pual[4]participle, which implies by ellipsis in this context that the ones gatheredare the "inhabitants" of the mountains of Israel. The implication of the pual participle in this context isthat God is the One who has gathered the inhabitants back to the land ofIsrael. From where has He gatheredthem?
Godhas gathered them from many nations. The word translated "nations" is simply the common Hebrew word am that is used almost 3,000 times[5]in the Old Testament and simply means "people, peoples, nation, or nations."[6] This gathering is not from just a fewnations, but said to be from "many" nations. "This cannot refer to the Babylonian captivity but toworldwide dispersion,"[7]notes Charles Feinberg. C. F. Keilagrees and says, "gathered out of many peoples, points also beyond theBabylonian captivity to the dispersion of Israel in all the world, which didnot take place till the second destruction of Jerusalem."[8] These returnees will come "to themountains of Israel." Jerusalem isa city set within the mountains of Israel. Thus, since 1967 the modern state of Israel has been incontrol of the old city known as Jerusalem.
AContinual Waste
Thefifth phrase says, "which had been a continual waste." What had been a continual waste? This phrase speaks of the land ofIsrael which had been a continual waste." The Hebrew noun for "waste" is used 50 times in the Old Testament,[9]primarily in the prophets to speak of the ruins of Jerusalem, Israel andsometimes Egypt as a result of God's judgment. The adverbial participle "continual" modifies the noun"waste," and speaks "of going on without interruption, continuously."[10] Rabbi Fisch says that "continual" "heresignifies 'for a long time,' meaning the period of the exile."[11] But which exile? Does it refer to the 70 year Babylonianexile or the almost 2,000 year global exile that much of modern Jewry is stillexperiencing? Feinberg says, "Thishad in view a period of time longer than that of the seventy year in Babylon."[12] Keil also notes that "continual" inthis text "denotes a much long devastation of the land than the Chaldeandevastation was."[13]
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A BiblicalConsideration of The Left Behind Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), pp. 12-15.
[2] DeMar, End Times Fiction, p. 13.
[3] Rafael Eisenberg, A Matter of Return: APenetrating Analysis of Yisrael's Afflictions and Their Alternatives (Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, 1980), p. 155,as cited in Randall Price, The Temple and Bible Prophecy: A Definitive Lookat Its Past, Present, and Future(Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2005), p. 459. For an overview of Jewish beliefs about the Gog's invasionof Israel in Ezekiel 38-39 see Price, The Temple and Bible Prophecy, pp. 458-61.
[4] The pual verb stem in Hebrew denotes an intensivepassive form of a verb.
[5] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.4.2.
[6] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, TheHebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic version (Leiden, The Netherlands:Koninklijke Brill, 2000).
[7] Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 222.
[8] C. F. Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, Commentary on theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 164.
[9] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.4.2.
[10] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrewand English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford, 1907), electronic edition.
[11] Rabbi Dr. S. Fisch, Ezekiel: Hebrew Text &English Translation With An Introduction and Commentary (London: The Soncino Press, 1950), p. 254.
[12] Feinberg, Ezekiel, p. 222.
[13] Keil, Ezekiel, p. 164.
Israel & Jordan Trip
Join Dr. & Mrs. Ice on a 11 day tour of Israel and Jordan.
Dec 30, 2010 - Jan 9, 2011
Learn More
Article Options
Download PDF
Related Books
Ezekiel 38 & 39 (Part 11)
Dr. Thomas Ice
Beprepared, and prepare yourself, you and all your companies that are assembledabout you, and be a guard for them. After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will comeinto the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have beengathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been acontinual waste; but its people were brought out from the nations, and they areliving securely, all of them.
-Ezekiel38:7-8
The first sixverses of Ezekiel's prophecy in chapter 38 outlined "who" would be involved inan invasion of Israel, while verses 7-9 tell us "where" and "when" these eventswill take place. This new section(verses 7-9) begins with a taunt from God for Gog and his coalition to makesure that they are really ready for their invasion of Israel.
God Taunts Gog
Verse 7 beginswith the same verb used two times, back-to-back. The reason why the verb "prepare" is arranged this way is tointensify their meaning. In otherwords, God is telling Gog and his allies that they better make sure that theyare prepared to the utmost for their attack on Israel, because in essence it isan attack on God, which is something that humans can never really prepare for. "With consummate and telling irony,"notes Charles Feinberg, "Ezekiel urged Gog to be fully prepared for theencounter, and to see to it that all was in readiness as far as hisconfederates were concerned."[1]
The final phraseof verse 7 says, "be a guard for them." The Hebrew noun for "guard" means "watch" or"lookout" and in this context has the connotation of "to maintain vigilance,post a strong watch" and "to stand at the ready."[2] The Lord is further taunting Gog as Hechallenges him, as the leader of the coalition, to make sure that he guards orwatches over this assembled company so that he may protect them against anyevil that could befall them. Thisis a sarcastic warning to Gog and his group that even though their gathering isfor the purpose of wiping out Israel, it is their company that will bedestroyed.
After ManyDays
The sovereigntyof God continues to be a major theme of this prophecy as Ezekiel begins verse 8by saying, "After many days you will be summoned." This entire operation is ultimately God's idea and He will"put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out," (verse 4) againstIsrael. Now Ezekiel says that Godis summoning Gog and his coalition to attack Israel to accomplish the Lord'spurpose. "The mind of man planshis way, but the Lord directs hissteps" (Prov. 16:9).
The exact Hebrewphrase "after many days" is found only one other place in the OldTestament. "Now it came aboutafter many days, when the Lord hadgiven rest to Israel from all their enemies on every side, and Joshua was old,advanced in years," (Josh. 23:1). Since context governs the length of time intended for a temporal phrase,it is clear in Joshua that many days referred to a few years because "manydays" all took place within the lifetime of Joshua. A similar Hebrew phrase is used four times in the OldTestament (1 Kings 18:1; Eccl. 11:1; Isa. 24:22; Jer. 13:6). Three of these four occurrences aresimilar to the Joshua 23:1 uses, however, Isaiah 24:22 is used in aneschatological context. "So itwill happen in that day, that the Lordwill punish the host of heaven, on high, and the kings of the earth, onearth. And they will be gatheredtogether like prisoners in the dungeon, and will be confined in prison; andafter many days they will be punished. Then the moon will be abashed and the sun ashamed, for the Lord of hosts will reign on Mount Zionand in Jerusalem, and His glory will be before His elders" (Isa.24:21-23). C. F. Keil, writing inthe nineteenth century says, "The first clause reminds so strongly of Isa.xxiv. 22, that the play upon this passage cannot possibly be mistaken; so thatEzekiel uses the words in the same sense as Isaiah."[3] This context is clearly referencingsomething that is future and has not yet occurred. "After many days" in verse 22 is likely a reference to thethousand-year time period revealed in Revelation 20:2-7.
The length oftime indicated by the phrase "after many days" is determined by factors in thecontext, which are clearly longer than the lifespan of a human. We will soon see as I examine the othertime statements in this context that "the text is emphatic that the invasionand its consequences have been foreseen long before."[4] Keil says, "after many days, i.e.,after a long time . . . signifies merely the lapse of a lengthened period; . .. is the end of day, the last time, not the future generally, but the finalfuture, the Messianic time of the completing of the kingdom of God."[5] Feinberg declares, "the notion of timeindicated that the attack of the enemy would not take place for a longtime. The events here predictedwere not to be expected in the lifetime of Ezekiel or his contemporaries."[6]
In The Latter Years
"After many days"is not the only time indicator of when this invasion will take place. "After many days" is immediatelyfollowed in the Hebrew text by the phrase "in the latter years." These two phrases must refer to thesame time period. Like theprevious phrase, since it is not qualified by something like the latter yearsof a person's life, etc., it is an absolute phrase referring to the span ofhistory. An almost identicalphrase is used in verse 16 and says, "It will come about in the last day that Ishall bring you against My land." The term "latter years" is only used in this passage in the entire OldTestament, however, since "last days" is used in verse 16 describing the sameevent, it is safe to conclude that the more frequently used phrase "last days"is synonymous with "latter years." Such a conclusion is supported by the fact that "after many days" and"in the latter years" are used in tandem in verse 8. Feinberg says, "the time element was distinctly stated as'in the latter years,' which is equivalent to 'the latter days' of verse 16."[7]
When we searchthe Old Testament for the use of terminology similar to "the latter years" ofEzekiel 38:8 we find three other phrases that are parallel.[8] I have selected only the uses of thesethree phrases that have a future, prophetic meaning. The first term is "latter days" (Deut. 4:30; 31:29; Jer.30:24; 48:47; Dan. 2:28; 10:14), the second is "last days" (Isa. 2:2; Jer.23:20; 49:39; Eze. 38:16; Hosea 3:5; Mic. 4:1), while the final phrase is "the time of the end" (Dan. 8:17, 19;11:27, 35, 40; 12:4, 9, 13). Thefact that Ezekiel uses three phrases ("after many days," "in the latter years,"and "in the last days) provides strong support that this battle will take placeduring a yet future time. RandallPrice tells us, "while the expression "latter days" may refer to theTribulation period, it is not a technical term for such, since its contextualsettings and varieties of usages allow it to be employed in different ways."[9] Thus, references to the latter daysphrases include the 70th week of Daniel or the tribulation period,the millennial kingdom and could also include some events that might take placeshortly before the tribulation, like the Gog and Magog invasion. Mark Hitchcock notes, "These phrasesare used a total of fifteen times in the Old Testament. They are always used to refer to eitherthe Tribulation period (Deut. 4:30; 31:29) or the Millennium (Isa. 2:2; Mic.4:1). While these phrases do notspecifically identify the time of the invasion, they do clearly indicate thatthe general time period is future even from our day."[10]
Restored From TheSword
The next phrasetells us, "you will come into the land that is restored from the sword." The land into which Gog will lead hiscoalition of invaders is without a doubt the land of Israel. Interestingly the land of Israel isdescribed as a land that has been restored from the sword. The Hebrew word for "restored" is thecommon word meaning "to turn around" or "repent."[11] Therefore, the sense in which "repent"is used here is of a people who once were in the land of Israel, then they wereremoved from the land, and now they have been brought back to the land fromwhich they originated. Thus, theywere turned or returned to the land of Israel. The Jews are said to be the only group of people in theknown history of the world who were removed from their homeland, dispersedamong most all of the nations, and have returned to their originalhomeland. This explains why myEnglish translation (NASB) renders this Hebrew word with a meaning of restore. In other words, the Jews are returningto their land when this event happened. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 221.
[2] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, TheHebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic version (Leiden, The Netherlands:Koninklijke Brill, 2000).
[3] C. F. Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, Commentary on theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 162.
[4] Jon Mark Ruthven, The Prophecy That Is ShapingHistory: New Research on Ezekiel's Vision of the End (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), p. 123.
[5] Keil, Ezekiel, p. 163.
[6] Feinberg, Ezekiel, p. 221.
[7] Feinberg, Ezekiel, p. 221.
[8] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[9] Randall Price, Unpublished Notes on TheProphecies of Ezekiel, (2007), p.40.
[10] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p.126.
[11] Koehler and Baumgartner, Hebrew Lexicon, electronic version.
Beprepared, and prepare yourself, you and all your companies that are assembledabout you, and be a guard for them. After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will comeinto the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have beengathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been acontinual waste; but its people were brought out from the nations, and they areliving securely, all of them.
-Ezekiel38:7-8
The first sixverses of Ezekiel's prophecy in chapter 38 outlined "who" would be involved inan invasion of Israel, while verses 7-9 tell us "where" and "when" these eventswill take place. This new section(verses 7-9) begins with a taunt from God for Gog and his coalition to makesure that they are really ready for their invasion of Israel.
God Taunts Gog
Verse 7 beginswith the same verb used two times, back-to-back. The reason why the verb "prepare" is arranged this way is tointensify their meaning. In otherwords, God is telling Gog and his allies that they better make sure that theyare prepared to the utmost for their attack on Israel, because in essence it isan attack on God, which is something that humans can never really prepare for. "With consummate and telling irony,"notes Charles Feinberg, "Ezekiel urged Gog to be fully prepared for theencounter, and to see to it that all was in readiness as far as hisconfederates were concerned."[1]
The final phraseof verse 7 says, "be a guard for them." The Hebrew noun for "guard" means "watch" or"lookout" and in this context has the connotation of "to maintain vigilance,post a strong watch" and "to stand at the ready."[2] The Lord is further taunting Gog as Hechallenges him, as the leader of the coalition, to make sure that he guards orwatches over this assembled company so that he may protect them against anyevil that could befall them. Thisis a sarcastic warning to Gog and his group that even though their gathering isfor the purpose of wiping out Israel, it is their company that will bedestroyed.
After ManyDays
The sovereigntyof God continues to be a major theme of this prophecy as Ezekiel begins verse 8by saying, "After many days you will be summoned." This entire operation is ultimately God's idea and He will"put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out," (verse 4) againstIsrael. Now Ezekiel says that Godis summoning Gog and his coalition to attack Israel to accomplish the Lord'spurpose. "The mind of man planshis way, but the Lord directs hissteps" (Prov. 16:9).
The exact Hebrewphrase "after many days" is found only one other place in the OldTestament. "Now it came aboutafter many days, when the Lord hadgiven rest to Israel from all their enemies on every side, and Joshua was old,advanced in years," (Josh. 23:1). Since context governs the length of time intended for a temporal phrase,it is clear in Joshua that many days referred to a few years because "manydays" all took place within the lifetime of Joshua. A similar Hebrew phrase is used four times in the OldTestament (1 Kings 18:1; Eccl. 11:1; Isa. 24:22; Jer. 13:6). Three of these four occurrences aresimilar to the Joshua 23:1 uses, however, Isaiah 24:22 is used in aneschatological context. "So itwill happen in that day, that the Lordwill punish the host of heaven, on high, and the kings of the earth, onearth. And they will be gatheredtogether like prisoners in the dungeon, and will be confined in prison; andafter many days they will be punished. Then the moon will be abashed and the sun ashamed, for the Lord of hosts will reign on Mount Zionand in Jerusalem, and His glory will be before His elders" (Isa.24:21-23). C. F. Keil, writing inthe nineteenth century says, "The first clause reminds so strongly of Isa.xxiv. 22, that the play upon this passage cannot possibly be mistaken; so thatEzekiel uses the words in the same sense as Isaiah."[3] This context is clearly referencingsomething that is future and has not yet occurred. "After many days" in verse 22 is likely a reference to thethousand-year time period revealed in Revelation 20:2-7.
The length oftime indicated by the phrase "after many days" is determined by factors in thecontext, which are clearly longer than the lifespan of a human. We will soon see as I examine the othertime statements in this context that "the text is emphatic that the invasionand its consequences have been foreseen long before."[4] Keil says, "after many days, i.e.,after a long time . . . signifies merely the lapse of a lengthened period; . .. is the end of day, the last time, not the future generally, but the finalfuture, the Messianic time of the completing of the kingdom of God."[5] Feinberg declares, "the notion of timeindicated that the attack of the enemy would not take place for a longtime. The events here predictedwere not to be expected in the lifetime of Ezekiel or his contemporaries."[6]
In The Latter Years
"After many days"is not the only time indicator of when this invasion will take place. "After many days" is immediatelyfollowed in the Hebrew text by the phrase "in the latter years." These two phrases must refer to thesame time period. Like theprevious phrase, since it is not qualified by something like the latter yearsof a person's life, etc., it is an absolute phrase referring to the span ofhistory. An almost identicalphrase is used in verse 16 and says, "It will come about in the last day that Ishall bring you against My land." The term "latter years" is only used in this passage in the entire OldTestament, however, since "last days" is used in verse 16 describing the sameevent, it is safe to conclude that the more frequently used phrase "last days"is synonymous with "latter years." Such a conclusion is supported by the fact that "after many days" and"in the latter years" are used in tandem in verse 8. Feinberg says, "the time element was distinctly stated as'in the latter years,' which is equivalent to 'the latter days' of verse 16."[7]
When we searchthe Old Testament for the use of terminology similar to "the latter years" ofEzekiel 38:8 we find three other phrases that are parallel.[8] I have selected only the uses of thesethree phrases that have a future, prophetic meaning. The first term is "latter days" (Deut. 4:30; 31:29; Jer.30:24; 48:47; Dan. 2:28; 10:14), the second is "last days" (Isa. 2:2; Jer.23:20; 49:39; Eze. 38:16; Hosea 3:5; Mic. 4:1), while the final phrase is "the time of the end" (Dan. 8:17, 19;11:27, 35, 40; 12:4, 9, 13). Thefact that Ezekiel uses three phrases ("after many days," "in the latter years,"and "in the last days) provides strong support that this battle will take placeduring a yet future time. RandallPrice tells us, "while the expression "latter days" may refer to theTribulation period, it is not a technical term for such, since its contextualsettings and varieties of usages allow it to be employed in different ways."[9] Thus, references to the latter daysphrases include the 70th week of Daniel or the tribulation period,the millennial kingdom and could also include some events that might take placeshortly before the tribulation, like the Gog and Magog invasion. Mark Hitchcock notes, "These phrasesare used a total of fifteen times in the Old Testament. They are always used to refer to eitherthe Tribulation period (Deut. 4:30; 31:29) or the Millennium (Isa. 2:2; Mic.4:1). While these phrases do notspecifically identify the time of the invasion, they do clearly indicate thatthe general time period is future even from our day."[10]
Restored From TheSword
The next phrasetells us, "you will come into the land that is restored from the sword." The land into which Gog will lead hiscoalition of invaders is without a doubt the land of Israel. Interestingly the land of Israel isdescribed as a land that has been restored from the sword. The Hebrew word for "restored" is thecommon word meaning "to turn around" or "repent."[11] Therefore, the sense in which "repent"is used here is of a people who once were in the land of Israel, then they wereremoved from the land, and now they have been brought back to the land fromwhich they originated. Thus, theywere turned or returned to the land of Israel. The Jews are said to be the only group of people in theknown history of the world who were removed from their homeland, dispersedamong most all of the nations, and have returned to their originalhomeland. This explains why myEnglish translation (NASB) renders this Hebrew word with a meaning of restore. In other words, the Jews are returningto their land when this event happened. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 221.
[2] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, TheHebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic version (Leiden, The Netherlands:Koninklijke Brill, 2000).
[3] C. F. Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, Commentary on theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 162.
[4] Jon Mark Ruthven, The Prophecy That Is ShapingHistory: New Research on Ezekiel's Vision of the End (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), p. 123.
[5] Keil, Ezekiel, p. 163.
[6] Feinberg, Ezekiel, p. 221.
[7] Feinberg, Ezekiel, p. 221.
[8] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[9] Randall Price, Unpublished Notes on TheProphecies of Ezekiel, (2007), p.40.
[10] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p.126.
[11] Koehler and Baumgartner, Hebrew Lexicon, electronic version.
Ezekiel 38 & 39 (Part 10)
Dr. Thomas Ice
Gomerwith all its troops; Beth-togarmah from the remote parts of the north with allits troops-many peoples with you.
-Ezekiel 38:6
There is onefinal entity listed as among those going down to attack Israel with Gog. Beth-togarmah is the last nationlisted.
Beth-togarmah
Beth-togarmah isthe English transliteration of two words from the Hebrew text. Beth is the common Hebrew word for"house" or "place of" that is used over two thousand times in the Hebrew Bible.[1] Togarmah is a noun used four times inthe Hebrew Bible.[2] Twice it is uses in a genealogy inwhich Togarmah is said to be a son of Gomer (Gen. 10:3; 1 Chron. 1:6). The final two occurrences are inEzekiel (27:14; 38:6). The prefix"Beth" occurs only in the two uses in Ezekiel, thus rendering the compound as"house of Togarmah." Ezekiel 27:14refers to their trade and says: "Those from Beth-togarmah gave horses and warhorses and mules for your wares." In fact, "Herodotus mentions [Togarmah] as famed for its horses andmules."[3]
"Most Biblescholars and scholars of ancient history relate biblical Togarmah to theancient Hittite city of Tegarma," notes Mark Hitchcock, "an important city ineastern Cappadocia (modern Turkey)."[4] Jon Mark Ruthven agrees: "elements ofthe 'house of Togarmah" may have been part of the great 2nd and 1stmillennium BCE Japhetic movements far to the north, and assimilated into modernRussia and Turkey."[5] Hitchcock traces the migration ofTogarmah as follows:
Togarmah was both the nameof a district and a city in the border of Tubal in eastern Cappadocia. Togarmahwas known variously in history as Tegarma, Tagarma, and Takarama. The ancient Assyrians referred to thiscity as Til-garimmu. One of themaps of the Cambridge Ancient History locates Til-garimmu on the northeastborder of Tubal in the northeast part of modern Turkey. Gesenius, the Hebrew scholar,identified Togarmah as a northern nation abounding in horses and mules, locatedin ancient Armenia. The ancientarea of Armenia is located in the modern nation of Turkey.[6]
"Butwhile scholars have differed slightly on the exact location of ancientTogarmah," concludes Hitchcock, "it is always associated with a city ordistrict within the boundaries of the modern nation of Turkey."[7]
It is interestingto note that none of the nations that will go down into Israel with Russia areArab nations. However, all of theRussian allies are Islamic nations. Iran is not an Arab nation, but instead they are Persian.
The Remote Parts ofthe North
In this passageBeth-togarmah is said to come from "the remote parts of the north." This Hebrew phrase is composed of twowords. The word for north meanswhat it says, while the word for "remote parts" has the sense of the extreme, "far part," or most distant part of whatever is beingreferred to in the context.[8] When these two words are combined in aphrase, it is used five times in the Hebrew Bible (Psa. 48:3; Isa. 14:13; Ezek.38:6, 15; 39:2). The Isaiah use isfound in one of the five "I wills" uttered by Satan in his revolt againstGod. "But you said in your heart,I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and Iwill sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north." The Psalmist says of Jerusalem:"Beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion in the farnorth, the city of the great King." Mount Zion was on the Northern edge of ancient Jerusalem. The other three uses are found inEzekiel 38 and 39. The other tworeferences in Ezekiel 38 and 39 refer to Gog and say: "And you will come fromyour place out of the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you,all of them riding on horses, a great assembly and a mighty army" (Ezek.38:15). "And I shall turn you around,drive you on, take you up from the remotest parts of the north, and bring youagainst the mountains of Israel" (Ezek. 39:2). Therefore, Beth-togarmah is said to come from the remoteparts of the north as will Gog who is Russia.
"Doesn't thisstatement mean that Togarmah must come from the former Soviet Union sinceRussia is the farthest geographical point north of Israel," asksHitchcock? He says in his answer:"The answer to this question is no. Forcing a geographical location upon Togarmah that is totallyinconsistent with the clear witness of ancient history would be grosslytwisting the evidence. Moreover,modern Turkey fits the description given because it is clearly to the far northparts of the Promised Land."[9]
With All its Troops
The last part ofverse 6 says that Beth-togarmah will come from the north parts "with all itstroops-many peoples with you." TheHebrew word for "troops" is only used six times in the Hebrew Old Testament andall of them are found in Ezekiel (12:14; 17:21; 38:6, 9, 22; 39:4).[10] All but two uses appear in Ezekiel 38and 39. Some scholars say thatthis word is related to a "wing" or "parameter,"[11]but it clearly is a reference military troops in these contexts. Some suggest that it may connote thetroops on the flank or wings of a military unit and would be a Hebrew idem forall of one's forces. The pointwould be that if one brings his troops on the wing,[12]then those would include all the forces one could muster. The translation of troops (i.e.,military) is the clear meaning of this word.
The final phrasein verse six is clear that the sum total of the house of Togarmah will includemany peoples with him. This phraseis found two other times in the Hebrew Bible, both of them in Ezekiel 38 (verses9 and 15). Verse 9 refers to theentire coalition that will attack Israel, while verse 15 the many peoplesrefers to the coalition members that are led by Gog. The use of "many peoples with you" in verses 9 and 15 differslightly from verse 6 since their constructions are prefaced with the use ofthe "and" conjunction. The use ofthe phrase in verse 6 does not have a conjunction, which means that the phrase"many peoples with you" is in apposition to the preceding phrase "with all itstroops." Thus, the text is sayingthat the "many peoples with you" is descriptive of the troops thatBeth-togarmah will bring with them in their attack on Israel.
Talking Turkey
Having nowcompleted a study of the list of nations that will join the Russian led attackagainst Israel, we see that four of those names refer to descendants that makeup the modern nation of Turkey. Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, and Beth-togarmah all strongly point to modernTurkey as a member of the diabolical coalition. But, does Turkey's involvement seem possible given thealignment of the nations today?
Currently Turkeyis not aliened with Russia and Iran since it technically became a secular statewith a Muslim heritage after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire at the end ofWorld War I. Turkey has long beena member of NATO and has desired to identify with Europe rather than Asia, mostlikely for economic reasons. Turkey is a nation in which a small part of it is in Europe while mostof it is in Asia. Turkey hasapplied for membership in the European Union, however, since membership in theEU would mean that anyone within the Union are able to move freely to any otherpart of it. The rest of the EU isconcerned that if they admit Turkey then it will be a conduit through whichMuslims would be able to flood into the rest of Europe. Even though they are still goingthrough the motions of application, it is certain that the EU will eventuallyreject Turkey's admittance. Oncethey are rejected, Turkey will seek alignment with Russia and their Islamicbrethren.
The last fewyears has seen an Islamic majority emerge in Turkey's Parliament and an IslamicPrime Minister is now in place. The breakup of the former Soviet Union included the independence of fiveIslamic republics: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizia, Turkmenistan, andTajikistan. Hitchcock notes that"Turkey has clearly been drawn to these former Soviet republics for economicreasons, Turkey also shares strong linguistic and ethnic ties with thesenations. All of these nationsspeak Turkic languages with the exception of Tajikistan, where the language issimilar to Iranian Farsi."[13] Turkey sees itself as the economicdeveloper of the vast natural resources like gold, silver, uranium, oil, coal,and natural gas that are found in these five new states. Once Turkey is spurned by Europe, shewill have motive enough to enter into league with Russia and their Islamicbrethren which will set the stage for the fulfillment of this prophecy. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] 2,047 times according to a search conducted bythe computer program Accordance,version 7.3.
[2] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[3] S. Fisch, Ezekiel: Hebrew Text & Englishtranslation with an Introduction and Commentary (London: The Soncino Press, 1950), p. 182.
[4] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p.63.
[5] Jon Mark Ruthven, The Prophecy That Is ShapingHistory: New Research on Ezekiel's Vision of the End (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), p. 102.
[6] Hitchcock, After The Empire, pp. 63-64.
[7] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 64.
[8] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, TheHebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic version (Leiden, The Netherlands:Koninklijke Brill, 2000).
[9] Hitchcock, After The Empire, pp. 64-65.
[10] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[11] Koehler and Baumgartner, Hebrew Lexicon.
[12] C. F. Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, Commentary on theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 161.
[13] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 66.
Gomerwith all its troops; Beth-togarmah from the remote parts of the north with allits troops-many peoples with you.
-Ezekiel 38:6
There is onefinal entity listed as among those going down to attack Israel with Gog. Beth-togarmah is the last nationlisted.
Beth-togarmah
Beth-togarmah isthe English transliteration of two words from the Hebrew text. Beth is the common Hebrew word for"house" or "place of" that is used over two thousand times in the Hebrew Bible.[1] Togarmah is a noun used four times inthe Hebrew Bible.[2] Twice it is uses in a genealogy inwhich Togarmah is said to be a son of Gomer (Gen. 10:3; 1 Chron. 1:6). The final two occurrences are inEzekiel (27:14; 38:6). The prefix"Beth" occurs only in the two uses in Ezekiel, thus rendering the compound as"house of Togarmah." Ezekiel 27:14refers to their trade and says: "Those from Beth-togarmah gave horses and warhorses and mules for your wares." In fact, "Herodotus mentions [Togarmah] as famed for its horses andmules."[3]
"Most Biblescholars and scholars of ancient history relate biblical Togarmah to theancient Hittite city of Tegarma," notes Mark Hitchcock, "an important city ineastern Cappadocia (modern Turkey)."[4] Jon Mark Ruthven agrees: "elements ofthe 'house of Togarmah" may have been part of the great 2nd and 1stmillennium BCE Japhetic movements far to the north, and assimilated into modernRussia and Turkey."[5] Hitchcock traces the migration ofTogarmah as follows:
Togarmah was both the nameof a district and a city in the border of Tubal in eastern Cappadocia. Togarmahwas known variously in history as Tegarma, Tagarma, and Takarama. The ancient Assyrians referred to thiscity as Til-garimmu. One of themaps of the Cambridge Ancient History locates Til-garimmu on the northeastborder of Tubal in the northeast part of modern Turkey. Gesenius, the Hebrew scholar,identified Togarmah as a northern nation abounding in horses and mules, locatedin ancient Armenia. The ancientarea of Armenia is located in the modern nation of Turkey.[6]
"Butwhile scholars have differed slightly on the exact location of ancientTogarmah," concludes Hitchcock, "it is always associated with a city ordistrict within the boundaries of the modern nation of Turkey."[7]
It is interestingto note that none of the nations that will go down into Israel with Russia areArab nations. However, all of theRussian allies are Islamic nations. Iran is not an Arab nation, but instead they are Persian.
The Remote Parts ofthe North
In this passageBeth-togarmah is said to come from "the remote parts of the north." This Hebrew phrase is composed of twowords. The word for north meanswhat it says, while the word for "remote parts" has the sense of the extreme, "far part," or most distant part of whatever is beingreferred to in the context.[8] When these two words are combined in aphrase, it is used five times in the Hebrew Bible (Psa. 48:3; Isa. 14:13; Ezek.38:6, 15; 39:2). The Isaiah use isfound in one of the five "I wills" uttered by Satan in his revolt againstGod. "But you said in your heart,I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and Iwill sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north." The Psalmist says of Jerusalem:"Beautiful in elevation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion in the farnorth, the city of the great King." Mount Zion was on the Northern edge of ancient Jerusalem. The other three uses are found inEzekiel 38 and 39. The other tworeferences in Ezekiel 38 and 39 refer to Gog and say: "And you will come fromyour place out of the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you,all of them riding on horses, a great assembly and a mighty army" (Ezek.38:15). "And I shall turn you around,drive you on, take you up from the remotest parts of the north, and bring youagainst the mountains of Israel" (Ezek. 39:2). Therefore, Beth-togarmah is said to come from the remoteparts of the north as will Gog who is Russia.
"Doesn't thisstatement mean that Togarmah must come from the former Soviet Union sinceRussia is the farthest geographical point north of Israel," asksHitchcock? He says in his answer:"The answer to this question is no. Forcing a geographical location upon Togarmah that is totallyinconsistent with the clear witness of ancient history would be grosslytwisting the evidence. Moreover,modern Turkey fits the description given because it is clearly to the far northparts of the Promised Land."[9]
With All its Troops
The last part ofverse 6 says that Beth-togarmah will come from the north parts "with all itstroops-many peoples with you." TheHebrew word for "troops" is only used six times in the Hebrew Old Testament andall of them are found in Ezekiel (12:14; 17:21; 38:6, 9, 22; 39:4).[10] All but two uses appear in Ezekiel 38and 39. Some scholars say thatthis word is related to a "wing" or "parameter,"[11]but it clearly is a reference military troops in these contexts. Some suggest that it may connote thetroops on the flank or wings of a military unit and would be a Hebrew idem forall of one's forces. The pointwould be that if one brings his troops on the wing,[12]then those would include all the forces one could muster. The translation of troops (i.e.,military) is the clear meaning of this word.
The final phrasein verse six is clear that the sum total of the house of Togarmah will includemany peoples with him. This phraseis found two other times in the Hebrew Bible, both of them in Ezekiel 38 (verses9 and 15). Verse 9 refers to theentire coalition that will attack Israel, while verse 15 the many peoplesrefers to the coalition members that are led by Gog. The use of "many peoples with you" in verses 9 and 15 differslightly from verse 6 since their constructions are prefaced with the use ofthe "and" conjunction. The use ofthe phrase in verse 6 does not have a conjunction, which means that the phrase"many peoples with you" is in apposition to the preceding phrase "with all itstroops." Thus, the text is sayingthat the "many peoples with you" is descriptive of the troops thatBeth-togarmah will bring with them in their attack on Israel.
Talking Turkey
Having nowcompleted a study of the list of nations that will join the Russian led attackagainst Israel, we see that four of those names refer to descendants that makeup the modern nation of Turkey. Meshech, Tubal, Gomer, and Beth-togarmah all strongly point to modernTurkey as a member of the diabolical coalition. But, does Turkey's involvement seem possible given thealignment of the nations today?
Currently Turkeyis not aliened with Russia and Iran since it technically became a secular statewith a Muslim heritage after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire at the end ofWorld War I. Turkey has long beena member of NATO and has desired to identify with Europe rather than Asia, mostlikely for economic reasons. Turkey is a nation in which a small part of it is in Europe while mostof it is in Asia. Turkey hasapplied for membership in the European Union, however, since membership in theEU would mean that anyone within the Union are able to move freely to any otherpart of it. The rest of the EU isconcerned that if they admit Turkey then it will be a conduit through whichMuslims would be able to flood into the rest of Europe. Even though they are still goingthrough the motions of application, it is certain that the EU will eventuallyreject Turkey's admittance. Oncethey are rejected, Turkey will seek alignment with Russia and their Islamicbrethren.
The last fewyears has seen an Islamic majority emerge in Turkey's Parliament and an IslamicPrime Minister is now in place. The breakup of the former Soviet Union included the independence of fiveIslamic republics: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizia, Turkmenistan, andTajikistan. Hitchcock notes that"Turkey has clearly been drawn to these former Soviet republics for economicreasons, Turkey also shares strong linguistic and ethnic ties with thesenations. All of these nationsspeak Turkic languages with the exception of Tajikistan, where the language issimilar to Iranian Farsi."[13] Turkey sees itself as the economicdeveloper of the vast natural resources like gold, silver, uranium, oil, coal,and natural gas that are found in these five new states. Once Turkey is spurned by Europe, shewill have motive enough to enter into league with Russia and their Islamicbrethren which will set the stage for the fulfillment of this prophecy. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] 2,047 times according to a search conducted bythe computer program Accordance,version 7.3.
[2] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[3] S. Fisch, Ezekiel: Hebrew Text & Englishtranslation with an Introduction and Commentary (London: The Soncino Press, 1950), p. 182.
[4] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p.63.
[5] Jon Mark Ruthven, The Prophecy That Is ShapingHistory: New Research on Ezekiel's Vision of the End (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), p. 102.
[6] Hitchcock, After The Empire, pp. 63-64.
[7] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 64.
[8] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, TheHebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic version (Leiden, The Netherlands:Koninklijke Brill, 2000).
[9] Hitchcock, After The Empire, pp. 64-65.
[10] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[11] Koehler and Baumgartner, Hebrew Lexicon.
[12] C. F. Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, Commentary on theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 161.
[13] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 66.
Ezekiel 38 & 39 (Part 9)
Dr. Thomas Ice
Persia,Ethiopia, and Put with them, all of them with shield and helmet; Gomer with allits troops; Beth-togarmah from the remote parts of the north with all itstroops-many peoples with you.
-Ezekiel 38:5-6
Verses five andsix complete the allies that will attack Israel with their leader Gog. The identity of the first ally appearsto be very clear since its ancient name is widely known down through history,even in our own day. Persia refersto the Persian people who make up a majority of the modern country ofIran. There is consensus amongfuturists that historic Persia clearly refers to modern Iran. "The name Persia, which was written allover the pages of ancient history, was changed to Iran in foreign usage inMarch 1935,"[1] notes MarkHitchcock.
Iran and Russia
Anyone followingthe news headlines the last few years certainly are aware of the warmrelationship between Russia and Iran. Russia has been a supplier of many of the elements Iran wants in order todevelop a nuclear bomb. It isclear that Iran aspires to control the entire Middle East so that they canspread their view of Islam in order to reunite the Muslim world under a singleauthority, an Iranian rule. Wehave all heard that their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said on multipleoccasions that he aspires to wipe Israel off of the map. For the last fifteen years, everyIsraeli administration has repeatedly said that Iran is Israel's greatest threat. Today many wonder if Israel will bemoved to act preemptively, perhaps with the help of the United States, to takeout Iran's nuclear capability before it is fully realized. We will certainly know the answerbefore President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009, since it isunlikely that a new President would be involved in such an adventure.
Iran very likelycould be the key ally in the Russian led invasion of Israel in the lastdays. Perhaps Iran will takeadvantage of the new bellicose posture of Russian President Valdimir Putin is reinstallingtoward the West, especially the United States. No matter how these future events unfold there is no doubtthat Russian and Iran are developing the type of relationship that could easilylead to just such an invasion of Israel as the prophet Ezekiel has foretold.[2]
Ethiopia
The New AmericanStandard translation which I use translates the Hebrew word Cush as Ethiopia. Many English translations have transliterated it from theHebrew into the English word "Cush." Cush occurs 29 timesin the Hebrew Bible.[3] Genesis 2:13 refers to an antediluvianland named Cush. Three times inthe table of nations it refers to Cush who is a descendant of Ham. Most of the other uses occur in Isaiahand Ezekiel (13 times) and refer to the same region mentioned in Ezekiel28:5. One Hebrew lexicon says thatCush refers to "the lands of the Nile in southernEgypt, meaning Nubia and Northern Sudan, the country bordering the southern RedSea."[4] Another tells us that Cush "refers tothe region immediately south and east of Egypt, including modern Nubia, theSudan, and the Ethiopia of classical writers."[5] Thus, the Bible clearly locates Cushjust south of Egypt in what is the modern nation of Sudan.
TodaySudan is one of the most militant Islamic nations in the world. Hitchcock notes, "that the modern nationof Sudan is one of only three Muslim nation in the world with a militantIslamic government."[6] I was surprised to also learn that"Sudan is the largest nation in territory on the African continent and has apopulation of 26 million." It isinteresting to realize that Iran and Sudan have become the closest of alliesduring the last twenty years. Theyhave entered into trade agreements, militaries alliances, and Iran alsooperates terrorist training bases in Sudan.[7] Sudan also is the place that protectedOsama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996 until he went to Afghanistan.[8] Based upon current alignment of nationsthat we see today it is not at all surprising to think that Sudan will be aSouthern ally that descends upon the land of Israel in the last days withRussia, Iran and others.
Put
Put is anothertransliteration from the Hebrew and occurs only seven times in the OldTestament.[9] Twice it is used in a genealogy thatsays that Put is a descendant of Ham (Gen. 10:6; 1 Chron. 1:8). The other five times it is used in theProphets to refer to Put as a nation, usually in a military context as we havein Ezekiel 38. A Hebrew lexiconsays, "probably not the same as Put but Libya."[10] "From the ancient Babylon Chronicle it appears that Putu was the 'distant' land to the west ofEgypt, which would be modern day Libya."[11] "In the invasion," notes Randall Price,"these countries will be joined by other nations (38:5) that represent theother three directions of the compass: Persia (modern Iran) from the east, Cush(northern Sudan) from the south, and Put (modern Libya) from the west."[12]
Justlike Iran and Sudan, Libya is a radical Islamic nation headed by strong manColonel Mu'ammar al-Gadhafi. LikeIran, Gadhafi has tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past, but claims tohave given up all attempts to produce them. "Ever since the rise of Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gadhafi to powerin 1969," notes Hitchcock. "Thenation of Libya has been a constant source of trouble and terrorism for boththe West and Israel. Libya wouldcertainly jump at the chance to join forces with the Sudan, Iran, Turkey, andthe former Muslim republics of the Soviet Union to crush the Jewish state."[13]
Dressed ToKill
Verse five endswith the statement: "all of them with shield and helmet." We saw in verse four that the Hebrewword for "shield" (sinna)refers to a "large shield covering the whole body."[14] In verse four it said, "a great companywith buckler and shield," however, in verse five it says, "with shieldand helmet." The Hebrew word forhelmet is (koba') and refersto a "helmet," usually made of bronze.[15] All six uses[16]of this word in the Hebrew Old Testament refer to a metal helmet worn by asolider for military conflict. Thus, this passage emphasizes the fact that "all" of the invaders arewell outfitted in military attire for their invasion into the land ofIsrael. Price says that thispassage paints a picture where, "Israel will be defenseless and 'surrounded' onall sides by its enemies."[17]
Gomer
Thetransliterated name Gomer occurs five times in the Hebrew Old Testament,[18]not counting those that refer to the wayward wife of Hosea. Every use except the one in Ezekieloccurs in a genealogy (Gen. 10:2, 3; 1 Chron. 1:5, 6). Gomer is said to be a son of Japheth inthe table of nations (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5). The issue is where do the modern day descendants of Gomernow reside? "His descendants are usuallyidentified as the Cimmerians who moved onto the stage of history from the areanorth of the Black Sea in the eighth century b.c."[19] Jon Ruthven has a map in which heplaces Gomer and his descendants as having settled in the area north of theBlack and Caspian Seas.[20] However, the descendants of Gomer werepushed out of that area and into "the area of Cappadocia, which today is incentral and north-central Turkey. Josephus identified the people of Galatia with Gomer. He says that the people the Greekscalled the Galatians were the Gomerites."[21] Today these "Gomerites" live in thewest-central part of Turkey. Therefore, the descendants of Gomer along with some other peoples wehave yet to consider indicate that modern Turkey will be part of those whoinvade the land of Israel.
The passage says,"Gomer with all its troops." It isalready clear from prior statements in this prophecy that many nations will becoming down on Israel and the descendants of Gomer will be with them. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: Bible Prophecyin Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p. 72.
[2] For a couple of more recent books that focus onthe current events of the Gog and Magog invasion see Mark Hitchcock, IranThe Coming Crisis: Radical Islam, Oil, And The Nuclear Threat (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2006), and Joel C.Rosenberg, Epicenter: Why The Current Rumblings in The Middle East WillChange Your Future (Carol Stream,IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006).
[3] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[4] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, TheHebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic version (Leiden, The Netherlands:Koninklijke Brill, 2000).
[5] R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and BruceK. Waltke, editors, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), vol. 1, p.435.
[6] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 79. At least that was the case in 1994.
[7] Hitchcock, After The Empire, pp. 79-83.
[8] Hitchcock, Iran The Coming Crisis, p. 185.
[9] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[10] Koehler and Baumgartner, Hebrew Lexicon, electronic version.
[11] Hitchcock, Iran The Coming Crisis, p. 185.
[12] Randall Price, "Ezekiel," in Tim LaHaye & EdHindson, editors, The Popular Bible Prophecy Commentary: Understanding theMeaning of Every Prophetic Passage(Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2006), p. 191.
[13] Hitchcock, After The Empire, pp. 85-86.
[14] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrewand English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford, 1907), electronic edition.
[15] Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, electronic edition.
[16] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[17] Price, "Ezekiel," p. 191.
[18] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[19] Harris, Archer, and Waltke, TheologicalWordbook, vol. 1, p. 168.
[20] Jon Mark Ruthven, The Prophecy That Is ShapingHistory: New Research on Ezekiel's Vision of the End (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), p. 81.
[21] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 62.
Persia,Ethiopia, and Put with them, all of them with shield and helmet; Gomer with allits troops; Beth-togarmah from the remote parts of the north with all itstroops-many peoples with you.
-Ezekiel 38:5-6
Verses five andsix complete the allies that will attack Israel with their leader Gog. The identity of the first ally appearsto be very clear since its ancient name is widely known down through history,even in our own day. Persia refersto the Persian people who make up a majority of the modern country ofIran. There is consensus amongfuturists that historic Persia clearly refers to modern Iran. "The name Persia, which was written allover the pages of ancient history, was changed to Iran in foreign usage inMarch 1935,"[1] notes MarkHitchcock.
Iran and Russia
Anyone followingthe news headlines the last few years certainly are aware of the warmrelationship between Russia and Iran. Russia has been a supplier of many of the elements Iran wants in order todevelop a nuclear bomb. It isclear that Iran aspires to control the entire Middle East so that they canspread their view of Islam in order to reunite the Muslim world under a singleauthority, an Iranian rule. Wehave all heard that their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said on multipleoccasions that he aspires to wipe Israel off of the map. For the last fifteen years, everyIsraeli administration has repeatedly said that Iran is Israel's greatest threat. Today many wonder if Israel will bemoved to act preemptively, perhaps with the help of the United States, to takeout Iran's nuclear capability before it is fully realized. We will certainly know the answerbefore President George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009, since it isunlikely that a new President would be involved in such an adventure.
Iran very likelycould be the key ally in the Russian led invasion of Israel in the lastdays. Perhaps Iran will takeadvantage of the new bellicose posture of Russian President Valdimir Putin is reinstallingtoward the West, especially the United States. No matter how these future events unfold there is no doubtthat Russian and Iran are developing the type of relationship that could easilylead to just such an invasion of Israel as the prophet Ezekiel has foretold.[2]
Ethiopia
The New AmericanStandard translation which I use translates the Hebrew word Cush as Ethiopia. Many English translations have transliterated it from theHebrew into the English word "Cush." Cush occurs 29 timesin the Hebrew Bible.[3] Genesis 2:13 refers to an antediluvianland named Cush. Three times inthe table of nations it refers to Cush who is a descendant of Ham. Most of the other uses occur in Isaiahand Ezekiel (13 times) and refer to the same region mentioned in Ezekiel28:5. One Hebrew lexicon says thatCush refers to "the lands of the Nile in southernEgypt, meaning Nubia and Northern Sudan, the country bordering the southern RedSea."[4] Another tells us that Cush "refers tothe region immediately south and east of Egypt, including modern Nubia, theSudan, and the Ethiopia of classical writers."[5] Thus, the Bible clearly locates Cushjust south of Egypt in what is the modern nation of Sudan.
TodaySudan is one of the most militant Islamic nations in the world. Hitchcock notes, "that the modern nationof Sudan is one of only three Muslim nation in the world with a militantIslamic government."[6] I was surprised to also learn that"Sudan is the largest nation in territory on the African continent and has apopulation of 26 million." It isinteresting to realize that Iran and Sudan have become the closest of alliesduring the last twenty years. Theyhave entered into trade agreements, militaries alliances, and Iran alsooperates terrorist training bases in Sudan.[7] Sudan also is the place that protectedOsama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996 until he went to Afghanistan.[8] Based upon current alignment of nationsthat we see today it is not at all surprising to think that Sudan will be aSouthern ally that descends upon the land of Israel in the last days withRussia, Iran and others.
Put
Put is anothertransliteration from the Hebrew and occurs only seven times in the OldTestament.[9] Twice it is used in a genealogy thatsays that Put is a descendant of Ham (Gen. 10:6; 1 Chron. 1:8). The other five times it is used in theProphets to refer to Put as a nation, usually in a military context as we havein Ezekiel 38. A Hebrew lexiconsays, "probably not the same as Put but Libya."[10] "From the ancient Babylon Chronicle it appears that Putu was the 'distant' land to the west ofEgypt, which would be modern day Libya."[11] "In the invasion," notes Randall Price,"these countries will be joined by other nations (38:5) that represent theother three directions of the compass: Persia (modern Iran) from the east, Cush(northern Sudan) from the south, and Put (modern Libya) from the west."[12]
Justlike Iran and Sudan, Libya is a radical Islamic nation headed by strong manColonel Mu'ammar al-Gadhafi. LikeIran, Gadhafi has tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past, but claims tohave given up all attempts to produce them. "Ever since the rise of Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gadhafi to powerin 1969," notes Hitchcock. "Thenation of Libya has been a constant source of trouble and terrorism for boththe West and Israel. Libya wouldcertainly jump at the chance to join forces with the Sudan, Iran, Turkey, andthe former Muslim republics of the Soviet Union to crush the Jewish state."[13]
Dressed ToKill
Verse five endswith the statement: "all of them with shield and helmet." We saw in verse four that the Hebrewword for "shield" (sinna)refers to a "large shield covering the whole body."[14] In verse four it said, "a great companywith buckler and shield," however, in verse five it says, "with shieldand helmet." The Hebrew word forhelmet is (koba') and refersto a "helmet," usually made of bronze.[15] All six uses[16]of this word in the Hebrew Old Testament refer to a metal helmet worn by asolider for military conflict. Thus, this passage emphasizes the fact that "all" of the invaders arewell outfitted in military attire for their invasion into the land ofIsrael. Price says that thispassage paints a picture where, "Israel will be defenseless and 'surrounded' onall sides by its enemies."[17]
Gomer
Thetransliterated name Gomer occurs five times in the Hebrew Old Testament,[18]not counting those that refer to the wayward wife of Hosea. Every use except the one in Ezekieloccurs in a genealogy (Gen. 10:2, 3; 1 Chron. 1:5, 6). Gomer is said to be a son of Japheth inthe table of nations (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5). The issue is where do the modern day descendants of Gomernow reside? "His descendants are usuallyidentified as the Cimmerians who moved onto the stage of history from the areanorth of the Black Sea in the eighth century b.c."[19] Jon Ruthven has a map in which heplaces Gomer and his descendants as having settled in the area north of theBlack and Caspian Seas.[20] However, the descendants of Gomer werepushed out of that area and into "the area of Cappadocia, which today is incentral and north-central Turkey. Josephus identified the people of Galatia with Gomer. He says that the people the Greekscalled the Galatians were the Gomerites."[21] Today these "Gomerites" live in thewest-central part of Turkey. Therefore, the descendants of Gomer along with some other peoples wehave yet to consider indicate that modern Turkey will be part of those whoinvade the land of Israel.
The passage says,"Gomer with all its troops." It isalready clear from prior statements in this prophecy that many nations will becoming down on Israel and the descendants of Gomer will be with them. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: Bible Prophecyin Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p. 72.
[2] For a couple of more recent books that focus onthe current events of the Gog and Magog invasion see Mark Hitchcock, IranThe Coming Crisis: Radical Islam, Oil, And The Nuclear Threat (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2006), and Joel C.Rosenberg, Epicenter: Why The Current Rumblings in The Middle East WillChange Your Future (Carol Stream,IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2006).
[3] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[4] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, TheHebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, electronic version (Leiden, The Netherlands:Koninklijke Brill, 2000).
[5] R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and BruceK. Waltke, editors, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), vol. 1, p.435.
[6] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 79. At least that was the case in 1994.
[7] Hitchcock, After The Empire, pp. 79-83.
[8] Hitchcock, Iran The Coming Crisis, p. 185.
[9] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[10] Koehler and Baumgartner, Hebrew Lexicon, electronic version.
[11] Hitchcock, Iran The Coming Crisis, p. 185.
[12] Randall Price, "Ezekiel," in Tim LaHaye & EdHindson, editors, The Popular Bible Prophecy Commentary: Understanding theMeaning of Every Prophetic Passage(Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2006), p. 191.
[13] Hitchcock, After The Empire, pp. 85-86.
[14] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrewand English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford, 1907), electronic edition.
[15] Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, electronic edition.
[16] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[17] Price, "Ezekiel," p. 191.
[18] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version7.3.
[19] Harris, Archer, and Waltke, TheologicalWordbook, vol. 1, p. 168.
[20] Jon Mark Ruthven, The Prophecy That Is ShapingHistory: New Research on Ezekiel's Vision of the End (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), p. 81.
[21] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 62.
Ezekiel 38 & 39 (Part 8)
Dr. Thomas Ice
"And I will turn you about, and put hooks intoyour 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 ofthem wielding swords;'"
-Ezekiel 38:4
As we continue tolook at the description of the weapons and mode of transportation that will beused by Gog and his invading force, we must let the text tell us what itmeans. "A vivid picture is givenof the actual attack of the Russian forces," declares William Hull. "Great tanks, mechanized troopcarriers, huge guns and all the latest in war equipment move as a mighty waveacross the land," he says. Hullconcludes: "Ezekiel describes this as: All of them riding upon horses. Here again Bible students have been lead astray by placing the emphasisupon what they are to be mounted on, rather than the fact that they are to bemounted."[1] Randall Price notes that some, "seethese terms as 'prophetically anachronistic' (or phenomenological), sinceEzekiel had no frame of reference to describe the weapons of this future age."[2] This is a view I once held, as I willnote later.
Gary DeMarcriticizes such an approach when he says, "If someone like Tim LaHaye is trueto his claim of literalism, then the Russian attack he and Jerry Jenkinsdescribe in Left Behindshould be a literal representation of the actual battle events as they aredepicted in Ezekiel 38 and 39."[3] DeMar continues, "How do Hitchcock,Ice, and LaHaye know that thisis what the Holy Spirit really means when the text is clear enough without any modern-dayembellishment?"[4] This may surprise some, but I thinkDeMar is basically right in his criticism of us on this point, even though heis demonstrably wrong about so many other items he addresses in the prophecy ofEzekiel 38 and 39.
Literal Interpretation
Bernard Ramm, whowould not be sympathetic to our view of Bible prophecy quotes Webster anddefines literal as "the natural or usual construction and implication of awriting or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words; notallegorical or metaphorical."[5] Charles Ryrie formulates an extensivedefinition of literal interpretation when he states the following:
This is sometimes calledthe principle of grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined bygrammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning ofwords is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives themistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech and typesare all interpreted plainly in this method and they are in no way contrary toliteral interpretation. After all,the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the realityof the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is theliteral, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.[6]
"The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy," notes commentator E. R.Craven. "Nor does he deny thatgreat spiritual truths areset forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to received laws oflanguage) as any other utterances are interpreted-that which is manifestlyfigurative being so regarded."[7]
David Cooperprovides a classic statement of the literal hermeneutical principle in his"Golden Rule of Interpretation," which says: "When the plain sense of Scripturemakes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at itsprimary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediatecontext, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamentaltruths, indicate clearly otherwise."[8] In other words, there must be aliterary basis in the text of any statement that a word or phrase should not betaken literally, unless one can explain that a figure of speech or metaphormakes more sense in a given context than the plain, literal meaning. In other words, Cooper's dictum saysthat a word or phrase should be taken literally unless there is a reason in thetext of the passage to take it as a figure of speech or a metaphor. Matthew Waymeyer provides a helpfulrule of thumb when he says: "In order to be considered symbolic, the languagein question must possess (a) some degree of absurdity when taken literally and (b) some degree of clarity when taken symbolically."[9]
The Literal Meaning
Since there doesnot appear to be demonstrable figures of speech or symbols in this passage for"army," "horses and horsemen," "buckler and shield," and "swords," thenconsistency requires that this battle will be fought with these items. These weapons of war cannot be similesfor modern weapons since there are not textual indicators such as "like" or"as." There does not appear to beany figures of speech that sometimes occur without using a "like" or "as." For example, Jesus said, "I am thedoor," "I am the bread of life," etc. While these are not figures of speech in and of themselves, in theircontexts it is clear that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. However, there is nothing in thecontext of Ezekiel 38 which would indicate that Ezekiel is seeing modernweapons yet using known terminology of his day.
As I have thoughtmore critically about literal interpretation and this passage while doing thisseries, I have come to disagree with a statement made by Mark Hitchcock and Iwhere we said: "Ezekiel spoke in language that the people of his day couldunderstand. If he had spoken ofMIG-29s, laser-fired missiles, tanks, and assault rifles, this text would havebeen nonsensical to everyone until the twentieth century."[10] Instead, I have come to agree withDeMar who says: "A lot has to be read into the Bible in order to make Ezekiel38 and 39 fit modern-day military realities that include jet planes,'missiles,' and 'atomic and explosive' weaponry."[11] Even though I think DeMar is right onthis one point, it does not mean that his conclusion is correct. He says, "The weapons are ancientbecause the battle is ancient."[12] True, these were weapons that were usedin ancient times, but some are still used today. Also, DeMar either ignores many textual facts or does nottake literally timing statements like "after many days" (Ezek. 38:8), butespecially "latter years" (Ezek. 38:8) and "last days" (Ezek. 38:16), which Iwill deal with later.
I think futuristPaul Lee Tan has framed the issue well as follows:
Thereare some prophecies which, in describing eschatological warfares, predict thatthe weapons to be used then will be bows and arrows, chariots and horses,spears and shields. Are these tobe taken literally? If we adherestrictly to the proper view of prophetic form, we must consider these weaponsthe same as that which will be used in eschatology. They must not be equated with vastly different modern wardevices, as the H-bomb or the supersonic jet fighter. Interestingly, these prophesied military instruments thoughcenturies old have not been made obsolete. The horse, for instance, is still used in warfare on certainkinds of terrain.[13]
Without intendingto be dogmatic on this issue, the view I think that makes the most sense is oneI heard pastor Charles Clough[14]teach on an audiotape in the late 60s or early 70s. Clough was at the time a trained and experienced meteorologistwho thought the events of the tribulation could likely degrade modern weaponssystems so as to render them unusable. Later, Clough would go on to work for about 25 years as a meteorologistfor the U. S. Army where he studied the impact of weather on weaponssystems. He still holds the sameview today. Price explains asfollows:
However, there is no reasonwhy these basic weapons might not be used in a future battle, if the conditionsor the stage of battle prevent the use of the more advanced technology. Warsfought in certain rugged Middle Eastern terrains such as the mountainous regionof Afghanistan (cf. 39:2-4) have required modern armies to use horses, and bowsand arrows continue to be employed in various combat arenas. In addition, ifthe battle takes place in the Tribulation period, the conditions predicted forthat time, such as seismic activity, meteor showers, increased solar effects,and other cosmic and terrestrial catastrophes (Matthew 24:7; Revelation6:12-14; 8:7-12; 16:8-9, 18-21) would so disrupt the environment that presenttechnology depending on satellite and computer-guided systems as well asmeteorological stability would utterly fail. Under such conditions most of ourmodern weapons would be useless and more basic weapons would have to besubstituted. At any rate, there is no reason to relegate the text to the paston the basis of supposedly anachronistic language.[15]
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] William L. Hull, Israel: Key to Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), pp. 35-36.(emphasis original)
[2] Randall Price, Unpublished Notes on TheProphecies of Ezekiel, (2007), p.42.
[3] Gary DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion: Future orFulfilled?" Biblical Worldview Magazine, vol. 22 (December, 2006), p. 4.
[4] DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion," p. 6. (italicsoriginal)
[5] Bernard Ramm, Protestant BiblicalInterpretation, third edition(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), p. 119.
[6] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, [1965], 1995), pp. 80-81.(italics original)
[7] E. R. Craven and J. P. Lange, ed., Commentaryon the Holy Scriptures: Revelation(New York: Scribner, 1872), p. 98. (italics original)
[8] David L. Cooper, The World 's Greatest LibraryGraphically Illustrated (LosAngeles: Biblical Research Society, [1942], 1970), p. 11.
[9] Matthew Waymeyer, Revelation 20 and theMillennial Debate (The Woodlands,TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2004), p. 50. (italics original)
[10] Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice, The TruthBehind Left Behind: A Biblical View of the End Times (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Press, 2004), p. 47.
[11] DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion," p. 4.
[12] DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion," p. 6.
[13] Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Winona Lake, IN: Assurance Publishers, 1974), p.223.
[14] At the time, Charles A. Clough was pastor ofLubbock Bible Church in Lubbock, Texas.
[15] Price, Unpublished Notes on Ezekiel, p. 42.
"And I will turn you about, and put hooks intoyour 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 ofthem wielding swords;'"
-Ezekiel 38:4
As we continue tolook at the description of the weapons and mode of transportation that will beused by Gog and his invading force, we must let the text tell us what itmeans. "A vivid picture is givenof the actual attack of the Russian forces," declares William Hull. "Great tanks, mechanized troopcarriers, huge guns and all the latest in war equipment move as a mighty waveacross the land," he says. Hullconcludes: "Ezekiel describes this as: All of them riding upon horses. Here again Bible students have been lead astray by placing the emphasisupon what they are to be mounted on, rather than the fact that they are to bemounted."[1] Randall Price notes that some, "seethese terms as 'prophetically anachronistic' (or phenomenological), sinceEzekiel had no frame of reference to describe the weapons of this future age."[2] This is a view I once held, as I willnote later.
Gary DeMarcriticizes such an approach when he says, "If someone like Tim LaHaye is trueto his claim of literalism, then the Russian attack he and Jerry Jenkinsdescribe in Left Behindshould be a literal representation of the actual battle events as they aredepicted in Ezekiel 38 and 39."[3] DeMar continues, "How do Hitchcock,Ice, and LaHaye know that thisis what the Holy Spirit really means when the text is clear enough without any modern-dayembellishment?"[4] This may surprise some, but I thinkDeMar is basically right in his criticism of us on this point, even though heis demonstrably wrong about so many other items he addresses in the prophecy ofEzekiel 38 and 39.
Literal Interpretation
Bernard Ramm, whowould not be sympathetic to our view of Bible prophecy quotes Webster anddefines literal as "the natural or usual construction and implication of awriting or expression; following the ordinary and apparent sense of words; notallegorical or metaphorical."[5] Charles Ryrie formulates an extensivedefinition of literal interpretation when he states the following:
This is sometimes calledthe principle of grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined bygrammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning ofwords is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives themistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech and typesare all interpreted plainly in this method and they are in no way contrary toliteral interpretation. After all,the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the realityof the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is theliteral, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.[6]
"The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy," notes commentator E. R.Craven. "Nor does he deny thatgreat spiritual truths areset forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to received laws oflanguage) as any other utterances are interpreted-that which is manifestlyfigurative being so regarded."[7]
David Cooperprovides a classic statement of the literal hermeneutical principle in his"Golden Rule of Interpretation," which says: "When the plain sense of Scripturemakes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at itsprimary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediatecontext, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamentaltruths, indicate clearly otherwise."[8] In other words, there must be aliterary basis in the text of any statement that a word or phrase should not betaken literally, unless one can explain that a figure of speech or metaphormakes more sense in a given context than the plain, literal meaning. In other words, Cooper's dictum saysthat a word or phrase should be taken literally unless there is a reason in thetext of the passage to take it as a figure of speech or a metaphor. Matthew Waymeyer provides a helpfulrule of thumb when he says: "In order to be considered symbolic, the languagein question must possess (a) some degree of absurdity when taken literally and (b) some degree of clarity when taken symbolically."[9]
The Literal Meaning
Since there doesnot appear to be demonstrable figures of speech or symbols in this passage for"army," "horses and horsemen," "buckler and shield," and "swords," thenconsistency requires that this battle will be fought with these items. These weapons of war cannot be similesfor modern weapons since there are not textual indicators such as "like" or"as." There does not appear to beany figures of speech that sometimes occur without using a "like" or "as." For example, Jesus said, "I am thedoor," "I am the bread of life," etc. While these are not figures of speech in and of themselves, in theircontexts it is clear that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. However, there is nothing in thecontext of Ezekiel 38 which would indicate that Ezekiel is seeing modernweapons yet using known terminology of his day.
As I have thoughtmore critically about literal interpretation and this passage while doing thisseries, I have come to disagree with a statement made by Mark Hitchcock and Iwhere we said: "Ezekiel spoke in language that the people of his day couldunderstand. If he had spoken ofMIG-29s, laser-fired missiles, tanks, and assault rifles, this text would havebeen nonsensical to everyone until the twentieth century."[10] Instead, I have come to agree withDeMar who says: "A lot has to be read into the Bible in order to make Ezekiel38 and 39 fit modern-day military realities that include jet planes,'missiles,' and 'atomic and explosive' weaponry."[11] Even though I think DeMar is right onthis one point, it does not mean that his conclusion is correct. He says, "The weapons are ancientbecause the battle is ancient."[12] True, these were weapons that were usedin ancient times, but some are still used today. Also, DeMar either ignores many textual facts or does nottake literally timing statements like "after many days" (Ezek. 38:8), butespecially "latter years" (Ezek. 38:8) and "last days" (Ezek. 38:16), which Iwill deal with later.
I think futuristPaul Lee Tan has framed the issue well as follows:
Thereare some prophecies which, in describing eschatological warfares, predict thatthe weapons to be used then will be bows and arrows, chariots and horses,spears and shields. Are these tobe taken literally? If we adherestrictly to the proper view of prophetic form, we must consider these weaponsthe same as that which will be used in eschatology. They must not be equated with vastly different modern wardevices, as the H-bomb or the supersonic jet fighter. Interestingly, these prophesied military instruments thoughcenturies old have not been made obsolete. The horse, for instance, is still used in warfare on certainkinds of terrain.[13]
Without intendingto be dogmatic on this issue, the view I think that makes the most sense is oneI heard pastor Charles Clough[14]teach on an audiotape in the late 60s or early 70s. Clough was at the time a trained and experienced meteorologistwho thought the events of the tribulation could likely degrade modern weaponssystems so as to render them unusable. Later, Clough would go on to work for about 25 years as a meteorologistfor the U. S. Army where he studied the impact of weather on weaponssystems. He still holds the sameview today. Price explains asfollows:
However, there is no reasonwhy these basic weapons might not be used in a future battle, if the conditionsor the stage of battle prevent the use of the more advanced technology. Warsfought in certain rugged Middle Eastern terrains such as the mountainous regionof Afghanistan (cf. 39:2-4) have required modern armies to use horses, and bowsand arrows continue to be employed in various combat arenas. In addition, ifthe battle takes place in the Tribulation period, the conditions predicted forthat time, such as seismic activity, meteor showers, increased solar effects,and other cosmic and terrestrial catastrophes (Matthew 24:7; Revelation6:12-14; 8:7-12; 16:8-9, 18-21) would so disrupt the environment that presenttechnology depending on satellite and computer-guided systems as well asmeteorological stability would utterly fail. Under such conditions most of ourmodern weapons would be useless and more basic weapons would have to besubstituted. At any rate, there is no reason to relegate the text to the paston the basis of supposedly anachronistic language.[15]
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] William L. Hull, Israel: Key to Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), pp. 35-36.(emphasis original)
[2] Randall Price, Unpublished Notes on TheProphecies of Ezekiel, (2007), p.42.
[3] Gary DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion: Future orFulfilled?" Biblical Worldview Magazine, vol. 22 (December, 2006), p. 4.
[4] DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion," p. 6. (italicsoriginal)
[5] Bernard Ramm, Protestant BiblicalInterpretation, third edition(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), p. 119.
[6] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, [1965], 1995), pp. 80-81.(italics original)
[7] E. R. Craven and J. P. Lange, ed., Commentaryon the Holy Scriptures: Revelation(New York: Scribner, 1872), p. 98. (italics original)
[8] David L. Cooper, The World 's Greatest LibraryGraphically Illustrated (LosAngeles: Biblical Research Society, [1942], 1970), p. 11.
[9] Matthew Waymeyer, Revelation 20 and theMillennial Debate (The Woodlands,TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2004), p. 50. (italics original)
[10] Mark Hitchcock and Thomas Ice, The TruthBehind Left Behind: A Biblical View of the End Times (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Press, 2004), p. 47.
[11] DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion," p. 4.
[12] DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion," p. 6.
[13] Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Winona Lake, IN: Assurance Publishers, 1974), p.223.
[14] At the time, Charles A. Clough was pastor ofLubbock Bible Church in Lubbock, Texas.
[15] Price, Unpublished Notes on Ezekiel, p. 42.
Ezekiel 38 & 39 (Part 7)
Dr. Thomas Ice
"And I will turn you about, and put hooks intoyour 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 ofthem wielding swords;'"
-Ezekiel 38:4
As we look deeplyat this prophecy we see that God will put hooks into the jaws of Gog, who isthe prince of Rosh, which we have seen is a reference to modern dayRussia. Thus, Gog appears to be aRussian individual who will lead the Russian nation and her allies in an attackon regathered Israel. This is thebasic situation that we see today as we scan the geo-political landscape. The stage is already set for just suchan attack.
A Rod Of Discipline?
Some might arguethat the Gog invasion has already taken place in conjunction with God'sdiscipline 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 whohad been called the "rods of God's wrath" (cf. Isaiah 10:5). On the one hand Gog's willful decisionto invade (verse 11) is based on his own passions (verses 12-13), but on theother hand he is drawn (as with hooks in his jaw, verse 4) in order to makepossible a divine demonstration of God's power and intervention for Israel tothe 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 byGod where He uses other nations to chastise Israel, as He did with Assyrianagainst 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 behalfof Israel as He does in this passage. When God uses a pagan nation to discipline Israel, He never intervenesto protect Israel during such an invasion.
I Will Bring You Out
As we continue tolook more closely at Ezekiel 38:4 we see that the Lord, after having put hooksin 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 tobring Gog out of his place.[2] Once again, this is not something thatGog would have instigated had not God intervened to bring him out to theireventual destruction.
Gog's MilitaryResources
When Gog comesdown 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 hasthe abstract idea of "strength," "wealth," or more concretely "militaryforces,"[4]since it takes great wealth to field a strong military. The word is used again to describe Gogand his allies in 38:15, this time with the adjective "mighty." In other words, the chayil is a term that carries the idea of militarymight 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 thisinvasion of Israel.
The next textualdescription is that this invading army will have "horses and horsemen." It is obvious what horses mean, whilehorsemen would be those soldiers riding horses for military purposes. Horsemen are often distinguished fromthose riding chariots in the Old Testament. Charles Feinberg concludes: "The mention of horses andhorsemen is not to be taken to mean that the army would consist entirely orprimarily of cavalry."[5] Feinberg's statement is supported bythe fact that previously the text said "all your army," which would include allaspects of an attacker's resources. If this is the case, perhaps cavalry is singled out and mentionedspecifically since it was the most potent offensive force for an invader inEzekiel's day. Also, horses denotea form of military conveyance, while horsemen the military personnel.
The last part ofverse 4 describes how the military personnel are outfitted: "all of themsplendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of themwielding swords." This is areference to the horsemen, all of which are splendidly attired. The Hebrew word translated "splendidly"(miklol) is an interestingword found only here and in Ezekiel 23:12. It is defined variously as "most gorgeously" or "all sortsof armor." "There is littleagreement over the correct translation of this word," since it is only usedtwice. "In both cases it is used incontexts 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 willall have the best military equipment available in their day. They will not be ill equipped for thetask they intend. Not only willthe invaders be well equipped, there will be a great number of them who willcome down to Israel.
This greatcompany is said to have both "buckler and shield" to protect themselves. The Hebrew word for "shield" (sinna) refers to a "largeshield covering the whole body."[7] While the Hebrew word for "buckler" (magen) refers to the smaller "shield or buckler carried by awarrior for defense."[8] This military equipment would beexamples of the well-equipped condition of the invaders. "Besides the defensive arms, thegreater and smaller shield," declares Keil, "they carried swords as weapons ofoffense."[9] The Hebrew word "sword" (hereb) "can designate both (1) the two-edged dagger or shortsword (Jgs. 3:16, 21) and (2) the single-edged scimitar or long sword."[10] Since these soldiers are riding onhorses, it would make the most sense to think that the long sword is picturedhere, which has historically been the weapon of choice for cavalry. The shortsword would not be as practical from atop a horse. "The verse explains that Yahweh is bringing out Gog fullyarmed."[11] The greater the opponent then thegreater the possibility that Israel will find herself in an impossiblesituation. An impossible situationcalls for Divine intervention. Thus, there will be greater glory for God when He totally destroys theinvaders.
What About TheWeapons?
Critics of ourfuturist understanding of this passage point to the fact that the text saysthat invaders will be horsemen riding on horses and using weapons like swordsand 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 onthe basis of weapons described in the passage that it has already beenfulfilled. "The weapons areancient 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," acknowledgesJohn Walvoord. "This certainlyposes a problem."[15] However, without abandoning theprinciples of literal interpretation, Walvoord believers that there is asolution to this problem. He citesthree suggestions that have been made as follows:
One of them is this thatEzekiel is using language with which he was familiar-the weapons that werecommon in his day-to anticipate modern weapons. What he is saying is that when this army comes, it will befully equipped with the weapons of war. Such an interpretation, too, has problems. We are told in the passage that they used the wooden shaftsof the spears and the bow and arrows for kindling wood. If these are symbols, it would bedifficult to burn symbols. . . .
A second solution is that the battleis preceded by a disarmament agreement between nations. If this were the case, it would benecessary to resort to primitive weapons easily and secretly made if a surpriseattack were to be achieved. Thiswould allow a literal interpretation of the passage.
A third solution has been suggestedbased on the premise that modern missile warfare will have been developed inthat day to the point where missiles will seek out any considerable amount ofmetal. Under these circumstances,it would be necessary to abandon the large use of metal weapons and substitutewood such as is indicated in the primitive weapons. Whatever the explanation, the most sensible interpretationis that the passage refers to actual weapons pressed into use because of thepeculiar circumstances of that day.[16]
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Randall Price, Unpublished Notes on TheProphecies of Ezekiel, (2007), p.42.
[2] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrewand 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., andBruce 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 theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (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 BibleCommentary: Ezekiel (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 202.
[12] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), p. 367.
[13] Gary DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion: Future orFulfilled?" Biblical Worldview Magazine, vol. 22 (December, 2006), p. 6.
[14] DeMar, Last Days Madness, pp. 368-69; see also Gary DeMar, End TimesFiction: 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.
"And I will turn you about, and put hooks intoyour 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 ofthem wielding swords;'"
-Ezekiel 38:4
As we look deeplyat this prophecy we see that God will put hooks into the jaws of Gog, who isthe prince of Rosh, which we have seen is a reference to modern dayRussia. Thus, Gog appears to be aRussian individual who will lead the Russian nation and her allies in an attackon regathered Israel. This is thebasic situation that we see today as we scan the geo-political landscape. The stage is already set for just suchan attack.
A Rod Of Discipline?
Some might arguethat the Gog invasion has already taken place in conjunction with God'sdiscipline 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 whohad been called the "rods of God's wrath" (cf. Isaiah 10:5). On the one hand Gog's willful decisionto invade (verse 11) is based on his own passions (verses 12-13), but on theother hand he is drawn (as with hooks in his jaw, verse 4) in order to makepossible a divine demonstration of God's power and intervention for Israel tothe 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 byGod where He uses other nations to chastise Israel, as He did with Assyrianagainst 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 behalfof Israel as He does in this passage. When God uses a pagan nation to discipline Israel, He never intervenesto protect Israel during such an invasion.
I Will Bring You Out
As we continue tolook more closely at Ezekiel 38:4 we see that the Lord, after having put hooksin 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 tobring Gog out of his place.[2] Once again, this is not something thatGog would have instigated had not God intervened to bring him out to theireventual destruction.
Gog's MilitaryResources
When Gog comesdown 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 hasthe abstract idea of "strength," "wealth," or more concretely "militaryforces,"[4]since it takes great wealth to field a strong military. The word is used again to describe Gogand his allies in 38:15, this time with the adjective "mighty." In other words, the chayil is a term that carries the idea of militarymight 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 thisinvasion of Israel.
The next textualdescription is that this invading army will have "horses and horsemen." It is obvious what horses mean, whilehorsemen would be those soldiers riding horses for military purposes. Horsemen are often distinguished fromthose riding chariots in the Old Testament. Charles Feinberg concludes: "The mention of horses andhorsemen is not to be taken to mean that the army would consist entirely orprimarily of cavalry."[5] Feinberg's statement is supported bythe fact that previously the text said "all your army," which would include allaspects of an attacker's resources. If this is the case, perhaps cavalry is singled out and mentionedspecifically since it was the most potent offensive force for an invader inEzekiel's day. Also, horses denotea form of military conveyance, while horsemen the military personnel.
The last part ofverse 4 describes how the military personnel are outfitted: "all of themsplendidly attired, a great company with buckler and shield, all of themwielding swords." This is areference to the horsemen, all of which are splendidly attired. The Hebrew word translated "splendidly"(miklol) is an interestingword found only here and in Ezekiel 23:12. It is defined variously as "most gorgeously" or "all sortsof armor." "There is littleagreement over the correct translation of this word," since it is only usedtwice. "In both cases it is used incontexts 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 willall have the best military equipment available in their day. They will not be ill equipped for thetask they intend. Not only willthe invaders be well equipped, there will be a great number of them who willcome down to Israel.
This greatcompany is said to have both "buckler and shield" to protect themselves. The Hebrew word for "shield" (sinna) refers to a "largeshield covering the whole body."[7] While the Hebrew word for "buckler" (magen) refers to the smaller "shield or buckler carried by awarrior for defense."[8] This military equipment would beexamples of the well-equipped condition of the invaders. "Besides the defensive arms, thegreater and smaller shield," declares Keil, "they carried swords as weapons ofoffense."[9] The Hebrew word "sword" (hereb) "can designate both (1) the two-edged dagger or shortsword (Jgs. 3:16, 21) and (2) the single-edged scimitar or long sword."[10] Since these soldiers are riding onhorses, it would make the most sense to think that the long sword is picturedhere, which has historically been the weapon of choice for cavalry. The shortsword would not be as practical from atop a horse. "The verse explains that Yahweh is bringing out Gog fullyarmed."[11] The greater the opponent then thegreater the possibility that Israel will find herself in an impossiblesituation. An impossible situationcalls for Divine intervention. Thus, there will be greater glory for God when He totally destroys theinvaders.
What About TheWeapons?
Critics of ourfuturist understanding of this passage point to the fact that the text saysthat invaders will be horsemen riding on horses and using weapons like swordsand 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 onthe basis of weapons described in the passage that it has already beenfulfilled. "The weapons areancient 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," acknowledgesJohn Walvoord. "This certainlyposes a problem."[15] However, without abandoning theprinciples of literal interpretation, Walvoord believers that there is asolution to this problem. He citesthree suggestions that have been made as follows:
One of them is this thatEzekiel is using language with which he was familiar-the weapons that werecommon in his day-to anticipate modern weapons. What he is saying is that when this army comes, it will befully equipped with the weapons of war. Such an interpretation, too, has problems. We are told in the passage that they used the wooden shaftsof the spears and the bow and arrows for kindling wood. If these are symbols, it would bedifficult to burn symbols. . . .
A second solution is that the battleis preceded by a disarmament agreement between nations. If this were the case, it would benecessary to resort to primitive weapons easily and secretly made if a surpriseattack were to be achieved. Thiswould allow a literal interpretation of the passage.
A third solution has been suggestedbased on the premise that modern missile warfare will have been developed inthat day to the point where missiles will seek out any considerable amount ofmetal. Under these circumstances,it would be necessary to abandon the large use of metal weapons and substitutewood such as is indicated in the primitive weapons. Whatever the explanation, the most sensible interpretationis that the passage refers to actual weapons pressed into use because of thepeculiar circumstances of that day.[16]
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Randall Price, Unpublished Notes on TheProphecies of Ezekiel, (2007), p.42.
[2] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrewand 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., andBruce 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 theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (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 BibleCommentary: Ezekiel (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 202.
[12] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), p. 367.
[13] Gary DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion: Future orFulfilled?" Biblical Worldview Magazine, vol. 22 (December, 2006), p. 6.
[14] DeMar, Last Days Madness, pp. 368-69; see also Gary DeMar, End TimesFiction: 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)
Dr. Thomas Ice
"Son of man, set your face towardGog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesyagainst him, and say, Thussays the Lord God, 'Behold, I amagainst you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal. And I will turn you about, and puthooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses andhorsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler andshield, all of them wielding swords;'"
-Ezekiel 38:2-4
Now that theparticipants have been identified in verse 2, I now will look at what the Wordof the Lord says about them. Wehave already seen in the first part of the verse that Ezekiel is told to sethis face toward the direction of the coalition nations. Such a statement implies that they area real, historical group of peoples. We learn at the end of verse 2 that Ezekiel is to "prophecy againsthim." The "him" refers back toGog, the leader of the invasion. The Hebrew word for "prophecy" is the usual word and in this contextcarries the notion that Ezekiel will be telling future history about Gog andthe coalition that he will head. The Hebrew preposition "against" tells us that this is not a positiveprophecy benefiting to Gog and his associates. Instead, the prophecy is against Gog because God is opposedto him, as we shall see as the passage unfolds.
God Against Gog
The Lord Godtells Ezekiel to announce that He (God) is against Gog in verse 3. The preposition "against" in verse 3 isdifferent than the one used in verse 2. Here in verse 3 "against" has the idea of motion, thus, the action ofthe prophecy by God is against Gog. The two prepositions are very similar and it would appear that the twoare 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, butit is God who ultimately is the cause of this great event (see verses 4,8). God's disposition being setagainst Gog in verses 2 and 3 paves the way nicely for His clear declaration inverse 4.
Hooks Into Your Jaws
The first phrasein verse 4 says, "I will turn you about." The Hebrew word for "turn" is sub. Its basicmeaning is "to move in an opposite direction from that toward which onepreviously moved. . . . turn around, turn."[1] In theological contexts it is theclassic word in the Old Testament for "repent," as used so often byJeremiah. "The verb, with over1,050 occurrences, ranks twelfth in frequency among words in the OT."[2] The sense in which this word is used sooften in the Old Testament has the notion of repentance, as in Israel repentingand turning from their sin to the Lord. This is the same way in which repentance is used by preachers like Johnthe Baptist in the New Testament. In fact, today in Orthodox Judaism when a non-observant Jew begins topractice 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 toreligious repentance, but rather to a change in ones plans. "Here 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 adangerous enterprise."[3] What more dangerous enterprise couldthere ever be than warring against God or His people-Israel?
Since the Lordwants to move Gog in the direction of coming down to attack Israel, the verb natan is used to explain the means that God willemploy. The Lord will "place" or"put" hooks into the jaws of Gog. Keil tells us, "Gog is represented as an unmanageable beast, which iscompelled to follow its leader (cf. Isa. xxxvii. 29); and the thought isthereby expressed, that Gog is compelled to obey the power of God against hiswill."[4] Lawson Younger explains the meaning anduse of the Hebrew word for "hook" as follows:
While the literal meaning of hah is "thorn," in the OT it is used metaphoricallyfor a hook. In the majority ofoccurrences, hah is employedin military contexts for a hook put through the nose or cheek of captives: ofSennacherib, in whose nose God will put a hook (2 Kgs 19:28; Isa. 37:29); ofJehoahaz taken to Egypt by hook (Ezek 19:4); of Zedekiah taken to Babylon byhook (19:9); of Pharaoh, in whose jaw God will put a hook (29:4; and of Gog, inwhose jaw God will also put hooks (28:4).[5]
Just as a wholehost of Israel's enemies down through history have not wanted to do what Godhas 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, whichdemonstrates the use of the hook imagery by God. "Like a ring in the nose of a captive or a great hook in thejaws of a crocodile, God will pull Gog and his allies out for this invasionwhen he is ready for them," notes Mark Hitchcock. "God will do God's bidding and will act according to God'stimetable."[6] Arnold Fruchtenbaum summarizes thissection by reminding us:
It is God Who is incontrol; it is He who is bringing the invasion about. Thus, while studying this passage, one should note thesovereignty of God in this invasion. This will be the means by which God will punish Russia for hersins. The key sin is her long historyof anti-Semitism, a problem that persists in Russia to this day.[7]
Stage Setting inRussia and Iran
How are some ofthe issues from the first few verses of Ezekiel 38 setting the stage today forfuture fulfillment? While othernations 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-politicalscene. Also, for those who are notwatching Turkey, they are on the verge of being taken over by radical wing ofMuslims in their Parliament. Ifthey succeed, they will return Turkey to Muslim rule, which will result intheir dismissal of democracy.
Mart Zuckerman, editor ofU. 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, "Thereal threat is Iran." He wasright. But Russia has become partof the problem, not the solution."[8] It is no secret that Russia has playeda role of enabler to Iran, which has risen to the top of the list of roguestates that threaten to bring great destabilization to the current worldorder. "And Russia has made thethreat more real. It sold thenuclear power plant at Bushehr to Iran and contracted to sell even more tobring cash into its nuclear industry. As one American diplomat put it, this businessis a 'giant hook in Russia's jaw.'"[9] What? Could you repeat that last statement? The American diplomat said, "thisbusiness is a 'giant hook in Russia's jaw.'" That's right, the diplomat used a phrase right out of Bibleprophecy to describe Russia's current role with Iran.
Some detractorsof our view of Bible prophecy have said that with the fall of the Soviet Empirea Russian led invasion seems very unlikely from a geo-politicalstandpoint. It has always been thecase that this prophecy speaks of a Russian led, not a Soviet led, attackagainst Israel. Ever since thefall of the Soviet Empire Russian has continued to maintain close relationswith most of the Islamic nations, especially those in the Middle East. It would not be surprising from ageo-political perspective to see Russia join with Islamic states like Iran in asurprise attack against Israel.
Forover fifteen years I have speculated that the "hook in the jaw" of Gog that Godcould use to bring a reluctant Russia down upon the land of Israel could besome thing like the following scenario that I articulated to Hal Lindsey on aNational television show[10]in 1991 on the day the first Gulf War ended: I could see the Muslimsapproaching the Russians and telling them that America has set a precedent foran outside power coming into the Middle East to right a perceived wrong. (America has done it again in recentyears by going into Afghanistan and Iraq.) On that basis, Russia should help her Muslim friends byleading them in an overwhelming invasion of Israel in order to solve the MiddleEast 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 Eastand Russia appears to have her fingerprints all over things. We know that the Bible predicts justsuch an alignment and invasion to take place "in the latter years" (Ezek.38:8).
(ToBe 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 theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 161.
[4] Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, p. 161.
[5] Willem A. VanGemeren, gen. editor, NewInternational Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 5 vols., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), vol.2, p. 44.
[6] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy 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 TrinityBroadcasting Network.
"Son of man, set your face towardGog of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesyagainst him, and say, Thussays the Lord God, 'Behold, I amagainst you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal. And I will turn you about, and puthooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army, horses andhorsemen, all of them splendidly attired, a great company with buckler andshield, all of them wielding swords;'"
-Ezekiel 38:2-4
Now that theparticipants have been identified in verse 2, I now will look at what the Wordof the Lord says about them. Wehave already seen in the first part of the verse that Ezekiel is told to sethis face toward the direction of the coalition nations. Such a statement implies that they area real, historical group of peoples. We learn at the end of verse 2 that Ezekiel is to "prophecy againsthim." The "him" refers back toGog, the leader of the invasion. The Hebrew word for "prophecy" is the usual word and in this contextcarries the notion that Ezekiel will be telling future history about Gog andthe coalition that he will head. The Hebrew preposition "against" tells us that this is not a positiveprophecy benefiting to Gog and his associates. Instead, the prophecy is against Gog because God is opposedto him, as we shall see as the passage unfolds.
God Against Gog
The Lord Godtells Ezekiel to announce that He (God) is against Gog in verse 3. The preposition "against" in verse 3 isdifferent than the one used in verse 2. Here in verse 3 "against" has the idea of motion, thus, the action ofthe prophecy by God is against Gog. The two prepositions are very similar and it would appear that the twoare 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, butit is God who ultimately is the cause of this great event (see verses 4,8). God's disposition being setagainst Gog in verses 2 and 3 paves the way nicely for His clear declaration inverse 4.
Hooks Into Your Jaws
The first phrasein verse 4 says, "I will turn you about." The Hebrew word for "turn" is sub. Its basicmeaning is "to move in an opposite direction from that toward which onepreviously moved. . . . turn around, turn."[1] In theological contexts it is theclassic word in the Old Testament for "repent," as used so often byJeremiah. "The verb, with over1,050 occurrences, ranks twelfth in frequency among words in the OT."[2] The sense in which this word is used sooften in the Old Testament has the notion of repentance, as in Israel repentingand turning from their sin to the Lord. This is the same way in which repentance is used by preachers like Johnthe Baptist in the New Testament. In fact, today in Orthodox Judaism when a non-observant Jew begins topractice 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 toreligious repentance, but rather to a change in ones plans. "Here 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 adangerous enterprise."[3] What more dangerous enterprise couldthere ever be than warring against God or His people-Israel?
Since the Lordwants to move Gog in the direction of coming down to attack Israel, the verb natan is used to explain the means that God willemploy. The Lord will "place" or"put" hooks into the jaws of Gog. Keil tells us, "Gog is represented as an unmanageable beast, which iscompelled to follow its leader (cf. Isa. xxxvii. 29); and the thought isthereby expressed, that Gog is compelled to obey the power of God against hiswill."[4] Lawson Younger explains the meaning anduse of the Hebrew word for "hook" as follows:
While the literal meaning of hah is "thorn," in the OT it is used metaphoricallyfor a hook. In the majority ofoccurrences, hah is employedin military contexts for a hook put through the nose or cheek of captives: ofSennacherib, in whose nose God will put a hook (2 Kgs 19:28; Isa. 37:29); ofJehoahaz taken to Egypt by hook (Ezek 19:4); of Zedekiah taken to Babylon byhook (19:9); of Pharaoh, in whose jaw God will put a hook (29:4; and of Gog, inwhose jaw God will also put hooks (28:4).[5]
Just as a wholehost of Israel's enemies down through history have not wanted to do what Godhas 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, whichdemonstrates the use of the hook imagery by God. "Like a ring in the nose of a captive or a great hook in thejaws of a crocodile, God will pull Gog and his allies out for this invasionwhen he is ready for them," notes Mark Hitchcock. "God will do God's bidding and will act according to God'stimetable."[6] Arnold Fruchtenbaum summarizes thissection by reminding us:
It is God Who is incontrol; it is He who is bringing the invasion about. Thus, while studying this passage, one should note thesovereignty of God in this invasion. This will be the means by which God will punish Russia for hersins. The key sin is her long historyof anti-Semitism, a problem that persists in Russia to this day.[7]
Stage Setting inRussia and Iran
How are some ofthe issues from the first few verses of Ezekiel 38 setting the stage today forfuture fulfillment? While othernations 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-politicalscene. Also, for those who are notwatching Turkey, they are on the verge of being taken over by radical wing ofMuslims in their Parliament. Ifthey succeed, they will return Turkey to Muslim rule, which will result intheir dismissal of democracy.
Mart Zuckerman, editor ofU. 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, "Thereal threat is Iran." He wasright. But Russia has become partof the problem, not the solution."[8] It is no secret that Russia has playeda role of enabler to Iran, which has risen to the top of the list of roguestates that threaten to bring great destabilization to the current worldorder. "And Russia has made thethreat more real. It sold thenuclear power plant at Bushehr to Iran and contracted to sell even more tobring cash into its nuclear industry. As one American diplomat put it, this businessis a 'giant hook in Russia's jaw.'"[9] What? Could you repeat that last statement? The American diplomat said, "thisbusiness is a 'giant hook in Russia's jaw.'" That's right, the diplomat used a phrase right out of Bibleprophecy to describe Russia's current role with Iran.
Some detractorsof our view of Bible prophecy have said that with the fall of the Soviet Empirea Russian led invasion seems very unlikely from a geo-politicalstandpoint. It has always been thecase that this prophecy speaks of a Russian led, not a Soviet led, attackagainst Israel. Ever since thefall of the Soviet Empire Russian has continued to maintain close relationswith most of the Islamic nations, especially those in the Middle East. It would not be surprising from ageo-political perspective to see Russia join with Islamic states like Iran in asurprise attack against Israel.
Forover fifteen years I have speculated that the "hook in the jaw" of Gog that Godcould use to bring a reluctant Russia down upon the land of Israel could besome thing like the following scenario that I articulated to Hal Lindsey on aNational television show[10]in 1991 on the day the first Gulf War ended: I could see the Muslimsapproaching the Russians and telling them that America has set a precedent foran outside power coming into the Middle East to right a perceived wrong. (America has done it again in recentyears by going into Afghanistan and Iraq.) On that basis, Russia should help her Muslim friends byleading them in an overwhelming invasion of Israel in order to solve the MiddleEast 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 Eastand Russia appears to have her fingerprints all over things. We know that the Bible predicts justsuch an alignment and invasion to take place "in the latter years" (Ezek.38:8).
(ToBe 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 theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (Reprint; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), p. 161.
[4] Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, p. 161.
[5] Willem A. VanGemeren, gen. editor, NewInternational Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, 5 vols., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), vol.2, p. 44.
[6] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy 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 TrinityBroadcasting Network.
Ezekiel 38 & 39 (Part 5)
Dr. Thomas Ice
"Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, theprince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him."
-Ezekiel 38:2
As we have seenpreviously, the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew took Rosh as a proper noun and identified them with thepeople of Southern Russian and the Ukraine. Such a translation indicates that the Greek-speaking Jews inNorth Africa believed that Roshwas a proper noun and referred to a known people. After providing an impressive amount of data to support thenotion that the Rosh people refer to modern day Russians, Clyde Billingtondeclares:
Therefore, it is almostcertain that the ancient people whom the Greeks called Tauroi/Tursenoi wereidentical to the people known as "Tiras" in the Bible. These same Tiras people of Genesis 10:2were also called in other languages by a variety of names based upon the nameTiras. For example, note thenames: Taruisha [Hittite], Turus/Teresh [Egyptian], Tauroi/Tursenoi [Greek],and Tauri/Etruscan [Latin].[1]
Second,Billington tells us, "From a variety of sources it isknown that a people named the Ros or Rus lived in the same area near the BlackSea where the Tauroi people lived."[2] Billington also tells us that "earlyByzantine Christian writers identified the Rosh people of Ezekiel 38-39 with anearly 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 thename because they unquestionably identified the Ros/Rus/Russian people ofsouthern 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 asthe Varangian Rus."[5] Many current scholars like Edwin Yamauchi support the notion that the nameRus, from which the modern name for Russia is derived, is a Finnish word andrefers to Swedish invaders from the North, not from the Rosh people in theSouth. He says that the name Rusdid not come to the region until the Middle Ages when it was brought by theVikings.[6] However, while Yamauchi is a respectedscholar, his dogmatic conclusion stands in direct opposition to the substantialhistorical evidence presented by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius, James Price, andClyde Billington.
Billingtonprovides six objections to Yamauchi's claim of a Northern origin of Rus insteadof a Southern one. First, theByzantine use of the word Rus for those who became the Russians pre-dates byhundreds of years the later Northern claim. Second, Byzantine sources never speak of these people ashaving immigrated from the North to the South. They "were long time inhabitantsof the Black Sea-Russia-Ukraine-Crimea area, and none of the Byzantine sourcesstates that the original homeland of the Ros was Scandinavia."[7] Third, since various forms of the Roshpeople are found in use all the way back to the second century b.c., it is most unlikely that the Finnsinvented the name Rus. Fourth,"there is no logical reason why the Ros people should have adopted the foreignFinnish name of "Ruotsi" after migrating to southern Russia."[8] Fifth, "all modern scholars agree thatthe Varangians never called themselves (and they were never called by others)'Ros' while they still lived in Scandinavia near the Finns."[9] Finally, Byzantine and Western recordsindicate that there were people in Southern Russia who were already callingthemselves by the name of "Rus" many years before the Northern invasion.[10]
Itis clear when one sifts through the evidence that the Varangians who migratedfrom Scandinavia into Southern Russia were called by the name of "Rus" whenthey moved into that area which had already been known by that name for manyyears. Billington summarizes: "Aswas argued above, the Varangian Rus took their name from the native peoplenamed the Ros who had from ancient times lived in the area to the north of theBlack Sea. In other words there were two Ros peoples: the original SarmatianRos people and the Varangian Rus people."[11]
It should beclear by now that Rosh doesindeed refer to the modern day Russian people. Both grammatical and historical evidence have beenprovided. This is why I agree withthe overall conclusions of Billington, who says:
1. Ezekiel 38-39 doesmention a people called the "Rosh" who will be an allies of Meshech, Tubal, andGog in the Last Days.
2. There were Rosh peopleswho lived to the north of Israel in the Caucasus Mountains and to the north ofthe Black and Caspian Seas.
3. Some of the Rosh peoplewho lived to the north of Israel came in time to be called "Russians."
4. The name Russian isderived from the name Ros/Rosh which is found in Ezekiel 38-39.
5. And, in conclusion, itis clear that Russian peoples will be involved along with Meshech, Tubal, andGog in an invasion of Israel in the Last Days.[12]
Who IsMeshech?
Inow move on to the much easier task of identifying to whom Meshech refers. Meshech appears 10 times in the HebrewOld Testament,[13] includingits 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 Genesis10 is repeated twice in 1 Chronicles (1:5, 17). Other than references in Psalm 120:5 and Isaiah 66:19, theother occurrences of Meshech are all found in Ezekiel (27:13; 32:26; 38:2, 3;39:1). The three references inEzekiel 38 and 39 all group "Rosh, Meshech and Tubal" together, as does Isaiah66:19 but in a different order. Mark Hitchcock tells us:
All we know about Meshechfrom the Old Testament is that Meshech and his partners Javan and Tubal tradedwith the ancient city of Tyre, exporting slaves and vessels of bronze inexchange for Tyre's merchandise. That's all the Bible tells us about ancient Meshech. However, ancient history has a greatdeal to say about the location and people of ancient Meshech.[14]
SomeBible teachers in the past have taught that Meshech is a reference to Moscowand thus refers to Russia. This isthe view of The Scofield Reference Bible, Harry Rimmer[15]and Hal Lindsey.[16] Rimmer says of Meshech: "hisdescendants came to be called 'Mosche,' from which derived the old term'Muscovites.' While this laterword is and has been applied to all Russians who come from Moscow and itsvicinity."[17] The identification of Meshech withMoscow is merely based upon a similarity of sound. There is not real historical basis to support such a view,therefore, it must be rejected.
AllenRoss, based upon historical and biblical information in his dissertation on thetable of nations says:
Tubal and Mesek are always foundtogether in the Bible. Theyrepresent 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 theBlack Sea (III, 94). Josephusidentified them as the Cappadocians. . . . Mesek must be located in theMoschian mountains near Armenia. Their movement was from eastern Asia Minor north to the Black Sea.[18]
Thearea 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 acontroversial one since virtually all scholars agree with this view.
Who Is Tubal?
"Tubal" appearseight times in the Hebrew Bible[20](Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5; Isa. 66:19; Ezek. 27:13;32:26; 38:2, 3; 39:1). Tubal isidentified as the fifth son of Japheth and the brother of Meshech in the tableof nations (Gen. 10:2). Asnoted above by Ross, Tubal is always grouped together with Meshech in the Bible and Ezekiel 38 is no exception.
Some prophecyteachers have taught that Tubal is the derivative that became the modernRussian city Tobolsk. This viewwas 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 andTobolsk. This view lacks a solidhistorical basis. The historicalrecord, as was the case with Meshech, is that Tubaland his descendants immigrated to the area southeast of the Black Sea in whatis modern day Turkey. Meshech and Tubal clearly provide the population base forthe country we now call Turkey.
TodayTurkey is considered a secular country. However, Turkey has a long history as a Muslim dominated country thatfor hundreds of years headed up the Muslim empire. Turkey is just a step away from returning to its Islamicpolitical heritage, which would provide a basis for aliening with the otherMuslim dominated territories that will one day invade Israel. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Clyde E. Billington, Jr., "The Rosh People inHistory 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.
[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 computerprogram Accordance, version6.9.2.
[14] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy 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 ofRussia (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 computerprogram Accordance, version6.9.2.
"Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, theprince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him."
-Ezekiel 38:2
As we have seenpreviously, the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew took Rosh as a proper noun and identified them with thepeople of Southern Russian and the Ukraine. Such a translation indicates that the Greek-speaking Jews inNorth Africa believed that Roshwas a proper noun and referred to a known people. After providing an impressive amount of data to support thenotion that the Rosh people refer to modern day Russians, Clyde Billingtondeclares:
Therefore, it is almostcertain that the ancient people whom the Greeks called Tauroi/Tursenoi wereidentical to the people known as "Tiras" in the Bible. These same Tiras people of Genesis 10:2were also called in other languages by a variety of names based upon the nameTiras. For example, note thenames: Taruisha [Hittite], Turus/Teresh [Egyptian], Tauroi/Tursenoi [Greek],and Tauri/Etruscan [Latin].[1]
Second,Billington tells us, "From a variety of sources it isknown that a people named the Ros or Rus lived in the same area near the BlackSea where the Tauroi people lived."[2] Billington also tells us that "earlyByzantine Christian writers identified the Rosh people of Ezekiel 38-39 with anearly 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 thename because they unquestionably identified the Ros/Rus/Russian people ofsouthern 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 asthe Varangian Rus."[5] Many current scholars like Edwin Yamauchi support the notion that the nameRus, from which the modern name for Russia is derived, is a Finnish word andrefers to Swedish invaders from the North, not from the Rosh people in theSouth. He says that the name Rusdid not come to the region until the Middle Ages when it was brought by theVikings.[6] However, while Yamauchi is a respectedscholar, his dogmatic conclusion stands in direct opposition to the substantialhistorical evidence presented by the Hebrew scholar Gesenius, James Price, andClyde Billington.
Billingtonprovides six objections to Yamauchi's claim of a Northern origin of Rus insteadof a Southern one. First, theByzantine use of the word Rus for those who became the Russians pre-dates byhundreds of years the later Northern claim. Second, Byzantine sources never speak of these people ashaving immigrated from the North to the South. They "were long time inhabitantsof the Black Sea-Russia-Ukraine-Crimea area, and none of the Byzantine sourcesstates that the original homeland of the Ros was Scandinavia."[7] Third, since various forms of the Roshpeople are found in use all the way back to the second century b.c., it is most unlikely that the Finnsinvented the name Rus. Fourth,"there is no logical reason why the Ros people should have adopted the foreignFinnish name of "Ruotsi" after migrating to southern Russia."[8] Fifth, "all modern scholars agree thatthe Varangians never called themselves (and they were never called by others)'Ros' while they still lived in Scandinavia near the Finns."[9] Finally, Byzantine and Western recordsindicate that there were people in Southern Russia who were already callingthemselves by the name of "Rus" many years before the Northern invasion.[10]
Itis clear when one sifts through the evidence that the Varangians who migratedfrom Scandinavia into Southern Russia were called by the name of "Rus" whenthey moved into that area which had already been known by that name for manyyears. Billington summarizes: "Aswas argued above, the Varangian Rus took their name from the native peoplenamed the Ros who had from ancient times lived in the area to the north of theBlack Sea. In other words there were two Ros peoples: the original SarmatianRos people and the Varangian Rus people."[11]
It should beclear by now that Rosh doesindeed refer to the modern day Russian people. Both grammatical and historical evidence have beenprovided. This is why I agree withthe overall conclusions of Billington, who says:
1. Ezekiel 38-39 doesmention a people called the "Rosh" who will be an allies of Meshech, Tubal, andGog in the Last Days.
2. There were Rosh peopleswho lived to the north of Israel in the Caucasus Mountains and to the north ofthe Black and Caspian Seas.
3. Some of the Rosh peoplewho lived to the north of Israel came in time to be called "Russians."
4. The name Russian isderived from the name Ros/Rosh which is found in Ezekiel 38-39.
5. And, in conclusion, itis clear that Russian peoples will be involved along with Meshech, Tubal, andGog in an invasion of Israel in the Last Days.[12]
Who IsMeshech?
Inow move on to the much easier task of identifying to whom Meshech refers. Meshech appears 10 times in the HebrewOld Testament,[13] includingits 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 Genesis10 is repeated twice in 1 Chronicles (1:5, 17). Other than references in Psalm 120:5 and Isaiah 66:19, theother occurrences of Meshech are all found in Ezekiel (27:13; 32:26; 38:2, 3;39:1). The three references inEzekiel 38 and 39 all group "Rosh, Meshech and Tubal" together, as does Isaiah66:19 but in a different order. Mark Hitchcock tells us:
All we know about Meshechfrom the Old Testament is that Meshech and his partners Javan and Tubal tradedwith the ancient city of Tyre, exporting slaves and vessels of bronze inexchange for Tyre's merchandise. That's all the Bible tells us about ancient Meshech. However, ancient history has a greatdeal to say about the location and people of ancient Meshech.[14]
SomeBible teachers in the past have taught that Meshech is a reference to Moscowand thus refers to Russia. This isthe view of The Scofield Reference Bible, Harry Rimmer[15]and Hal Lindsey.[16] Rimmer says of Meshech: "hisdescendants came to be called 'Mosche,' from which derived the old term'Muscovites.' While this laterword is and has been applied to all Russians who come from Moscow and itsvicinity."[17] The identification of Meshech withMoscow is merely based upon a similarity of sound. There is not real historical basis to support such a view,therefore, it must be rejected.
AllenRoss, based upon historical and biblical information in his dissertation on thetable of nations says:
Tubal and Mesek are always foundtogether in the Bible. Theyrepresent 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 theBlack Sea (III, 94). Josephusidentified them as the Cappadocians. . . . Mesek must be located in theMoschian mountains near Armenia. Their movement was from eastern Asia Minor north to the Black Sea.[18]
Thearea 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 acontroversial one since virtually all scholars agree with this view.
Who Is Tubal?
"Tubal" appearseight times in the Hebrew Bible[20](Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron. 1:5; Isa. 66:19; Ezek. 27:13;32:26; 38:2, 3; 39:1). Tubal isidentified as the fifth son of Japheth and the brother of Meshech in the tableof nations (Gen. 10:2). Asnoted above by Ross, Tubal is always grouped together with Meshech in the Bible and Ezekiel 38 is no exception.
Some prophecyteachers have taught that Tubal is the derivative that became the modernRussian city Tobolsk. This viewwas 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 andTobolsk. This view lacks a solidhistorical basis. The historicalrecord, as was the case with Meshech, is that Tubaland his descendants immigrated to the area southeast of the Black Sea in whatis modern day Turkey. Meshech and Tubal clearly provide the population base forthe country we now call Turkey.
TodayTurkey is considered a secular country. However, Turkey has a long history as a Muslim dominated country thatfor hundreds of years headed up the Muslim empire. Turkey is just a step away from returning to its Islamicpolitical heritage, which would provide a basis for aliening with the otherMuslim dominated territories that will one day invade Israel. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Clyde E. Billington, Jr., "The Rosh People inHistory 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.
[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 computerprogram Accordance, version6.9.2.
[14] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy 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 ofRussia (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 computerprogram Accordance, version6.9.2.
Ezekiel 38 & 39 (Part 4)
Dr. Thomas Ice
"Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, theprince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him."
-Ezekiel 38:2
Fifth, the most impressive evidence infavor of taking Rosh as a proper name is simply that this translation is themost accurate. G. A. Cooke, aHebrew scholar, translates Ezekiel 38:2, "the chief of Rosh, Meshech andTubal." He calls this "the most natural way of rendering the Hebrew."[1] Why is it the most natural way of renderingthe Hebrew? Rosh appears in construct form in the Hebrew withMeshech 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 sincethere should be an "and" if it were intended to be a list of three nouns. The same exact Hebrew constructionappears in Ezekiel 38:5, as well as 27:13 and these are clearly recognized as alist of three nouns by grammarians even though "and" does not appear in eitherlist. Normal Hebrew and Arabicgrammar supports rosh as anoun (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 wouldsupport taking rosh as anadjective. Instead, in Hebrewgrammar one cannot break up the construct chain of the three nouns that havethis kind of grammatical arrangement.[2] Hebrew scholar Randall Price says, "onlinguistic and historical grounds, the case for taking Rosh as a proper noun rather than a noun-adjective issubstantial and persuasive."[3]
In light of such overwhelmingevidence, it is not surprising that Hebrew scholar James Price concludes thefollowing: It has been demonstratedthat Rosh was a well-knownplace in antiquity as evidenced by numerous and varied references in theancient literature. It has alsobeen demonstrated that an adjective intervening between a construct noun andits nomen rectum is highlyimprobable, there being no unambiguous example of such in the HebrewBible. Furthermore, it has beendemonstrated that regarding Roshas a name is in harmony with normal Hebrew grammar and syntax. It is concludedthat Rosh cannot be anadjective in Ezekiel 38-39, but must be a name. Therefore, the only appropriatetranslation 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 thatRosh be translated as a proper noun and not as an adjective, . . . It should, however, be noted that thegrammatical arguments for the translation of 'Rosh' as a proper noun in Ezekiel38-39 are conclusive and not really open for serious debate."[5] What would Gary DeMar say about suchevidence? I do not know, since Ihave never seen him address these arguments. DeMar is merely prone to making dogmatic statements to thecontrary based upon no real evidence for his position.
Therefore, having established that Rosh should be taken as a proper name of ageographical area, the next task is to determine what geographical location is inview.Historical andGeographical Support For Rosh as RussiaClyde Billington has written a series of three scholarly articles in atheological journal presenting extensive historical, geographical and toponymic[6]evidence for why Rosh should be and is traced to the Russian people of today.[7] He interacts with the leadingcommentaries and authorities of the day in his research and presentation. Billington notes, "it is also clear that Jerome, in deciding to translateRosh as an adjective rather than a proper noun, based his decision on anongrammatical argument, i.e. that a people called the Rosh are not mentionedeither in the Bible or by Josephus."[8] However, there is considerablehistorical evidence that a place known as Rosh was very familiar in the ancientworld. While the word appears in amultitude of various languages, which have a variety of forms and spellings, itis clear that the same people are in view.
It is very likelythat the name Rosh is actually derived from the name Tiras in Genesis 10:2 inthe Table of Nations. Billingtonnotes the Akkadian tendency to drop or to change an initial "t" sound in a nameespecially if the initial "t" was followed by an "r" sound. If you drop theinitial "T" from Tiras you are left with "ras."[9] It makes sense for Ras or Rosh to belisted in Genesis 10 since all the other nations in Ezekiel 38:1-6 are alsolisted there. This means Jerome'sclaim that Rosh did not appear in the Bible or in Josephus is erroneous. Since Tiras and his descendantsapparently are the same as the later Rosh people, then Rosh does appear in boththe Table of Nations and Josephus.
Rosh (Rash) isidentified 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 Reshuthat was located to the north of Egypt.[10] The place name Rosh (or its equivalentin the respective languages) is found at least twenty times in other ancientdocuments. It is found three timesin the Septuagint (LXX), ten times in Sargon's inscriptions, once inAssurbanipal's cylinder, once in Sennacherib's annals, and five times inUgaritic tablets.[11] Billington traces the Rosh people fromthe earliest times in recorded history up to the days of Ezekiel, as theyappear multiple times throughout this historical period.[12]
Clearly, Rosh orTiras 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 inan area to the north of the Black Sea. As we approach the eighth century, Billington cites a number ofhistorical references showing that "there is solidevidence linking one group of Rosh People to the Caucasus Mountains."[13] From the same general period of time,Billington notes: "There is even one cuneiformdocument from the reign of the Assyrian King Sargon II (ruled 722-705 b.c.) whichactually names all three peoples [Rosh, Meshech, Tubal] mentioned by Ezekiel38-39."[14] Billington concludes this section ofhis historical studies as follows:
Therefore, there isirrefutable historical evidence for the existence of a people named Rosh/Rashuin 9th-7th century b.c. Assyriansources. These same Assyriansources also mention Meshech and Tubal whose names appear in conjunction withthe name Rosh in Ezekiel 38-39. Clearly the Assyrians knew of the Rosh people, and so also did theprophet Ezekiel. It should benoted that Ezekiel wrote the Book of Ezekiel only about a 100 years later thanextant Assyrian texts which mention the Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal peoples.[15]
Does The Name RussiaCome From Rosh?
The ancient Roshpeople, who have been traced back to Tiras, a son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2), whomigrated to the Caucasus Mountains in Southern Russia, are one of the geneticsources of the modern Russians of today. However, does the name for Russia come from the Biblical word Rosh asused in Ezekiel 38:2? We have seenthat Marvin Pate and Daniel Hays have said categorically, "The biblical termrosh has nothing to do with Russia."[16] Their statement is typical of thesentiment of many critics today. But is such a conclusion where the evidence leads? I do not think so! Here's why.
First, we need toknow that the Hebrew Old Testament was translated some time in the thirdcentury b.c. and it is known asthe Septuagint (LXX is the abbreviation). The Septuaginttranslates the Hebrew word Rosh in all its uses by the Greek word "Ros" or"Rhos." The early church moreoften than not used the Septuagint as their primary Old Testament. It is still used in the Greek speakingworld today as their translation of the Old Testament. Billington tells us: "early GreekOrthodox writers, using the LXX's spelling [Ros] of the name Rosh, identifiedthe Rosh people of Ezekiel chs. 38-39 with the northern Rus people of Russiaand the Ukraine."[17] These people would be ones that livednear, but north of the Greek speaking peoples. Such close proximity would mean that they would have beenclear in whom they were identifying and they identified them with the Roshpeople. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] G. A. Cooke, A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary 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 thebest 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 superiortranslation. For an extensive,thorough presentation of the grammatical and philological support for takingRosh as a place name, see, James D. Price, "Rosh: An Ancient Land Known toEzekiel," Grace Theological Journal6:1 (1985), pp. 67-89.
[2] Grammatical summary derived from Jon MarkRuthven, The Prophecy That Is Shaping History: New Research on Ezekiel'sVision of the End (Fairfax, VA:Xulon Press, 2003), pp. 21-23.
[3] Randall Price, "Ezekiel" in Tim LaHaye & EdHindson, 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 inHistory 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 (PartTwo)," Michigan Theological Journal 3:2 (Fall 1992), pp. 144-75; Clyde E. Billington, Jr., "The RoshPeople in History and Prophecy (Part Three)," Michigan Theological Journal4:1 (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.
[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-Babylonof the End Times? (Grand Rapids:Baker Books, 2003), p. 69.
[17] Billington, "The Rosh People," (Part Three), p.39.
"Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, theprince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him."
-Ezekiel 38:2
Fifth, the most impressive evidence infavor of taking Rosh as a proper name is simply that this translation is themost accurate. G. A. Cooke, aHebrew scholar, translates Ezekiel 38:2, "the chief of Rosh, Meshech andTubal." He calls this "the most natural way of rendering the Hebrew."[1] Why is it the most natural way of renderingthe Hebrew? Rosh appears in construct form in the Hebrew withMeshech 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 sincethere should be an "and" if it were intended to be a list of three nouns. The same exact Hebrew constructionappears in Ezekiel 38:5, as well as 27:13 and these are clearly recognized as alist of three nouns by grammarians even though "and" does not appear in eitherlist. Normal Hebrew and Arabicgrammar supports rosh as anoun (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 wouldsupport taking rosh as anadjective. Instead, in Hebrewgrammar one cannot break up the construct chain of the three nouns that havethis kind of grammatical arrangement.[2] Hebrew scholar Randall Price says, "onlinguistic and historical grounds, the case for taking Rosh as a proper noun rather than a noun-adjective issubstantial and persuasive."[3]
In light of such overwhelmingevidence, it is not surprising that Hebrew scholar James Price concludes thefollowing: It has been demonstratedthat Rosh was a well-knownplace in antiquity as evidenced by numerous and varied references in theancient literature. It has alsobeen demonstrated that an adjective intervening between a construct noun andits nomen rectum is highlyimprobable, there being no unambiguous example of such in the HebrewBible. Furthermore, it has beendemonstrated that regarding Roshas a name is in harmony with normal Hebrew grammar and syntax. It is concludedthat Rosh cannot be anadjective in Ezekiel 38-39, but must be a name. Therefore, the only appropriatetranslation 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 thatRosh be translated as a proper noun and not as an adjective, . . . It should, however, be noted that thegrammatical arguments for the translation of 'Rosh' as a proper noun in Ezekiel38-39 are conclusive and not really open for serious debate."[5] What would Gary DeMar say about suchevidence? I do not know, since Ihave never seen him address these arguments. DeMar is merely prone to making dogmatic statements to thecontrary based upon no real evidence for his position.
Therefore, having established that Rosh should be taken as a proper name of ageographical area, the next task is to determine what geographical location is inview.Historical andGeographical Support For Rosh as RussiaClyde Billington has written a series of three scholarly articles in atheological journal presenting extensive historical, geographical and toponymic[6]evidence for why Rosh should be and is traced to the Russian people of today.[7] He interacts with the leadingcommentaries and authorities of the day in his research and presentation. Billington notes, "it is also clear that Jerome, in deciding to translateRosh as an adjective rather than a proper noun, based his decision on anongrammatical argument, i.e. that a people called the Rosh are not mentionedeither in the Bible or by Josephus."[8] However, there is considerablehistorical evidence that a place known as Rosh was very familiar in the ancientworld. While the word appears in amultitude of various languages, which have a variety of forms and spellings, itis clear that the same people are in view.
It is very likelythat the name Rosh is actually derived from the name Tiras in Genesis 10:2 inthe Table of Nations. Billingtonnotes the Akkadian tendency to drop or to change an initial "t" sound in a nameespecially if the initial "t" was followed by an "r" sound. If you drop theinitial "T" from Tiras you are left with "ras."[9] It makes sense for Ras or Rosh to belisted in Genesis 10 since all the other nations in Ezekiel 38:1-6 are alsolisted there. This means Jerome'sclaim that Rosh did not appear in the Bible or in Josephus is erroneous. Since Tiras and his descendantsapparently are the same as the later Rosh people, then Rosh does appear in boththe Table of Nations and Josephus.
Rosh (Rash) isidentified 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 Reshuthat was located to the north of Egypt.[10] The place name Rosh (or its equivalentin the respective languages) is found at least twenty times in other ancientdocuments. It is found three timesin the Septuagint (LXX), ten times in Sargon's inscriptions, once inAssurbanipal's cylinder, once in Sennacherib's annals, and five times inUgaritic tablets.[11] Billington traces the Rosh people fromthe earliest times in recorded history up to the days of Ezekiel, as theyappear multiple times throughout this historical period.[12]
Clearly, Rosh orTiras 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 inan area to the north of the Black Sea. As we approach the eighth century, Billington cites a number ofhistorical references showing that "there is solidevidence linking one group of Rosh People to the Caucasus Mountains."[13] From the same general period of time,Billington notes: "There is even one cuneiformdocument from the reign of the Assyrian King Sargon II (ruled 722-705 b.c.) whichactually names all three peoples [Rosh, Meshech, Tubal] mentioned by Ezekiel38-39."[14] Billington concludes this section ofhis historical studies as follows:
Therefore, there isirrefutable historical evidence for the existence of a people named Rosh/Rashuin 9th-7th century b.c. Assyriansources. These same Assyriansources also mention Meshech and Tubal whose names appear in conjunction withthe name Rosh in Ezekiel 38-39. Clearly the Assyrians knew of the Rosh people, and so also did theprophet Ezekiel. It should benoted that Ezekiel wrote the Book of Ezekiel only about a 100 years later thanextant Assyrian texts which mention the Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal peoples.[15]
Does The Name RussiaCome From Rosh?
The ancient Roshpeople, who have been traced back to Tiras, a son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2), whomigrated to the Caucasus Mountains in Southern Russia, are one of the geneticsources of the modern Russians of today. However, does the name for Russia come from the Biblical word Rosh asused in Ezekiel 38:2? We have seenthat Marvin Pate and Daniel Hays have said categorically, "The biblical termrosh has nothing to do with Russia."[16] Their statement is typical of thesentiment of many critics today. But is such a conclusion where the evidence leads? I do not think so! Here's why.
First, we need toknow that the Hebrew Old Testament was translated some time in the thirdcentury b.c. and it is known asthe Septuagint (LXX is the abbreviation). The Septuaginttranslates the Hebrew word Rosh in all its uses by the Greek word "Ros" or"Rhos." The early church moreoften than not used the Septuagint as their primary Old Testament. It is still used in the Greek speakingworld today as their translation of the Old Testament. Billington tells us: "early GreekOrthodox writers, using the LXX's spelling [Ros] of the name Rosh, identifiedthe Rosh people of Ezekiel chs. 38-39 with the northern Rus people of Russiaand the Ukraine."[17] These people would be ones that livednear, but north of the Greek speaking peoples. Such close proximity would mean that they would have beenclear in whom they were identifying and they identified them with the Roshpeople. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] G. A. Cooke, A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary 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 thebest 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 superiortranslation. For an extensive,thorough presentation of the grammatical and philological support for takingRosh as a place name, see, James D. Price, "Rosh: An Ancient Land Known toEzekiel," Grace Theological Journal6:1 (1985), pp. 67-89.
[2] Grammatical summary derived from Jon MarkRuthven, The Prophecy That Is Shaping History: New Research on Ezekiel'sVision of the End (Fairfax, VA:Xulon Press, 2003), pp. 21-23.
[3] Randall Price, "Ezekiel" in Tim LaHaye & EdHindson, 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 inHistory 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 (PartTwo)," Michigan Theological Journal 3:2 (Fall 1992), pp. 144-75; Clyde E. Billington, Jr., "The RoshPeople in History and Prophecy (Part Three)," Michigan Theological Journal4:1 (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.
[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-Babylonof the End Times? (Grand Rapids:Baker Books, 2003), p. 69.
[17] Billington, "The Rosh People," (Part Three), p.39.
Ezekiel 38 & 39 (Part 3)
Dr. Thomas Ice
Part III
"Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, theprince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him."
-Ezekiel 38:2
Wehave seen that Magog is a reference to the ancient Scythians, who gave rise tolater descendants that settled along the eastern and northern areas of theBlack Sea. "The descendants ofancient Magog-the Scythians-were the original inhabitants of the plateau ofcentral Asia, and later some of the these people moved into the area north ofthe Black Sea. The homeland ofancient Scythians is inhabited today by the former Soviet republics ofKazakhstan, Kirghizia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and the Ukraine."[1] But who is "the prince of Rosh"?
The Attackon Rosh
Theidentification of Rosh is one of the most controversial and debated issues inthe entire Gog and Magog prophecy, even though it should not be. I believe when one looks at theevidence it is overwhelming that this is a reference to the modern Russians. However, we need to first look at theevidence for such a conclusion.
Preteristprophecy critic, Gary DeMar contends, "In Ezekiel 38:2 and 39:1, the Hebrewword rosh is translated as ifit were the name of a nation. Thatnation 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 nothingto do with modern 'Russia.'"[3] On a Bible Answer Man radio broadcast in October 2002, the host, HankHanegraaff, asked Gary DeMar what he thought about Tim LaHaye identifying Roshas Russia, since the two words sound so much alike. DeMar responded, "The idea that you can take a word inHebrew that sounds like the word in English, and then go with that and tocreate an entire eschatological position based upon that is . . . it'snonsense." 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 DeMarconstructs so that he can appear to provide a credible criticism of our view onthis matter. DeMar then declares:"The best translation of Ezekiel 38:2 is 'the chief (head) prince of Meshechand Tubal."[4]
Concerning thepossibility of a Russian/Islamic invasion of Israel in the end times, MarvinPate and Daniel Hays say categorically, "The biblical term rosh has nothing todo with Russia."[5] And later they state dogmatically,"These positions are not biblical. . . . a Russian-led Muslim invasion ofIsrael is not about to take place."[6]
A central issuein whether rosh refers toRussia is whether rosh is tobe understood as a proper noun (the Russia view) or should it be taken as anadjective (the non-Russia view) and be translated in English as "chief." This is a watershed issue for anyonewho wants to properly understand this passage.
Reasons Rosh Refers toRussia
Now, I want todeal with reasons why roshshould be taken as a noun instead of an adjective and then I will deal withwhether it refers to Russia. Theword rosh in Hebrew simplymeans "head," "top," or "chief."[7] It is a very common word and is used inall Semitic languages. It occursapproximately seven hundred and fifty times in the Old Testament, along withits roots and derivatives.[8]
The problem isthat the word rosh in Ezekielcan 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 thistranslation. However, the New KingJames, the Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, American Standard Version, andNew American Standard Bible all translate rosh as a proper name indicating a geographicallocation. The weight of theevidence favors taking roshas a proper name. There are fivearguments that favor this view.
First, theeminent Hebrew scholars C. F. Keil and Wilhelm Gesenius both hold that thebetter translation of Rosh in Ezekiel 38:2-3 and 39:1 is as a proper nounreferring to a specific geographical location.[9] Gesenius, who died in 1842 and isconsidered by modern Hebrew scholars as one of the greatest scholars of theHebrew language, unquestionably believed that Rosh in Ezekiel was a proper nounidentifying Russia. He says that rosh in Ezekiel 38:2,3; 39:1 is a, "pr. n. of anorthern nation, mentioned with Meshech and Tubal; undoubtedly the Russians, who are mentioned by the Byzantine writers ofthe tenth century, under the name the Ros, dwelling tothe north of Taurus . . . as dwelling on the river Rha (Wolga)."[10]
Thisidentification by Gesenius cannot be passed off lightly, as DeMar attempts todo. Gesenius, as far as we know,was not even a premillennialist. He had no eschatological, end time ax to grind. Yet, objectively, he says withouthesitation that Rosh in Ezekiel 38-39 is Russia. In his original Latin version of the lexicon, Gesenius hasnearly one page of notes dealing with the word Rosh and the Rosh people mentionedin Ezekiel 38-39. This page ofnotes does not appear in any of the English translations of Gesenius'Lexicon. Those who disagree withGesenius have failed to refute his sizable body of convincing evidenceidentifying Rosh with Russia.[11] I do not know what DeMar would sawabout this evidence since he never deals with it.
Second, the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the OldTestament, translates Rosh asthe proper name Ros. This is especially significant sincethe Septuagint was translatedonly three centuries after Ezekiel was written (obviously much closer to theoriginal than any modern translation).[12] The mistranslation of Rosh in manymodern translations as an adjective can be traced to the Latin Vulgate ofJerome, which did not appear until around a.d.400.[13] James Price, who has a Ph.D. in Hebrewfrom Dropsie, which is the leading Jewish academic University in America says,"The origin of the translation "chief prince ofMeshech and Tubal" is traced to the Latin Vulgate. The early translators of the English Bible were quite dependenton the Latin Version for help in translating difficult passages. They evidently followed Jerome in Ezek38:2, 3; 39:1."[14] Price further explains the reason forthe erroneous translation as follows:
Evidently by the second century a.d. the knowledge of the ancient landof Rosh had diminished. Andbecause the Hebrew word roshwas in such common use as "head" or "chief," Aquila was influenced to interpretrosh as an adjective,contrary to the LXX [Septuagint] and normal grammatical conventions. Jerome followed the precedent set byAquila, and so diminished the knowledge of ancient Rosh even further byremoving the name from the Latin Bible.
By the sixteenth century a.d. ancient Rosh was completely unknownin the West, so the early English translators of the Bible were influenced bythe Latin Vulgate to violate normal Hebrew grammar in their translation ofEzekiel 38-39. Once the precedentwas set in English, it was perpetuated in all subsequent English Versions untilthis century when some modern versions have taken exception. This ancient erroneous precedent shouldnot be perpetuated.[15]
ClydeBillington explains why Jerome went against most of the evidence and went witha deviant translation:
Jerome himself admits thathe did not base his decision on grammatical considerations! Jerome seems to have realized thatHebrew grammar supported the translation of "prince of Rosh, Meshech, andTubal" and that it did not support his own translation of "chief prince ofMoshoch and Thubal." However,Jerome rejected translating Rosh as a proper noun because, "we could not findthe name of this race [i.e. the Rosh people] mentioned either in Genesis or anyother place in the Scriptures, or in Josephus. It was this non-grammatical argument that convinced Jerometo adopt Aquila's rendering of Rosh as an adjective ["chief'] in Ezekiel 38-39.[16]
Third, many Bibledictionaries and encyclopedias, in their articles on Rosh, support taking it asa proper name in Ezekiel 38. Someexamples: New Bible Dictionary,Wycliffe Bible Dictionary,and International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Fourth, Rosh is mentioned the firsttime in Ezekiel 38:2 and then repeated in Ezekiel 38:3 and 39:1. If Rosh were simply a title, it wouldprobably dropped in these two places because in Hebrew when titles are repeatedthey are generally abbreviated.
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy 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-Babylonof 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, Hebrewand English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford, 1907), electronic edition.
[8] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version6.4.
[9]C. F. Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, Commentary on theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (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 inHistory and Prophecy (Part One), Michigan Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1992), pp. 62-3.
[12] The ancient Greek translations of Symmachus andTheodotian also translated Rosh in Ezekiel 38-39 as a proper noun. Billington, "The Rosh People in Historyand Prophecy (Part One)," p. 59.
[13]Clyde E. Billington, Jr., "The Rosh People inHistory and Prophecy (Part Two)," Michigan Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1992), pp. 54-61.
[14] James D. Price, "Rosh: An Ancient Land Known toEzekiel," Grace Theological Journal6:1 (1985), p. 88.
[15] Price, "Rosh: An Ancient Land," p. 88.
[16] Billington, "The Rosh People in History andProphecy (Part One)," p. 60.
Part III
"Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog, theprince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him."
-Ezekiel 38:2
Wehave seen that Magog is a reference to the ancient Scythians, who gave rise tolater descendants that settled along the eastern and northern areas of theBlack Sea. "The descendants ofancient Magog-the Scythians-were the original inhabitants of the plateau ofcentral Asia, and later some of the these people moved into the area north ofthe Black Sea. The homeland ofancient Scythians is inhabited today by the former Soviet republics ofKazakhstan, Kirghizia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and the Ukraine."[1] But who is "the prince of Rosh"?
The Attackon Rosh
Theidentification of Rosh is one of the most controversial and debated issues inthe entire Gog and Magog prophecy, even though it should not be. I believe when one looks at theevidence it is overwhelming that this is a reference to the modern Russians. However, we need to first look at theevidence for such a conclusion.
Preteristprophecy critic, Gary DeMar contends, "In Ezekiel 38:2 and 39:1, the Hebrewword rosh is translated as ifit were the name of a nation. Thatnation 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 nothingto do with modern 'Russia.'"[3] On a Bible Answer Man radio broadcast in October 2002, the host, HankHanegraaff, asked Gary DeMar what he thought about Tim LaHaye identifying Roshas Russia, since the two words sound so much alike. DeMar responded, "The idea that you can take a word inHebrew that sounds like the word in English, and then go with that and tocreate an entire eschatological position based upon that is . . . it'snonsense." 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 DeMarconstructs so that he can appear to provide a credible criticism of our view onthis matter. DeMar then declares:"The best translation of Ezekiel 38:2 is 'the chief (head) prince of Meshechand Tubal."[4]
Concerning thepossibility of a Russian/Islamic invasion of Israel in the end times, MarvinPate and Daniel Hays say categorically, "The biblical term rosh has nothing todo with Russia."[5] And later they state dogmatically,"These positions are not biblical. . . . a Russian-led Muslim invasion ofIsrael is not about to take place."[6]
A central issuein whether rosh refers toRussia is whether rosh is tobe understood as a proper noun (the Russia view) or should it be taken as anadjective (the non-Russia view) and be translated in English as "chief." This is a watershed issue for anyonewho wants to properly understand this passage.
Reasons Rosh Refers toRussia
Now, I want todeal with reasons why roshshould be taken as a noun instead of an adjective and then I will deal withwhether it refers to Russia. Theword rosh in Hebrew simplymeans "head," "top," or "chief."[7] It is a very common word and is used inall Semitic languages. It occursapproximately seven hundred and fifty times in the Old Testament, along withits roots and derivatives.[8]
The problem isthat the word rosh in Ezekielcan 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 thistranslation. However, the New KingJames, the Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, American Standard Version, andNew American Standard Bible all translate rosh as a proper name indicating a geographicallocation. The weight of theevidence favors taking roshas a proper name. There are fivearguments that favor this view.
First, theeminent Hebrew scholars C. F. Keil and Wilhelm Gesenius both hold that thebetter translation of Rosh in Ezekiel 38:2-3 and 39:1 is as a proper nounreferring to a specific geographical location.[9] Gesenius, who died in 1842 and isconsidered by modern Hebrew scholars as one of the greatest scholars of theHebrew language, unquestionably believed that Rosh in Ezekiel was a proper nounidentifying Russia. He says that rosh in Ezekiel 38:2,3; 39:1 is a, "pr. n. of anorthern nation, mentioned with Meshech and Tubal; undoubtedly the Russians, who are mentioned by the Byzantine writers ofthe tenth century, under the name the Ros, dwelling tothe north of Taurus . . . as dwelling on the river Rha (Wolga)."[10]
Thisidentification by Gesenius cannot be passed off lightly, as DeMar attempts todo. Gesenius, as far as we know,was not even a premillennialist. He had no eschatological, end time ax to grind. Yet, objectively, he says withouthesitation that Rosh in Ezekiel 38-39 is Russia. In his original Latin version of the lexicon, Gesenius hasnearly one page of notes dealing with the word Rosh and the Rosh people mentionedin Ezekiel 38-39. This page ofnotes does not appear in any of the English translations of Gesenius'Lexicon. Those who disagree withGesenius have failed to refute his sizable body of convincing evidenceidentifying Rosh with Russia.[11] I do not know what DeMar would sawabout this evidence since he never deals with it.
Second, the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the OldTestament, translates Rosh asthe proper name Ros. This is especially significant sincethe Septuagint was translatedonly three centuries after Ezekiel was written (obviously much closer to theoriginal than any modern translation).[12] The mistranslation of Rosh in manymodern translations as an adjective can be traced to the Latin Vulgate ofJerome, which did not appear until around a.d.400.[13] James Price, who has a Ph.D. in Hebrewfrom Dropsie, which is the leading Jewish academic University in America says,"The origin of the translation "chief prince ofMeshech and Tubal" is traced to the Latin Vulgate. The early translators of the English Bible were quite dependenton the Latin Version for help in translating difficult passages. They evidently followed Jerome in Ezek38:2, 3; 39:1."[14] Price further explains the reason forthe erroneous translation as follows:
Evidently by the second century a.d. the knowledge of the ancient landof Rosh had diminished. Andbecause the Hebrew word roshwas in such common use as "head" or "chief," Aquila was influenced to interpretrosh as an adjective,contrary to the LXX [Septuagint] and normal grammatical conventions. Jerome followed the precedent set byAquila, and so diminished the knowledge of ancient Rosh even further byremoving the name from the Latin Bible.
By the sixteenth century a.d. ancient Rosh was completely unknownin the West, so the early English translators of the Bible were influenced bythe Latin Vulgate to violate normal Hebrew grammar in their translation ofEzekiel 38-39. Once the precedentwas set in English, it was perpetuated in all subsequent English Versions untilthis century when some modern versions have taken exception. This ancient erroneous precedent shouldnot be perpetuated.[15]
ClydeBillington explains why Jerome went against most of the evidence and went witha deviant translation:
Jerome himself admits thathe did not base his decision on grammatical considerations! Jerome seems to have realized thatHebrew grammar supported the translation of "prince of Rosh, Meshech, andTubal" and that it did not support his own translation of "chief prince ofMoshoch and Thubal." However,Jerome rejected translating Rosh as a proper noun because, "we could not findthe name of this race [i.e. the Rosh people] mentioned either in Genesis or anyother place in the Scriptures, or in Josephus. It was this non-grammatical argument that convinced Jerometo adopt Aquila's rendering of Rosh as an adjective ["chief'] in Ezekiel 38-39.[16]
Third, many Bibledictionaries and encyclopedias, in their articles on Rosh, support taking it asa proper name in Ezekiel 38. Someexamples: New Bible Dictionary,Wycliffe Bible Dictionary,and International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Fourth, Rosh is mentioned the firsttime in Ezekiel 38:2 and then repeated in Ezekiel 38:3 and 39:1. If Rosh were simply a title, it wouldprobably dropped in these two places because in Hebrew when titles are repeatedthey are generally abbreviated.
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy 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-Babylonof 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, Hebrewand English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford, 1907), electronic edition.
[8] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version6.4.
[9]C. F. Keil, Ezekiel, Daniel, Commentary on theOld Testament, trans. JamesMartin (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 inHistory and Prophecy (Part One), Michigan Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1992), pp. 62-3.
[12] The ancient Greek translations of Symmachus andTheodotian also translated Rosh in Ezekiel 38-39 as a proper noun. Billington, "The Rosh People in Historyand Prophecy (Part One)," p. 59.
[13]Clyde E. Billington, Jr., "The Rosh People inHistory and Prophecy (Part Two)," Michigan Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1992), pp. 54-61.
[14] James D. Price, "Rosh: An Ancient Land Known toEzekiel," Grace Theological Journal6:1 (1985), p. 88.
[15] Price, "Rosh: An Ancient Land," p. 88.
[16] Billington, "The Rosh People in History andProphecy (Part One)," p. 60.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)