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.
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.
Ezekiel 38 & 39 (Part 2)
Dr. Thomas Ice
And the word of the Lordcame to me saying, "Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog,the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him."
-Ezekiel 38:1-2
"This was thefinal message in this series of six night oracles delivered by Ezekiel," notesRalph Alexander. "A centralconcern throughout all these night messages had been the possession of the landof Israel." "This series of nightoracles was given to encourage the exiles that ultimately God would removethese invaders and restore this land to Israel."[1] A wonderful message indeed to whichthose who love Israel still look forward to today!
This prophecy isdivided into two major sections. In the first section Ezekiel reveals the invasion by Gog with his allies(38:1-16). The second sectionreveals to us God's judgment that will befall Gog and his associates (38:17-39:16). This great prophecy begins with Ezekielnoting that it was not his idea to deal with the matter of Gog's invasion ofIsrael instead it was God who imitated and communicated this prophecy throughverbal revelation, "the word of the Lordcame to me saying."
Son Of Man
Ezekiel is called"son of man" throughout the book. "Son of man" is used 93 times in Ezekiel to refer to the prophet, withthe first use found in 2:1. Why isEzekiel so often addressed by God as "son of man" when he is about to receiverevelation from the Lord? Itappears that "son of man" underscores his humanity in relation to God. In other words, God is the One who isthe Revealer while Ezekiel, as a human, is the recipient of the Divine messagethat he is to pass on to other human beings. Thus, Ezekiel is passing on to us the infallible prophecy ofthese two chapters, which will surly come to pass.
Set Your Face TowardGog
Ezekiel is toldto set his face "toward" or "against" Gog. The Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB) Hebrew Lexicon says, theHebrew word translated "toward" is a preposition that denotes "motion to or direction towards (whether physical ormental)."[2] BDB also tells us that when "the motion or direction implied appears from thecontext to be of a hostile character," then it has a negative connotation andwould be translated "against." Ezekiel is told to turn his face in the direction of the nation Gog,because the Lord is against him. Later in the sentence the text says for Ezekiel to "prophesy againsthim," that is Gog. The sense ofthis passage is that God is initiating the attack by Gog against Israel and theLord is against or opposed to Gog and his allies. But just who is Gog? The identification of Gog has been a greatly debated issue.
TheHebrew proper noun "Gog" occurs 12 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.[3] All but one use occurs in Ezekiel 38and 39 (Ezek. 8:2, 3, 14, 16, 18; 39:1 [2x], 11 [3x], 15). The only non-Ezekiel occurrence is in 1Chronicles 5:4 and says, "The sons of Joel were Shemaiah his son, Gog his son,Shimei his son." Other thandemonstrating it was a real, proper name, the 1 Chronicles referencecontributes nothing to our study of its use in Ezekiel and is not related tothe Gog of Ezekiel's prophecy. Whoever he is, Gog appears in this context to be a person, leader andruler that God has told Ezekiel to prophesy against. Because of the frequent use of Gog in this passage, "weconclude, therefore, that Gog is the most important person or nation in thiscoalition,"[4]declare Mark Hitchcock.
Thepassage says that Gog is from the land of Magog. Some have said that Gog is a reference to the Antichrist. Charles Feinberg is right when he says,"but for this there is not a shred of biblical or nonbiblical evidence."[5] Some have suggested that Gog is a name"arbitrarily derived from the name of the country, Magog, but this is not validbecause Gog appears in 1 Chronicles 5:4."[6] "The name Gog means 'high, supreme, aheight, or a high mountain.'"[7] The only references to the Gog ofEzekiel's prophecy appear in the passage itself and there is virtually noinformation about Gog outside the Bible in history. However, when Gog leads his invasion of Israel he is said tocome "from the remote parts of the north" (Ezek. 38:6). Louis Bauman tells us that "L. Sale-Harrisonsays in his booklet, The Coming Great Northern Confederacy: 'It is interesting to note that thevery word 'Caucasus' means 'Gog's Fort.' 'Gog' and 'Chasan' (Fort) are two Oriental words from which it isderived.'"[8] So there does appear to be a faintreference to Gog in the general area of Russia that Gog is likely to be from.
Whothen is Gog? Bauman says, "Withoutdoubt, Russia will furnish the man-not the Antichrist-who will head up that which is knownto most Bible students as 'the great northeastern confederacy' of nations andlead it to its doom upon the hills of Israel's land."[9] Hitchcock believes "the reason Gog issingled out eleven times by God in these two chapters is because God is thegeneral over this coalition of nations in its great military campaign againstIsrael."[10] Hal Lindsey tells us, "Gog is thesymbolic name of the nation's leader and Magog is his land. He is also the prince of the ancientpeople who were called Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal."[11] Arnold Fruchtenbaum informs us: "WhoGog will be can only be determined at the time of the invasion, for 'Gog' isnot a proper name but a title for the rule of Magog, just as the terms'pharaoh,' 'kaiser,' and 'czar' were titles for rulers and not proper names."[12]
The LandOf Magog
Gogthe leader of the invasion of the land of Israel is said to be "of the land ofMagog." The proper noun Magog isused four times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.[13] Magog is used twice in the passage weare investigating (38:2; 39:6) and twice in genealogies (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron.1:5). Genesis 10:2 says, "The sonsof Japheth were Gomer and Magog and Madai and Javan and Tubal and Meshech andTiras." 1 Chronicles 1:5 isbasically a repeat of the genealogical information from Genesis 10:2. The fact that Magog is used in thetable of nations (Genesis 10)[14]provides a basis for tracing the movement of one of the earliest post-flooddescendants of Noah.
Itappears that Ezekiel is using the names of peoples, primarily from the table ofnations, and where they lived at the time of the giving of this prophecy in thesixth century b.c. Therefore, if we are able to find outwhere these people and places were in the sixth century b.c. then we will be able to trace figure out who would betheir modern antecedents today. Ibelieve we will be able to accomplish this task and be able to know who will beinvolved in this battle if it were to come to pass in our own day.
Itis probably fair to say that most scholars and experts would trace Magog'sdescendants to the ancient people that we know as the Scythians. Chuck Missler notes that a widecollection of ancient historians "identified Magog with the Scythians andsouthern Russia in the 7th century b.c."[15] These ancients include: Hesiod,Josephus, Philo, and Herodotus.[16]Josephus lived in the first century a.d.and said, "Magog founded the Magogians, thus named after him but who by theGreeks are called Scythians."[17] Bauman tells us that Magog and hisdescendants must have immigrated north after the Flood and that "the Magogiteswere divided into two distinct races, one Japhetic, or European, and the otherTuranian, or Asiatic."[18]
Who are theScythians? Edwin Yamauchi tells usthat the Scythians were divided into two groups, a narrow and broadgrouping. "In the narrow sense,the Scythians were the tribes who lived in the area which Herodotus designatedas Scythia (i.e., the territory north of the Black Sea)," notes Yamauchi. "In the broad sense the word Scythiancan designate some of the many other tribes in the vast steppes of Russia,stretching from the Ukraine in the west to the region of Siberia in the east."[19]
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Ralph Alexander, Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), p. 118.
[2] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrewand English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford, 1907), electronic edition.
[3] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version6.4.
[4] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p.16.
[5] Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 220.
[6] Feinberg, Ezekiel, p. 220.
[7] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 17
[8] Louis S. Bauman, Russian Events in the Lightof Bible Prophecy (New York:Fleming H. Revell, 1942), p. 23.
[9] Bauman, Russian Events, p. 26.
[10] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 17
[11] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970),p. 63.
[12] Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah:A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events (Tustin, CA: Ariel Press, [1982] 2003), p. 106.
[13] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version6.4.
[14] The table of nations is a term used for therecords of the descendants Noah and his three sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth. Every human being on planet earth is adescendant of Noah and his three sons. If we could trace our genealogies far enough back we would find that weall descend from Noah through either Ham, Shem or Japheth.
[15] Chuck Missler, The Magog Invasion (Palos Verdes, CA: Western Front, 1995), p. 29.
[16] Missler, Magog Invasion, pp. 29-31.
[17] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, vol. 1, vi, i as cited in Hitchcock, AfterThe Empire, p. 19.
[18] Bauman, Russian Events, p. 23.
[19] Edwin M. Yamauchi, Foes from the NorthernFrontier (Grand Rapids: Baker,1982), p. 62
And the word of the Lordcame to me saying, "Son of man, set your face toward Gog of the land of Magog,the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him."
-Ezekiel 38:1-2
"This was thefinal message in this series of six night oracles delivered by Ezekiel," notesRalph Alexander. "A centralconcern throughout all these night messages had been the possession of the landof Israel." "This series of nightoracles was given to encourage the exiles that ultimately God would removethese invaders and restore this land to Israel."[1] A wonderful message indeed to whichthose who love Israel still look forward to today!
This prophecy isdivided into two major sections. In the first section Ezekiel reveals the invasion by Gog with his allies(38:1-16). The second sectionreveals to us God's judgment that will befall Gog and his associates (38:17-39:16). This great prophecy begins with Ezekielnoting that it was not his idea to deal with the matter of Gog's invasion ofIsrael instead it was God who imitated and communicated this prophecy throughverbal revelation, "the word of the Lordcame to me saying."
Son Of Man
Ezekiel is called"son of man" throughout the book. "Son of man" is used 93 times in Ezekiel to refer to the prophet, withthe first use found in 2:1. Why isEzekiel so often addressed by God as "son of man" when he is about to receiverevelation from the Lord? Itappears that "son of man" underscores his humanity in relation to God. In other words, God is the One who isthe Revealer while Ezekiel, as a human, is the recipient of the Divine messagethat he is to pass on to other human beings. Thus, Ezekiel is passing on to us the infallible prophecy ofthese two chapters, which will surly come to pass.
Set Your Face TowardGog
Ezekiel is toldto set his face "toward" or "against" Gog. The Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB) Hebrew Lexicon says, theHebrew word translated "toward" is a preposition that denotes "motion to or direction towards (whether physical ormental)."[2] BDB also tells us that when "the motion or direction implied appears from thecontext to be of a hostile character," then it has a negative connotation andwould be translated "against." Ezekiel is told to turn his face in the direction of the nation Gog,because the Lord is against him. Later in the sentence the text says for Ezekiel to "prophesy againsthim," that is Gog. The sense ofthis passage is that God is initiating the attack by Gog against Israel and theLord is against or opposed to Gog and his allies. But just who is Gog? The identification of Gog has been a greatly debated issue.
TheHebrew proper noun "Gog" occurs 12 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.[3] All but one use occurs in Ezekiel 38and 39 (Ezek. 8:2, 3, 14, 16, 18; 39:1 [2x], 11 [3x], 15). The only non-Ezekiel occurrence is in 1Chronicles 5:4 and says, "The sons of Joel were Shemaiah his son, Gog his son,Shimei his son." Other thandemonstrating it was a real, proper name, the 1 Chronicles referencecontributes nothing to our study of its use in Ezekiel and is not related tothe Gog of Ezekiel's prophecy. Whoever he is, Gog appears in this context to be a person, leader andruler that God has told Ezekiel to prophesy against. Because of the frequent use of Gog in this passage, "weconclude, therefore, that Gog is the most important person or nation in thiscoalition,"[4]declare Mark Hitchcock.
Thepassage says that Gog is from the land of Magog. Some have said that Gog is a reference to the Antichrist. Charles Feinberg is right when he says,"but for this there is not a shred of biblical or nonbiblical evidence."[5] Some have suggested that Gog is a name"arbitrarily derived from the name of the country, Magog, but this is not validbecause Gog appears in 1 Chronicles 5:4."[6] "The name Gog means 'high, supreme, aheight, or a high mountain.'"[7] The only references to the Gog ofEzekiel's prophecy appear in the passage itself and there is virtually noinformation about Gog outside the Bible in history. However, when Gog leads his invasion of Israel he is said tocome "from the remote parts of the north" (Ezek. 38:6). Louis Bauman tells us that "L. Sale-Harrisonsays in his booklet, The Coming Great Northern Confederacy: 'It is interesting to note that thevery word 'Caucasus' means 'Gog's Fort.' 'Gog' and 'Chasan' (Fort) are two Oriental words from which it isderived.'"[8] So there does appear to be a faintreference to Gog in the general area of Russia that Gog is likely to be from.
Whothen is Gog? Bauman says, "Withoutdoubt, Russia will furnish the man-not the Antichrist-who will head up that which is knownto most Bible students as 'the great northeastern confederacy' of nations andlead it to its doom upon the hills of Israel's land."[9] Hitchcock believes "the reason Gog issingled out eleven times by God in these two chapters is because God is thegeneral over this coalition of nations in its great military campaign againstIsrael."[10] Hal Lindsey tells us, "Gog is thesymbolic name of the nation's leader and Magog is his land. He is also the prince of the ancientpeople who were called Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal."[11] Arnold Fruchtenbaum informs us: "WhoGog will be can only be determined at the time of the invasion, for 'Gog' isnot a proper name but a title for the rule of Magog, just as the terms'pharaoh,' 'kaiser,' and 'czar' were titles for rulers and not proper names."[12]
The LandOf Magog
Gogthe leader of the invasion of the land of Israel is said to be "of the land ofMagog." The proper noun Magog isused four times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.[13] Magog is used twice in the passage weare investigating (38:2; 39:6) and twice in genealogies (Gen. 10:2; 1 Chron.1:5). Genesis 10:2 says, "The sonsof Japheth were Gomer and Magog and Madai and Javan and Tubal and Meshech andTiras." 1 Chronicles 1:5 isbasically a repeat of the genealogical information from Genesis 10:2. The fact that Magog is used in thetable of nations (Genesis 10)[14]provides a basis for tracing the movement of one of the earliest post-flooddescendants of Noah.
Itappears that Ezekiel is using the names of peoples, primarily from the table ofnations, and where they lived at the time of the giving of this prophecy in thesixth century b.c. Therefore, if we are able to find outwhere these people and places were in the sixth century b.c. then we will be able to trace figure out who would betheir modern antecedents today. Ibelieve we will be able to accomplish this task and be able to know who will beinvolved in this battle if it were to come to pass in our own day.
Itis probably fair to say that most scholars and experts would trace Magog'sdescendants to the ancient people that we know as the Scythians. Chuck Missler notes that a widecollection of ancient historians "identified Magog with the Scythians andsouthern Russia in the 7th century b.c."[15] These ancients include: Hesiod,Josephus, Philo, and Herodotus.[16]Josephus lived in the first century a.d.and said, "Magog founded the Magogians, thus named after him but who by theGreeks are called Scythians."[17] Bauman tells us that Magog and hisdescendants must have immigrated north after the Flood and that "the Magogiteswere divided into two distinct races, one Japhetic, or European, and the otherTuranian, or Asiatic."[18]
Who are theScythians? Edwin Yamauchi tells usthat the Scythians were divided into two groups, a narrow and broadgrouping. "In the narrow sense,the Scythians were the tribes who lived in the area which Herodotus designatedas Scythia (i.e., the territory north of the Black Sea)," notes Yamauchi. "In the broad sense the word Scythiancan designate some of the many other tribes in the vast steppes of Russia,stretching from the Ukraine in the west to the region of Siberia in the east."[19]
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Ralph Alexander, Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), p. 118.
[2] Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrewand English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford, 1907), electronic edition.
[3] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version6.4.
[4] Mark Hitchcock, After The Empire: BibleProphecy in Light of the Fall of the Soviet Union (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), p.16.
[5] Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 220.
[6] Feinberg, Ezekiel, p. 220.
[7] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 17
[8] Louis S. Bauman, Russian Events in the Lightof Bible Prophecy (New York:Fleming H. Revell, 1942), p. 23.
[9] Bauman, Russian Events, p. 26.
[10] Hitchcock, After The Empire, p. 17
[11] Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970),p. 63.
[12] Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah:A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events (Tustin, CA: Ariel Press, [1982] 2003), p. 106.
[13] Based upon a search conducted by the computerprogram Accordance, version6.4.
[14] The table of nations is a term used for therecords of the descendants Noah and his three sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth. Every human being on planet earth is adescendant of Noah and his three sons. If we could trace our genealogies far enough back we would find that weall descend from Noah through either Ham, Shem or Japheth.
[15] Chuck Missler, The Magog Invasion (Palos Verdes, CA: Western Front, 1995), p. 29.
[16] Missler, Magog Invasion, pp. 29-31.
[17] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, vol. 1, vi, i as cited in Hitchcock, AfterThe Empire, p. 19.
[18] Bauman, Russian Events, p. 23.
[19] Edwin M. Yamauchi, Foes from the NorthernFrontier (Grand Rapids: Baker,1982), p. 62
Ezekiel 38 and 39 (Part 1)
http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/ezekiel-38-39-part-1
The next several days I will post some very interesting articles in my blog, articulating in-depth Ezekiel 38 & 39.
Dr. Thomas Ice
The battle of Gogand Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is one of the most debated items in the area ofbiblical prophecy. CommentatorRalph Alexander said, "One of the perennial enigmas of Biblical prophecy hasbeen the Gog and Magog event described in Ezekiel 38 and 39."[1] Almost every aspect of this ancientprophecy has been disputed, including whether it was fulfilled in the past oris still a future prophecy. Whoare the peoples involved and do they relate to modern nations? How should we understand the weaponsthat are described? If a futureevent, when does it take place on the prophetic timeline? This is why I want to attempt anin-depth analysis of this important passage.
Real or Only Imagined?
One of the firstthings to handle when dealing with this or any Biblical prophecy is whether ornot the God and Ezekiel intended to communicate a message that would befulfilled in history. Since Ibelieve that all Biblical prophecy intends historical fulfillment, there isnothing in this passage that would suggest differently. However, there is a school ofinterpretation, primarily among liberal scholars, that does not believe thatthe Ezekiel passage (or most prophetic Scripture) was meant to give a prophecythat would be fulfilled in history. This view is often known as idealism. The idealistdoes not believe either that the Bible indicates the timing of events or thatwe can determine their timing in advance. Therefore, idealists see prophetic passages as a teacher of great truthsabout God to be applied to our present lives. Idealists believe that the Bible uses prophetic passages topresent principles between "a message that is universal and abiding. That message is not bound to anyparticular time or place even though these terms and expressions representscenes taken from countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and other placesin the Middle East."[2]
One who advocatesa non-historical, idealist approach to Bible prophecy is Brent Sandy in his Plowshares& Pruning Hooks.[3] Typical of those under the spell oftoday's postmodern influence, Sandy exalts the interpretative process at theexpense of arriving at a definite theology. Sandy's doublespeak is evident in the following:
The limitations of prophecyas a source of information for the future were demonstrated with examples fromvarious prophetic parts of Scripture. It became evident that the predicative element of prophecy is moretranslucent than transparent. Prophecy is always accurate in what it intends to reveal, but rarelydoes it reveal information so that we may know the future in advance. Figures of speech function to describenot the details of what is going to happen but the seriousness of what is goingto happen.[4]
So typical ofthose evangelicals who want to assign to biblical prophecy some specialcategory or literary genre they call "apocalyptic," Sandy says, "interpretersmust withhold judgment on many particulars of prophecy, unambiguous propheticthemes abound throughout Scripture, centering on the second coming of Jesus theMessiah."[5] Sandy concludes, "if my conclusionsabout the language of prophecy and apocalyptic are correct, all systems ofeschatology are subject to reconsideration."[6] It should not be surprising, sinceSandy is beholden to a postmodern mindset that he believes that the correctunderstanding of the Bible's eschatological message will be composed of a blendof all the different prophetic views.[7]
One thing isclear about Sandy and the emerging evangelical "scholarly" view is thatprophecy should not be taken literally, as has been done bydispensationalists. And they saywe know this, primarily, because the prophetic portions of the Bible areapocalyptic, which were not intended to be taken literally. They may not be able to tell you whatthese sections of Scripture actually mean, but this one thing they know: prophecy should not be interpretedliterally (that is according to the historical, grammatical approach) and prophecyis primarily about ideas and principles, not future historical events. "The 'mythical' understanding of thesenations and the prophecy that involves them fails to convey to us," notes JonRuthven, "the sense of a concrete, literal event that seems justified by whatis described in Ezekiel-especially to chapters 38-39."[8]
Various Timing Views
Prophecy expert,Mark Hitchcock notes: "By far, the most controversial issue in Ezekiel 38-39 isthe setting or timing of the invasion. The specific time of the invasion in Ezekiel 38 is difficult to determine."[9] There is no doubt that this is thegreatest problem to overcome in our understanding of this passage. In fact, the various positions arelabeled according to one's view concerning when these events will be fulfilled.
Among those whobelieve that the Gog-led invasion is historical, some believe that it hasalready occurred. For example,preterist Gary says, "The battle in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is clearly an ancient one. . ."[10] When does he believe that this battletook place? Amazingly, DeMar and onlya handful of commentators insist that Ezekiel 38 and 39 was fulfilled by theevents described in Esther 9, occurring in about 473 b.c. in the days of Queen Esther of Persia.[11] The other views that take this invasionas a historical event place its occurrence in a time future to our day.
Tim LaHaye andJerry Jenkins in their best-selling novel Left Behind,[12]place this invasion of Israel right before the rapture of the church. The strength of this position is thatit accounts for the burning of the weapons of war for seven years as mentionedin Ezekiel 39:9. However, TimLaHaye has told me personally that even though they represented a pre-raptureposition on Ezekiel 38 and 39 in their novel, he tends to place it after therapture but before the tribulation.
The next view,which is the one I hold at this time, is that it will happen after the rapturebut before the tribulation. Itwill be during the interval of days, weeks, months or years between the raptureand the start of the seven-year tribulation.[13] This view also accounts for the sevenyears of Ezekiel 39:9. I havealways thought that one of the strengths of this view is the way in which itcould set the stage for the Biblical scenario of the tribulation. If the tribulation is closely precededby a failed regional invasion of Israel, in other words Russia and her Muslimallies, then this would remove much of the Russian and Muslim influencecurrently in the world today and allow a Euro-centric orientation to arise. So the tribulation is preceded by afailed regional attack on Israel and this is why the tribulation ends with allthe peoples of the world attacking Israel at Armageddon. It could also set the stage for therebuilding of the Temple as a result of Islamic humiliation.
Perhaps the mostwidely held view put forth within dispensational literature is that thisinvasion will take place around the middle of the seven-year tribulation. This view often identifies Ezekiel 38and 39 with an invasion of the king of the north in Daniel 11:40. Another major argument is based upon thestatement that Israel will be "living securely, all of them" (Ezek. 38:8),which is the result of the false peace brought by the anti-Christ in the firsthalf of the tribulation. This viewhas a lot in its favor.
A significantnumber of Bible teachers believe that the Gog and Magog event is synonymouswith what the Book of Revelation calls the Campaign of Armageddon (Rev. 16:16).[14] Since Armageddon is a huge invasion ofIsrael around the time of the second coming and the invasion of Israeldescribed in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is said to be in "the latter years" (Ezek. 38:8)and "in the last days" (Ezek. 38:16), then they must be the same event. A similar, but slightly different viewis that the invasion occurs after the second coming of Christ, during theinterlude between the tribulation and the start of the millennium. The main argument for this view is thatIsrael would be dwelling in peace (Ezek. 38:8).
The last majorview is that the battle of Ezekiel 38 and 39 will occur at the end of themillennium. The basis for thisview is significant since Revelation 20:7-9 speaks of a conflict at the end ofthe millennium when Satan is released. Verse 8 says, "(Satan) will come out to deceive the nations which are inthe four corner of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for thewar . . ." The strength of thisview is obvious, Gog and Magog are specifically mentioned in the text.
In our nextinstallment I will begin a systematic study of Ezekiel 38 and 39 as we examinethe issue that will help us understand our Lord's intended meaning of thisgreat prophecy. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Ralph H. Alexander, "A Fresh Look At Ezekiel 38and 39," Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 17 (Summer, 1974), p. 157.
[2] Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary,Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), p. 43.
[3] D. Brent Sandy, Plowshares & PruningHooks: Rethinking the Language ofBiblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsityPress, 2002).
[4] Sandy, Plowshares, p. 197.
[5] Sandy, Plowshares, p. 203.
[6] Sandy, Plowshares, p. 206.
[7] Sandy, Plowshares, p. 250, f.n. 14.
[8] Jon Mark Ruthven, The Prophecy That Is ShapingHistory: New Research on Ezekiel's Vision of the End (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), p. 30.
[9] Mark Hitchcock, Iran The Coming Crisis:Radical Islam, Oil, And The Nuclear Threat (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2006), p. 178.
[10] Gary DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion: Future orFulfilled?" Biblical Worldview Magazine, vol. 22 (December, 2006), p. 5.
[11] Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A BiblicalConsideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), pp. 12-15.
[12] Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, Left Behind: ANovel of the Earth's Last Days(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1995), pp. 9-15.
[13] Arnold Fruchtenbaum defends this view in TheFootsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2003), pp. 106-25.
[14] This view is held by Dave Hunt, How Close AreWe? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House,1992).
The next several days I will post some very interesting articles in my blog, articulating in-depth Ezekiel 38 & 39.
Dr. Thomas Ice
The battle of Gogand Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is one of the most debated items in the area ofbiblical prophecy. CommentatorRalph Alexander said, "One of the perennial enigmas of Biblical prophecy hasbeen the Gog and Magog event described in Ezekiel 38 and 39."[1] Almost every aspect of this ancientprophecy has been disputed, including whether it was fulfilled in the past oris still a future prophecy. Whoare the peoples involved and do they relate to modern nations? How should we understand the weaponsthat are described? If a futureevent, when does it take place on the prophetic timeline? This is why I want to attempt anin-depth analysis of this important passage.
Real or Only Imagined?
One of the firstthings to handle when dealing with this or any Biblical prophecy is whether ornot the God and Ezekiel intended to communicate a message that would befulfilled in history. Since Ibelieve that all Biblical prophecy intends historical fulfillment, there isnothing in this passage that would suggest differently. However, there is a school ofinterpretation, primarily among liberal scholars, that does not believe thatthe Ezekiel passage (or most prophetic Scripture) was meant to give a prophecythat would be fulfilled in history. This view is often known as idealism. The idealistdoes not believe either that the Bible indicates the timing of events or thatwe can determine their timing in advance. Therefore, idealists see prophetic passages as a teacher of great truthsabout God to be applied to our present lives. Idealists believe that the Bible uses prophetic passages topresent principles between "a message that is universal and abiding. That message is not bound to anyparticular time or place even though these terms and expressions representscenes taken from countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and other placesin the Middle East."[2]
One who advocatesa non-historical, idealist approach to Bible prophecy is Brent Sandy in his Plowshares& Pruning Hooks.[3] Typical of those under the spell oftoday's postmodern influence, Sandy exalts the interpretative process at theexpense of arriving at a definite theology. Sandy's doublespeak is evident in the following:
The limitations of prophecyas a source of information for the future were demonstrated with examples fromvarious prophetic parts of Scripture. It became evident that the predicative element of prophecy is moretranslucent than transparent. Prophecy is always accurate in what it intends to reveal, but rarelydoes it reveal information so that we may know the future in advance. Figures of speech function to describenot the details of what is going to happen but the seriousness of what is goingto happen.[4]
So typical ofthose evangelicals who want to assign to biblical prophecy some specialcategory or literary genre they call "apocalyptic," Sandy says, "interpretersmust withhold judgment on many particulars of prophecy, unambiguous propheticthemes abound throughout Scripture, centering on the second coming of Jesus theMessiah."[5] Sandy concludes, "if my conclusionsabout the language of prophecy and apocalyptic are correct, all systems ofeschatology are subject to reconsideration."[6] It should not be surprising, sinceSandy is beholden to a postmodern mindset that he believes that the correctunderstanding of the Bible's eschatological message will be composed of a blendof all the different prophetic views.[7]
One thing isclear about Sandy and the emerging evangelical "scholarly" view is thatprophecy should not be taken literally, as has been done bydispensationalists. And they saywe know this, primarily, because the prophetic portions of the Bible areapocalyptic, which were not intended to be taken literally. They may not be able to tell you whatthese sections of Scripture actually mean, but this one thing they know: prophecy should not be interpretedliterally (that is according to the historical, grammatical approach) and prophecyis primarily about ideas and principles, not future historical events. "The 'mythical' understanding of thesenations and the prophecy that involves them fails to convey to us," notes JonRuthven, "the sense of a concrete, literal event that seems justified by whatis described in Ezekiel-especially to chapters 38-39."[8]
Various Timing Views
Prophecy expert,Mark Hitchcock notes: "By far, the most controversial issue in Ezekiel 38-39 isthe setting or timing of the invasion. The specific time of the invasion in Ezekiel 38 is difficult to determine."[9] There is no doubt that this is thegreatest problem to overcome in our understanding of this passage. In fact, the various positions arelabeled according to one's view concerning when these events will be fulfilled.
Among those whobelieve that the Gog-led invasion is historical, some believe that it hasalready occurred. For example,preterist Gary says, "The battle in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is clearly an ancient one. . ."[10] When does he believe that this battletook place? Amazingly, DeMar and onlya handful of commentators insist that Ezekiel 38 and 39 was fulfilled by theevents described in Esther 9, occurring in about 473 b.c. in the days of Queen Esther of Persia.[11] The other views that take this invasionas a historical event place its occurrence in a time future to our day.
Tim LaHaye andJerry Jenkins in their best-selling novel Left Behind,[12]place this invasion of Israel right before the rapture of the church. The strength of this position is thatit accounts for the burning of the weapons of war for seven years as mentionedin Ezekiel 39:9. However, TimLaHaye has told me personally that even though they represented a pre-raptureposition on Ezekiel 38 and 39 in their novel, he tends to place it after therapture but before the tribulation.
The next view,which is the one I hold at this time, is that it will happen after the rapturebut before the tribulation. Itwill be during the interval of days, weeks, months or years between the raptureand the start of the seven-year tribulation.[13] This view also accounts for the sevenyears of Ezekiel 39:9. I havealways thought that one of the strengths of this view is the way in which itcould set the stage for the Biblical scenario of the tribulation. If the tribulation is closely precededby a failed regional invasion of Israel, in other words Russia and her Muslimallies, then this would remove much of the Russian and Muslim influencecurrently in the world today and allow a Euro-centric orientation to arise. So the tribulation is preceded by afailed regional attack on Israel and this is why the tribulation ends with allthe peoples of the world attacking Israel at Armageddon. It could also set the stage for therebuilding of the Temple as a result of Islamic humiliation.
Perhaps the mostwidely held view put forth within dispensational literature is that thisinvasion will take place around the middle of the seven-year tribulation. This view often identifies Ezekiel 38and 39 with an invasion of the king of the north in Daniel 11:40. Another major argument is based upon thestatement that Israel will be "living securely, all of them" (Ezek. 38:8),which is the result of the false peace brought by the anti-Christ in the firsthalf of the tribulation. This viewhas a lot in its favor.
A significantnumber of Bible teachers believe that the Gog and Magog event is synonymouswith what the Book of Revelation calls the Campaign of Armageddon (Rev. 16:16).[14] Since Armageddon is a huge invasion ofIsrael around the time of the second coming and the invasion of Israeldescribed in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is said to be in "the latter years" (Ezek. 38:8)and "in the last days" (Ezek. 38:16), then they must be the same event. A similar, but slightly different viewis that the invasion occurs after the second coming of Christ, during theinterlude between the tribulation and the start of the millennium. The main argument for this view is thatIsrael would be dwelling in peace (Ezek. 38:8).
The last majorview is that the battle of Ezekiel 38 and 39 will occur at the end of themillennium. The basis for thisview is significant since Revelation 20:7-9 speaks of a conflict at the end ofthe millennium when Satan is released. Verse 8 says, "(Satan) will come out to deceive the nations which are inthe four corner of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for thewar . . ." The strength of thisview is obvious, Gog and Magog are specifically mentioned in the text.
In our nextinstallment I will begin a systematic study of Ezekiel 38 and 39 as we examinethe issue that will help us understand our Lord's intended meaning of thisgreat prophecy. Maranatha!
(ToBe Continued . . .)
ENDNOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Ralph H. Alexander, "A Fresh Look At Ezekiel 38and 39," Journal of The Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 17 (Summer, 1974), p. 157.
[2] Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary,Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), p. 43.
[3] D. Brent Sandy, Plowshares & PruningHooks: Rethinking the Language ofBiblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsityPress, 2002).
[4] Sandy, Plowshares, p. 197.
[5] Sandy, Plowshares, p. 203.
[6] Sandy, Plowshares, p. 206.
[7] Sandy, Plowshares, p. 250, f.n. 14.
[8] Jon Mark Ruthven, The Prophecy That Is ShapingHistory: New Research on Ezekiel's Vision of the End (Fairfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2003), p. 30.
[9] Mark Hitchcock, Iran The Coming Crisis:Radical Islam, Oil, And The Nuclear Threat (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2006), p. 178.
[10] Gary DeMar, "Ezekiel's Magog Invasion: Future orFulfilled?" Biblical Worldview Magazine, vol. 22 (December, 2006), p. 5.
[11] Gary DeMar, End Times Fiction: A BiblicalConsideration of the Left Behind Theology (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), pp. 12-15.
[12] Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, Left Behind: ANovel of the Earth's Last Days(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1995), pp. 9-15.
[13] Arnold Fruchtenbaum defends this view in TheFootsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2003), pp. 106-25.
[14] This view is held by Dave Hunt, How Close AreWe? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House,1992).
Ezekiel 38
From Joel C. Rosenberg book Epicenter, everything in quotes are his words.
Gog:
"Page 83, The first thing we need to understand is that Gog is probably not actually a personal name, but more likely a title, like czar or pharaoh.
Thus, we are not looking for the rise of a specific person whose first or last name is Gog so much as a "prince" who will arise in "the land of Magog" (Ezekiel 38:15 NASB). In The Ezekiel Option, Dr. Eliezer Mordechai (a fictional former head of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency) explains to Jon Bennett (a fictional senior White House advisor) that this means Gog is a political leader from a country due north of Israel. A quick check of any world map reveals that there are only five such countries today: Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, and Russia. The one farthest north, of course is Russia."
Magog:
"Voltaire in his Philosophical Dictionary, noting that "it is incontestable that the inhabitant of Gaul and Spain are descended from Gomer, and the Russians from Magog, his younger brother." Interestingly enough, the genealogical tree to which he referred actually finds its origin in the very Bible for which he had so little regard. Magog is first mentioned in Genesis 10-Magog was a son of Japheth, who was a son of Noah (he of Noah's-ark fame)."
"Here the Roman historian Josephus can offer us another clue. In The Antiquities of the Jews, his twenty-volume classic written in the first century after Christ, Josephus wrote of the descendants of Noah: "After [attempting to build the tower of Babel-see Genesis 11] they were dispersed abroad, on account of their languages, and went out by colonies everywhere; and each colony took possession of that land which they lighy upon and unto which God led them.... Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians."
"The Scythians, genetically were Aryans. Geographically, they lived in the areas now known as Russia, the former Soviet republics, and central Asia. One referece work describes a Scythian as a "member of a nomadic people orginally of Iranian stock who migrated from Central Asia to southern Russia in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.... Scthians founded a rich, powerful empire that survived for several centuries."
Rosh, Meshech, And Tubal:
"This brings us to the next big question: where are "Rosh, Meshech and Tubal," of which Gog is prince"? A study of ancient Hebrew, ancient history, and modern-day geography points us to Russia, Moscow, and Tobolsk (in Siberia), respectively. The word Rosh in Hebrew can mean "head" or "cheif," leading some scholars to the conclusion that Gog is the "cheif prince" of Meshech and Tubal. But both the Septuagint and the Masretic Text, two of the oldest and most reliable copies of the Holy Scriptures, translate Rosh as the proper name of a geological place. The Septuagint is the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures."
"In his seminal work Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, William Gesenius- the father of modern Hebrew lexicography (the science behind compiling dictionaries)-concluded that the Rosh to which Ezekiel refers is a proper name. He also concluded that Rosh is "undoubtedly the Russians, who are mentioned by the Byzantine writers of the tenth century, under the name of Ros, dwelling to the north of Taurus [in Turkey]."
Gog:
"Page 83, The first thing we need to understand is that Gog is probably not actually a personal name, but more likely a title, like czar or pharaoh.
Thus, we are not looking for the rise of a specific person whose first or last name is Gog so much as a "prince" who will arise in "the land of Magog" (Ezekiel 38:15 NASB). In The Ezekiel Option, Dr. Eliezer Mordechai (a fictional former head of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence agency) explains to Jon Bennett (a fictional senior White House advisor) that this means Gog is a political leader from a country due north of Israel. A quick check of any world map reveals that there are only five such countries today: Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, and Russia. The one farthest north, of course is Russia."
Magog:
"Voltaire in his Philosophical Dictionary, noting that "it is incontestable that the inhabitant of Gaul and Spain are descended from Gomer, and the Russians from Magog, his younger brother." Interestingly enough, the genealogical tree to which he referred actually finds its origin in the very Bible for which he had so little regard. Magog is first mentioned in Genesis 10-Magog was a son of Japheth, who was a son of Noah (he of Noah's-ark fame)."
"Here the Roman historian Josephus can offer us another clue. In The Antiquities of the Jews, his twenty-volume classic written in the first century after Christ, Josephus wrote of the descendants of Noah: "After [attempting to build the tower of Babel-see Genesis 11] they were dispersed abroad, on account of their languages, and went out by colonies everywhere; and each colony took possession of that land which they lighy upon and unto which God led them.... Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians."
"The Scythians, genetically were Aryans. Geographically, they lived in the areas now known as Russia, the former Soviet republics, and central Asia. One referece work describes a Scythian as a "member of a nomadic people orginally of Iranian stock who migrated from Central Asia to southern Russia in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.... Scthians founded a rich, powerful empire that survived for several centuries."
Rosh, Meshech, And Tubal:
"This brings us to the next big question: where are "Rosh, Meshech and Tubal," of which Gog is prince"? A study of ancient Hebrew, ancient history, and modern-day geography points us to Russia, Moscow, and Tobolsk (in Siberia), respectively. The word Rosh in Hebrew can mean "head" or "cheif," leading some scholars to the conclusion that Gog is the "cheif prince" of Meshech and Tubal. But both the Septuagint and the Masretic Text, two of the oldest and most reliable copies of the Holy Scriptures, translate Rosh as the proper name of a geological place. The Septuagint is the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures."
"In his seminal work Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, William Gesenius- the father of modern Hebrew lexicography (the science behind compiling dictionaries)-concluded that the Rosh to which Ezekiel refers is a proper name. He also concluded that Rosh is "undoubtedly the Russians, who are mentioned by the Byzantine writers of the tenth century, under the name of Ros, dwelling to the north of Taurus [in Turkey]."
As we are drawing closer to the "end of days" one thing is imminent. The battle of Ezekiel 38 and 39, will come to fruition. Before we discuss in detail the events about the coming war of Ezekiel 38 and 39, I want to quote from Donald Grey Barnhouse's book Revelation, not to be confused with the Book of Revelations in the Inspired Word of God.
Why do I feel the urge to quote from Barnhouse? The author pointedly offers a glimpse of our future. Though he is speaking of his generation, I believe a small portion of our generation is starting to mirror that particular time period.
"We are living in the strangest days that man has ever known. The world has passed through terrible times before, but never has the whole earth been so bound together in its wild plunging through one catastrophe after another as today. There have been wars down through the ages, but never wars that have touched so many nations as the conflicts through which we have passed in this generation. There have been political crises, but not on a scale that touched all of the continents."
All I have to say is WOW! This sounds particularly similar to what our generation is going through at this moment. What we are presently witnessing is a confirmation of Barnhouse's point, and it should speak volumes as to where we are as a nation and where our current president is leading us.
Why do I feel the urge to quote from Barnhouse? The author pointedly offers a glimpse of our future. Though he is speaking of his generation, I believe a small portion of our generation is starting to mirror that particular time period.
"We are living in the strangest days that man has ever known. The world has passed through terrible times before, but never has the whole earth been so bound together in its wild plunging through one catastrophe after another as today. There have been wars down through the ages, but never wars that have touched so many nations as the conflicts through which we have passed in this generation. There have been political crises, but not on a scale that touched all of the continents."
All I have to say is WOW! This sounds particularly similar to what our generation is going through at this moment. What we are presently witnessing is a confirmation of Barnhouse's point, and it should speak volumes as to where we are as a nation and where our current president is leading us.
SALT COVENANT Part 3 ending
In ancient times, the bodies of newborn babies were rubbed down with salt to ward off any infection they could have easily gotten. The salt made the skin of their bodies smooth. How does salt benefit our spiritual man? The answer is the action of prayer. Just like babies, we are made clean through ceremonial washing and the applying of salt onto our skin. As His sheep, our Creator daily cleanses us with the spiritual salt to preserve us for the glory of His kingdom.
God will not answer our prayers if we have an evil desire to pray selfishly. Why won’t they be answered, you may ask? The main factor of God not answering prayer is the simple fact that God wants the very best for us. This is why we should repent of every sin we have committed when we pray. We must prepare our spirit and heart to commune with Jesus Christ, our Father. Therefore, the importance of prayer cannot be stressed enough. Our prayer must be lined up with the Word for the salt to remain within us. Matthew teaches us a crucial lesson about the importance of retaining our spiritual salt. Matthew 5:13 states, “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.”
Let us strive in our prayer life to make them (our prayers) beneficial to God, so they may be our finest choice of burnt offering. Let us wait upon Him patiently to answer our prayers. He has graciously sprinkled salt into our lives. Therefore, when we pray, let our prayers be sprinkled with salt and not rashness. Otherwise, if we pray empty prayers, the spiritual salt that covers our lives will cease. Then, we can actually get to the point in our walk with Christ Jesus that our desire to seek Him will be of no priority.
Our first desire should be to seek out the “true love” in our prayer life, which should be God the Father. Our first choice offering is being open and honest with our Father in heaven. When we come to a point in our lives when we are not honest with God, we sometimes lie to ourselves and pretend not to hide things from God. We may be good at hiding and holding things back from humankind, but, no matter what the difficulty is in our personal lives, we need to give it all to Him so we do not shortchange ourselves spiritually. It will take us longer to approach a mature level in our spiritual lives, and the pleasant aroma that God desires in us will erode if we keep up the spiritual immaturity.
Jehovah wants us to become spiritually smooth in our prayer life. As we become spiritually smooth (with no sins to bind us), our prayer life will become pleasing to Him. Jesus Christ wants to chip off the things in our lives that have become idols to us. These idols prevent us from getting close to Him and detour us from the Scriptures. The salt that God sprinkles within us is the only way we can be truly set free and be refined in the furnace.
Romans 8:5 states, “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.”The Scriptures make the fact transparent that we cannot live in the flesh and still try to do the things of God. We cannot, as believers in Christ, have a divided heart. Either our prayer life will be autonomous, or it is going to remain God-centered. He should be the center of our lives. At the same time, we should remain pure in heart and soul, mind and body, and spirit. Sin has the physicality effect in our bodies, and we are born into it. It damages us relationally in our level of maturity with Christ, and God’s word teaches us that our sin makes us unholy and unfit for Him.
Genesis 4:7 says, “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” As Christians, we need to resist sin with the armor of God that He has given us and all that we are spiritually. An example of this is the woman mentioned in Matthew 9:20. She had earnestly prayed for 12 years to be healed of hemorrhages. God was very faithful and merciful to heal her, answering her long-awaited prayer. We can learn so much from this woman spiritually. She did not waver, but laid down her body as a sacrifice. This was done not in a literal fashion, but in a spiritual fashion. She sacrificed her body through prayer. The woman pushed her way through a crowd to see Jesus the Christ and to hear Him speak and to be healed by Him. Finally, her prayers were answered through the faithfulness and mercy of Jesus Christ. As she touched the edges of His tzitzit (fringes), she became the sweet aroma of sacrifice that is pleasing to God.
You see that the armor of God protects every area of our body. When a person went into battle in the ancient days, they would dress in armor gear that would protect every inch of their body. The ancient Scripture protects every spiritual area in us. In Ephesians 6:13, Paul wrote, “Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.” Jehovah has given us a double thickness in our spiritual armor. He has given us the armor of God, which is His Word, and the salt that He sprinkles over our lives is to protect and to preserve the spiritual man. While we continue to fight our spiritual battles, there is one more point I would like to make. It is that we are protected by His salt covenant and by His promises that are found in His Word.
Written by Michael Jones
God will not answer our prayers if we have an evil desire to pray selfishly. Why won’t they be answered, you may ask? The main factor of God not answering prayer is the simple fact that God wants the very best for us. This is why we should repent of every sin we have committed when we pray. We must prepare our spirit and heart to commune with Jesus Christ, our Father. Therefore, the importance of prayer cannot be stressed enough. Our prayer must be lined up with the Word for the salt to remain within us. Matthew teaches us a crucial lesson about the importance of retaining our spiritual salt. Matthew 5:13 states, “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.”
Let us strive in our prayer life to make them (our prayers) beneficial to God, so they may be our finest choice of burnt offering. Let us wait upon Him patiently to answer our prayers. He has graciously sprinkled salt into our lives. Therefore, when we pray, let our prayers be sprinkled with salt and not rashness. Otherwise, if we pray empty prayers, the spiritual salt that covers our lives will cease. Then, we can actually get to the point in our walk with Christ Jesus that our desire to seek Him will be of no priority.
Our first desire should be to seek out the “true love” in our prayer life, which should be God the Father. Our first choice offering is being open and honest with our Father in heaven. When we come to a point in our lives when we are not honest with God, we sometimes lie to ourselves and pretend not to hide things from God. We may be good at hiding and holding things back from humankind, but, no matter what the difficulty is in our personal lives, we need to give it all to Him so we do not shortchange ourselves spiritually. It will take us longer to approach a mature level in our spiritual lives, and the pleasant aroma that God desires in us will erode if we keep up the spiritual immaturity.
Jehovah wants us to become spiritually smooth in our prayer life. As we become spiritually smooth (with no sins to bind us), our prayer life will become pleasing to Him. Jesus Christ wants to chip off the things in our lives that have become idols to us. These idols prevent us from getting close to Him and detour us from the Scriptures. The salt that God sprinkles within us is the only way we can be truly set free and be refined in the furnace.
Romans 8:5 states, “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.”The Scriptures make the fact transparent that we cannot live in the flesh and still try to do the things of God. We cannot, as believers in Christ, have a divided heart. Either our prayer life will be autonomous, or it is going to remain God-centered. He should be the center of our lives. At the same time, we should remain pure in heart and soul, mind and body, and spirit. Sin has the physicality effect in our bodies, and we are born into it. It damages us relationally in our level of maturity with Christ, and God’s word teaches us that our sin makes us unholy and unfit for Him.
Genesis 4:7 says, “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” As Christians, we need to resist sin with the armor of God that He has given us and all that we are spiritually. An example of this is the woman mentioned in Matthew 9:20. She had earnestly prayed for 12 years to be healed of hemorrhages. God was very faithful and merciful to heal her, answering her long-awaited prayer. We can learn so much from this woman spiritually. She did not waver, but laid down her body as a sacrifice. This was done not in a literal fashion, but in a spiritual fashion. She sacrificed her body through prayer. The woman pushed her way through a crowd to see Jesus the Christ and to hear Him speak and to be healed by Him. Finally, her prayers were answered through the faithfulness and mercy of Jesus Christ. As she touched the edges of His tzitzit (fringes), she became the sweet aroma of sacrifice that is pleasing to God.
You see that the armor of God protects every area of our body. When a person went into battle in the ancient days, they would dress in armor gear that would protect every inch of their body. The ancient Scripture protects every spiritual area in us. In Ephesians 6:13, Paul wrote, “Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.” Jehovah has given us a double thickness in our spiritual armor. He has given us the armor of God, which is His Word, and the salt that He sprinkles over our lives is to protect and to preserve the spiritual man. While we continue to fight our spiritual battles, there is one more point I would like to make. It is that we are protected by His salt covenant and by His promises that are found in His Word.
Written by Michael Jones
SALT COVENANT Part 2
As believers, we should realize the spiritual error when we do not truly follow the Messiah with our whole heart. In turn, it will affect the salt that we have in our spiritual man, and our sin will slowly erode the spiritual salt we already have.
In unity, Satan and his Demons (fallen angels) are trying to destroy God’s children who have a personal relationship with our Creator. The evil one hates the very fact that we worship Jesus Christ, and give glory unto Him, and Satan is very jealous of God’s splendor. Lucifer wishes our very worship were directed to him. John 10:10 says, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy.” Jesus told us through His word that He has given us authority over the Demonic realm. If Jesus has given us this type of authority then we should realize this is part of the “armor of God” Paul speaks about.
Jehovah will not leave us without His authority for us to exercise and use. His armor will never leave us wanting and spiritually naked. He is faithful enough to keep us equipped with His Word. By studying and praying each day we are clothed with the armor of God. With it, comes His wisdom and knowledge of how the enemy operates. In turn, it also shows us how God operates.
As long as we are in communion with Jesus Christ, the prayers we pray are a salt offering, which is a sweet aroma for God. Our every word, our every thought, which comes from the heart, is a salt sacrifice that we should give to Jesus our Lord when praying.
As you see, our Creator will preserve our spiritual nature through the act of salt. We draw nearer to Him because of the refining process that works within us. Through our prayers, our sins are blended together with the salt of God. What does this mean to us as Christians? In time, the salt He graciously sprinkles over us will begin to purify us. Before we go further, it is important for us to know the facts about “living in sin” and being “born into sin.” There is a clear distinction between the two. When a person defies God and purposely lives in his or her sin, it is known as habitual sin. Thus, they are “living in sin.” A person may be bound by their sin and cannot be set free from it until they give it over to the Creator’s hand. Adversely, everyone here on earth is “born into sin.” As Christians, we may not have a physical bondage with a certain sin. However, the fact is that we were born into sin. We are in need of Jesus’ sacrificial blood that He once shed on the tree in order for us to have forgiveness of sin.
When we are getting our lives back in order with Jesus Christ, the spiritual salt starts immediate healing in our spiritual man. We begin to shift from the worldly system of Satan, and we begin to transition our lives into the hands of Jesus. Through time, our sin will not have the power over our flesh. The salt pulverizes our sin so our prayer life can be free from any restraint.
If we continue to stray from Him, as Cain did, with self-centered prayers and impure motives, we should be prepared that God will not honor our prayers. Cain had given God a less-than-worthy offering to Him and he purposely short-changed Him of the offering by not giving his best to his God.
Written by Michael Jones
In unity, Satan and his Demons (fallen angels) are trying to destroy God’s children who have a personal relationship with our Creator. The evil one hates the very fact that we worship Jesus Christ, and give glory unto Him, and Satan is very jealous of God’s splendor. Lucifer wishes our very worship were directed to him. John 10:10 says, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy.” Jesus told us through His word that He has given us authority over the Demonic realm. If Jesus has given us this type of authority then we should realize this is part of the “armor of God” Paul speaks about.
Jehovah will not leave us without His authority for us to exercise and use. His armor will never leave us wanting and spiritually naked. He is faithful enough to keep us equipped with His Word. By studying and praying each day we are clothed with the armor of God. With it, comes His wisdom and knowledge of how the enemy operates. In turn, it also shows us how God operates.
As long as we are in communion with Jesus Christ, the prayers we pray are a salt offering, which is a sweet aroma for God. Our every word, our every thought, which comes from the heart, is a salt sacrifice that we should give to Jesus our Lord when praying.
As you see, our Creator will preserve our spiritual nature through the act of salt. We draw nearer to Him because of the refining process that works within us. Through our prayers, our sins are blended together with the salt of God. What does this mean to us as Christians? In time, the salt He graciously sprinkles over us will begin to purify us. Before we go further, it is important for us to know the facts about “living in sin” and being “born into sin.” There is a clear distinction between the two. When a person defies God and purposely lives in his or her sin, it is known as habitual sin. Thus, they are “living in sin.” A person may be bound by their sin and cannot be set free from it until they give it over to the Creator’s hand. Adversely, everyone here on earth is “born into sin.” As Christians, we may not have a physical bondage with a certain sin. However, the fact is that we were born into sin. We are in need of Jesus’ sacrificial blood that He once shed on the tree in order for us to have forgiveness of sin.
When we are getting our lives back in order with Jesus Christ, the spiritual salt starts immediate healing in our spiritual man. We begin to shift from the worldly system of Satan, and we begin to transition our lives into the hands of Jesus. Through time, our sin will not have the power over our flesh. The salt pulverizes our sin so our prayer life can be free from any restraint.
If we continue to stray from Him, as Cain did, with self-centered prayers and impure motives, we should be prepared that God will not honor our prayers. Cain had given God a less-than-worthy offering to Him and he purposely short-changed Him of the offering by not giving his best to his God.
Written by Michael Jones
SALT COVENANT Part 1
In the Grecian world, about the fourth century, the word “church” was understood as an “assembly.” Jesus has called the Christians and Messianic Jews. He has called us out of the secular world. Adonai has called us out from this world and into His glory. He calls for us to be kept separate from the worldly systems, which belong to Satan. In John 17:14-18, Jesus said, “I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.”
From these Scriptures above, God has mandated us to continually remain apart from the world so we can be that righteous offering that is pleasing unto Him. God knows how destructive it would be if His believers were to become part of the secular world. He knows we would eventually become hardened under our sin, and in this situation, we would not hear His voice when He calls for us.
Let’s go to the story of Job. Job was a righteous man and a patriarch. As a family man, he served in his household as a priest. Everyday he would pray and consecrate his children every morning. While praying for his children, a spiritual application was presented here.
There is spiritual salt that comes from God when we pray. As in Job’s case, this salt helped him keep in tune when God spoke to him. It certainly preserved his spiritual state. Additionally, when we keep serving Jehovah and the more we pray to Him, the more the spiritual salt keeps us Holy and keeps us apart from the profane.
In the Bible, you will not find any formulas in how to pray, nor are there any shortcuts in prayer. There aren’t even any rituals we need to assimilate. We can pray standing, kneeling, or prostrate on the ground. We can pray in a bowed position, facing north, south, east, or west.
Let us remember to keep our prayers fruitful so it can bear many fruits in us. If we have prayers that we pray which are empty and selfish, our prayers will lose the salt that will preserve us spiritually between ourselves and God.
As believers, how do we retain the spiritual salt, which will help us? The answer can be found in Galatians 5:16-17. “Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want.”
When we desire to do the things of Jesus Christ and to “walk in the spirit,” then we will not be praying or acting out of His will selfishly (for our own benefit and our own autonomous means). We should continually seek the word of God, and then we will know His purpose for our lives. We need to know the Messiah our Redeemer on a more personal and spiritual level.
We have a moral duty to keep the spiritual salt maintained in our lives. How do we do this? By cultivating our spiritual life everyday through prayer and reading the Word of God. Thus, our prayers will be a sweet aroma, pleasing unto Him.
By Michael Jones
From these Scriptures above, God has mandated us to continually remain apart from the world so we can be that righteous offering that is pleasing unto Him. God knows how destructive it would be if His believers were to become part of the secular world. He knows we would eventually become hardened under our sin, and in this situation, we would not hear His voice when He calls for us.
Let’s go to the story of Job. Job was a righteous man and a patriarch. As a family man, he served in his household as a priest. Everyday he would pray and consecrate his children every morning. While praying for his children, a spiritual application was presented here.
There is spiritual salt that comes from God when we pray. As in Job’s case, this salt helped him keep in tune when God spoke to him. It certainly preserved his spiritual state. Additionally, when we keep serving Jehovah and the more we pray to Him, the more the spiritual salt keeps us Holy and keeps us apart from the profane.
In the Bible, you will not find any formulas in how to pray, nor are there any shortcuts in prayer. There aren’t even any rituals we need to assimilate. We can pray standing, kneeling, or prostrate on the ground. We can pray in a bowed position, facing north, south, east, or west.
Let us remember to keep our prayers fruitful so it can bear many fruits in us. If we have prayers that we pray which are empty and selfish, our prayers will lose the salt that will preserve us spiritually between ourselves and God.
As believers, how do we retain the spiritual salt, which will help us? The answer can be found in Galatians 5:16-17. “Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want.”
When we desire to do the things of Jesus Christ and to “walk in the spirit,” then we will not be praying or acting out of His will selfishly (for our own benefit and our own autonomous means). We should continually seek the word of God, and then we will know His purpose for our lives. We need to know the Messiah our Redeemer on a more personal and spiritual level.
We have a moral duty to keep the spiritual salt maintained in our lives. How do we do this? By cultivating our spiritual life everyday through prayer and reading the Word of God. Thus, our prayers will be a sweet aroma, pleasing unto Him.
By Michael Jones
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)