Hesekiel 38-39

Gog

GOG גוג

I. Gog (gwg) occurs as the name of a mysterious figure in Ezek 38–39. Its etymology is uncertain. A derivation from Sumerian gug (‘black spot’, ‘cornelian’, or ‘shining’, depending on the identification of the root) has been proposed (A. van Hoonacker, ZA 28 [1914] 336), but is highly implausible. The connection with a hypothetical deity ‘Gaga’, mentioned in Ee III 3 as the vizier of Anshar (→Assur), the father of the gods, must be abandoned as the name of the deity in question is to be pronounced Kaka (D. O. Edzard, RLA 5 [1976–80] 288; see also Šurpu 59 ad VIII 30 on the reading dGa-a-gi). No particular significance seems to have been attached to the literal meaning of the name—assuming that it was known to the author of Ezek 38–39.

II. In an attempt to identify Gog as a historical person, attention has been drawn to a city prince Gâgi mentioned in the annals of Ashurbanipal (Cylinder B iv 2), a powerful ruler of a belligerent mountain people not far to the north of Assyria (Delitzsch, Lenormant, Dürr, Streck, see Gronkowski 1930:162). More freqently, though, Gog is identified with Gyges (Gûgu in the Rassam-Cylinder, II 95), king of Lydia (Delitzsch, see Zimmerli 1969:942). Note, however, that the Gog of Ezekiel has the Cimmerians or Gomer as his ally, whereas the same Cimmerians appear to have attacked and defeated Gyges of Lydia. Such data suggest that Gog can hardly be identified with Gyges. Alternatively, Gog has been said to be the name of a country, Gaga or Gagaia, allegedly mentioned in the El Amarna Letters (EA 1:38). It has become clear, however, that the writing ištēn kurGa-ga-ya is erroneous for ištēn kurGa-ašga-ya, ‘one Kashkaean’ (E. von Schuler, Die Kaskäer [Berlin 1965] 81; cf. EA 31:25–27), so this identification must be abandoned as well.

Taking into account the ‘prophetic’ and ‘apocalyptic’ character of Ezek 38–39, many recognize in Gog the enemy of the final days. This implies that he is not a figure of the past but a person of the present or the future. Depending on the date of composition of Ezek 38–39, and the date of the eschaton as seen by Ezekiel or a later redactor, this enemy could be identified with an officer in the army of the younger Cyrus, with Alexander the Great, Antiochus IV, or many others in later periods.

Many are convinced that the name Gog is not related to a historical personage. The Septuagint manuscripts seem to confuse him with →Og, the mythological king of →Bashan (see also below). He is a cipher for the evil darkness of the north and personifies the powers hostile to the Lord (Ahroni 1977).

III. Many consider Ezek 38–39 to be a complex unity. There is no consensus about the history of its literary growth. Yet in recent literature most authors agree that 39:1–5, combined with 39:17–20 and perhaps parts of 38:1–9, constitute the oldest layer.

In one of the later additions (38:17), a redactor notes that Gog, coming from the remotest parts of the north (38:15), is the one spoken of by the earlier ...

Ote kirjasta DDD, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible

Maantieteelliset termit

Tubal, Meshech, and Magog are listed elsewhere in the Old Testament among the sons of Japheth (Genesis 10:2). This is, of course, part of the Table of Nations. Togarmah is also listed in the same Table of Nations in the very next verse (Genesis 10:3) as one of the sons of Japheth in the Table of Nations. So Genesis 10 sort of certifies (makes it clear) what geographical region Ezekiel has in mind when he starts writing about the hordes from the north, and he gives these names—Tubal, Meshech, Magog, Gomer, Togarmah. These are all situated and knowable and discoverable in contemporary ancient material, and it's all consistent.

Ote Naked Bible Podcast, https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/?s=152

Kaikki alueet ovat Anatoliassa, Vähä-Aasiassa. Katso kartta. 1. Moos. 10 kansat.

Tuubal

Tubal was one of the seven sons of Japheth, Noah’s son, according to the Table of Nations (Gen 10:2) and the parallel genealogy in 1 Chr 1:5. Descendants of Tubal and his siblings (Gomer, Magog, Madai, Yavan, Meshech, and Tiras) are located to the N of Israel, in Greece, Asia Minor, and N Syria. It is logical, therefore, to expect to find Tubal in the same N area.

Tubal is mentioned six further times in the prophets. Isa 66:19 speaks of the distant location to which Yahweh will send messengers of his grace. They include Greece (Yavan) and Tubal, as well as “Lud, drawers of the bow (MT).” Lud, or the Lydians in W Turkey and Greece, is the only name in the context with a descriptive epithet. Rather than seeing it as such, LXX revocalizes it and reads Meshech [MH: which is really bizarre], one of the brothers of the forefather of Tubal in the genealogies. This fits well with the other prophetic references to Tubal, in which Meshech is always found. These include an oracle against Tyre in which trade relations between the two and Tyre include their provision of slaves and instruments of bronze (Ezek 27:13)...

... Herodotus mentions two nations, the Moschoi and the Tibarenoi (3.94; 7.28), and Josephus writes of Thebel and the Meschenians (Ant 1.124). Older, Akkadian texts mention tabal (Parpola 1970: 341–43) and muški (Yamauchi 1982: 25–27). These are located in E Asia Minor. Tabal occupies the territory S of the Halys river, to the W of Togarmah (Barnett CAH 2:422; MBA, 15).

Anchor Bible Dictionary, essays of David Baker

Kaikissa nimissä on foneettinen samanlaisuus ja ne sijaitsevat samoilla alueilla.

Mesek

Meshech is one of the seven sons of Japheth, Noah’s son, according to the Table of Nations in Gen 10:2 and the parallel genealogy in 1 Chr 1:5. The latter genealogy also lists another person with the same name as a son of Shem (1:17). In the Table of Nations (Gen 10:23) there is no second listing for Meshech, but there is a Mash, son of Aram, in the parallel position to 1 Chr 1:17. This could be a scribal error in which the last Hebrew letter of Meshech was dropped (so LXX). Mash could also be an entirely different entity. [MH: Or Mash could be an entirely different entity. We don’t know.] Whatever the case regarding the name in Genesis, the Chronicles genealogy indicates two ethnically distinct groups, one of Semitic and one of non-Semitic descent.

Most references to Meshech in the OT are to the non-Semitic peoples. Five times in Ezekiel they are associated with Tubal. [MH: What he means by non-Semitic is that they're descended from Japeth and not Shem.] In Ezek 27:13, Meshech and Tubal, along with Javan (Greece), traded slaves and bronze with Tyre, the capital of Phoenicia. They must therefore have had some skill in metallurgy, since Tyre itself served as a source for metalworking skills (1 Kgs 7:13–14).

Akkadian sources from as early as Tiglath-pileser I (ca. 1100 B.C.; Parpola 1970: 252–53) mention Meshech, or the muškaya from the land of mušku. These people paid tribute to Assurnasirpal II (ca. 882 B.C.) from their capital in E Asia Minor (GARI 2: 123). This tribute included goods of bronze (see Ezek 27:13 noted earlier). At the end of the 8th century B.C., the king of Meshech was Mita, the famous Midas whose touch, according to legend, would turn everything to gold. In a letter to Sargon II dated ca. 709 B.C., Midas, ruler of the “land of Muski,” seeks a peaceful relationship with the Assyrians.

Both Herodotus (7.78) and Josephus (Ant 1.124) place Meshech (Moschoi) in E Asia Minor. The latter locates these people in the area later known as Cappadocia. Herodotus (1.14) equates them with the Phrygians somewhat farther W in Asia Minor. These people migrated from E Europe into Asia during the 12th century B.C. (CAH3 2: 417–18; Yamauchi 1982: 27). Some of the people of Meshech seem to have moved even farther east, around the Black Sea.

Anchor Bible Dictionary, essays of David Baker

Maagog

In the Table of Nations (Gen 10:2) and the parallel genealogy in 1 Chr 1:5, Magog is one of the six grandsons of Noah through his son Japheth. Others of this line are associated with Asia Minor (Javan, Tubal, Meshech), so a location for Magog also in this area is logical.

Not all of the listed allies are to the N of Israel, however, so the evidence is not compelling. Ezek 39:6 foretells judgment on Gog, which will include fire falling on Magog as well as upon “the island dwellers.” (consistent with Javan, Greece, for instance). [MH: Even an obscure reference like "island dwellers," we know where that geographically makes sense in relationship to all the other places.] The latter two passages portray these peoples as warriors from a distant land who will descend upon Israel in a cataclysmic battle.

Scholars suggest several different locations for Magog. Skinner (Genesis ICC, 197) assumed the identity of Magog and Gagā (ya), which is mentioned in one of the Amarna letters from the mid-2d millennium B.C. (see YGC, 14 n. 40). [MH: Lust, in the little snippet that we read earlier pointed out that the cuneiform evidence turned out to not be right there, but Baker mentions it here.] They are identified there in a general way as people from the North. A more popular identification is that Gog is a Hebrew [adaptation] on the name of the Lydian king Gyges (ca. 680–ca. 648 B.C.E.; Akk gugu)…

Anchor Bible Dictionary, essays of David Baker

Toogarma

According to the Table of Nations (Gen 10:3) and the parallel genealogy in 1 Chr 1:6, Togarmah is one of three sons of Gomer, who himself is a son of Japheth, Noah’s son. His descendants, or at least those called by the same name, are mentioned twice in the book of Ezekiel. In an oracle against Tyre, Beth-togarmah or “the house of Togarmah” is described as exchanging war horses and draft horses and mules with Tyre for her merchandise (27:4). The geographical location of other trading nations from the same biblical context (Ezek 27:1–13; Greece, Meshech, Tarshish, Tubal) would place Togarmah to Israel’s N. The same N direction is found in 38:6.

Anchor Bible Dictionary, essays of David Baker

Katso kansojen taulun sukupuu. 1. Moos. 10:1-32.

Roos

Hes. 38:2, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hesekielin+38%3A2&version=R1933:

2 "Ihmislapsi, käännä kasvosi kohti Googia Maagogin maassa, Roosin, Mesekin ja Tuubalin ruhtinasta, ja ennusta häntä vastaan

Raamattu 33/38 käännöksessä Roos on alue.

Entä ESV, English Standard Version, käännöksessä?

English Standard Version Chapter 38

Son of man, set your face toward Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him

Heprean kielessä nesiʾ rōʾsh, engl. the chief prince, rōʾsh tarkoittaa

engl. lead nation: kansaa, joka on toisten yläpuolella; ehkä korostaen henkilöä, joka on johtajuudessa kaikkein korkein vähäisempien johtajien joukossa

engl. head or chief: pää tai päällikkö

nesiʾ tarkoittaa

engl. prince: prinssi tai ruhtinas

Heprean kieliopin sääntöjen mukaan jompi kumpi käännöksistä on hyvä

Goog, Mesekin ja Tuubalin pääruhtinas

Goog, ruhtinas, Mesekin ja Tuubalin päällikkö

Miksi Roos on poissa kansojen listalta? Ja miten tämä Rosh on kääntynyt monissa eskatologisissa yhteyksissä viittaamaan Venäjään - Russia (Rosh), vaikka Raamatussa ja muinaisissa teksteissä ei löydy paikkaa nimeltä Roos (Rosh).

Seuraavassa on ote Naked Bible Podcast, https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/?s=152

Gog is not the prince of Rosh. That is a mistranslation and we'll comment on it in a few minutes. There are a number of reasons that it's a mistranslation. Among them is the fact that there is no such place name in any ancient text. There is no place name Rosh known in the ancient world. Period. It's not a place name. Rosh is not a place. As Michael Astour has noted, the closest geographical correlation that could be argued is Ra'shi or Ara'shi in Neo-Assyrian records—a district on the border of Babylonia and Elam. But as Astour comments, this has nothing in common with Meschech and Tubal. He's correct—it doesn't. It's in a different geographical region to the southeast. It doesn't point to Russia—that would be far north, north of the Black Sea. Again, the point being made is that nobody in the ancient world knew of a place named Rosh. It is not a Rosh. That's contrary, I know, to what a lot of listeners may have heard. Listeners may have heard that Gog is the prince of Rosh and the Rosh is Russia. I've posted an article with this episode that is also a little bit of a set-up, at least to kind of get the lay of the land for the battle for the king of the north in Daniel that we'll be bringing into the discussion in Part 2. But the article posted on the episode page for this episode is by Paul Tanner. He talks about the invader from the north. The subtitle of his article is, "Do We Owe Russia An Apology?" And it's like, yeah—we do. But that article is kind of nice because it takes you through how the Russia idea was popularized by evangelical dispensational interpreters. He points out some of the problems with it. He doesn't point out all of them. Other scholarly sources will beat that dead horse, despite the fact that it's dead. You should know as a listener that the idea that Ezekiel 38 and 39 is about Russia or a Russian invasion has literally no merit in terms of exegesis and it has no precedent in terms of a place name in the entire ancient world. It's a fabrication. It's a Cold War hermeneutic. The Russia idea became popular in the 70's. I remember reading it in prophecy books as a teenager, a new Christian. The bad guys for the end of the world in the Cold War era... they were Russians. And the "prophecy experts," the prophecy pundits of the 70's and 80's that wanted the end-times to be imminent (right around the corner)... Well, who's the enemy? Who's the logical enemy? Well, it's the Russians. "Ah, Russia... Rosh! There we go." That's about all the thought that went into it. It is not a view that is based in primary source material or even coherent.

Let's say a little bit more about it, though. Despite the fact that you've heard that there's no ancient place named Rosh, there are other problems. Yamauchi, who actually has a good book for this subject matter... His book is entitled Foes from the Northern Frontier: Invading Hordes from the Russian Steppes. His book isn't about Ezekiel 38 and 39, it's about just what it says: ancient peoples of the northern frontier. Yamauchi is a historian. I think he's still teaching. He's an evangelical and he does a lot of work on Persia in the Bible and Africa in the Bible. Here he's doing these northern countries (Asia Minor and further north). In this book, he does tackle the Russia interpretation and basically slays it because it's not very hard to do. Again, he's a historian at the University of Miami at Ohio. It might be a familiar name to you because he's been around for quite a while. But Yamauchi points out in his study of the geography that the place name Rosh would have had no meaning to an ancient Hebrew audience since "The name Rus was first brought to the region of the Kiev [that's right around the Black Sea there] by the Vikings in the Middle Ages." In other words, you don't even find Rus earlier than the Vikings. So for an ancient person of the biblical period, talking about a place name Ros or Rosh would have been utterly meaningless to them.

Going even further, Yamauchi notes that Rus and the longer Russia are Indo-European words, while Hebrew is from the Semitic language family. Consequently, a Rosh/Russia equation is a linguistic fallacy. It's a false etymology. Additionally, aside from Genesis 10's placement of Meschech and Tubal in Anatolia, Ezekiel's own description of these same places in Ezekiel 27:12-15 have them located among the nations adjacent to Anatolia. The place names are thus not the Russian cities but ancient ethnic groups firmly situated in the ancient Near Eastern geographical reality of the Hebrew Bible.

I want to talk about this fallacy a little bit. This shouldn't be earth-shaking, but I know a lot of people are exposed to well-meaning but really poor Bible teaching in this section, and just teaching about biblical languages in general that's really poor. The same set of sounds in one language that form a word do not equate to either the same word in another language or a word that sounds the same that has the same meaning as the first word. That's a little convoluted, so let me illustrate the point. Chin and chin in English and Chinese, respectively, don't mean the same thing. Even though they sound the same, they don't mean the same thing. So Rosh and Russia (even though they sound the same, or very similar) don't mean the same thing. Chin in English, of course, is (according to Webster) "the lower portion of the face underneath the lower lip and including the prominence of the lower jaw. In Chinese, chin means gold or metal or money—something bright. Completely different because they're different languages. The human mouth and tongue and lips and palate... You can only make so many sounds. Linguists will tell you there's thirty or so that you can make. Since every human being speaks, they have their own language and they're going to use the same set of sounds. But what they mean by the sounds that they articulate is not transferrable from one language to the next. You think, "Mike, who in the world would think that?" Trust me. Trust me. A lot of "Bible teachers" are making arguments like that in this passage. It's just absurd. It's absurd.

A couple of other ones. Kol in Hebrew and coal in English... guess what? They don't mean the same thing! Kol in Hebrew is a word that means all or every or whole. Coal, of course, in English is a black lump of rock. Bar in Aramaic is not the same as bar in English. Bar in Aramaic means “son.” Simon bar Jonah means "Simon, son of Jonah." Bar in English could be like an iron rod or a place where you drink alcohol. It just doesn't mean the same. I know it sounds ridiculous that I have to spend time explaining something that is so obvious, but what I'm telling is stuff you'll actually find—not just on the internet, in the wacky world of internet Bible study, but you'll find it in books. You'll find arguments in things that have been published—not just self-published stuff, but published by actual real publishers (not academic places, but they exist to publish books... You'll find this kind of stuff in them. It's utterly absurd. It's nonsense. They're just linguistic fallacies. I think I've been blunt to this point, but I'll be even more blunt, okay? And those of you who are out there listening, yes you can quote me. Show me someone who does exegesis by matching sounds between languages and then saying the words mean the same thing, and I'll show you someone who doesn't understand either exegesis or languages at all. There's just no merit to this approach. Now let's go back to the actual phrase, though, in Ezekiel 38 and 39 that some want to translate "prince of Rosh." The phrase is nesiʾ rōʾsh. Nesi’ is the word for "prince" and rōʾsh is another noun that can mean "head" or "chief" or something like that—some high status.

There are two options grammatically that can be defended according to the rules of Hebrew grammar for this phrase. Option number one is "Gog the prince, the chief." In other words, nesi’ and rōʾsh are functioning appositionally. They're two ways of talking about the same person: Gog, the prince, the chief of Meshech and Tubal. That's the one that people like Dan Block prefer. It has a lot of merit to it. I think it's the most straightforward way to go. It has a nice actual parallel (at least the parallel for the idea) in 1 Chronicles 7:40. In English it says:

40 All of these were men of Asher, heads of fathers' houses, approved, mighty warriors, chiefs of the princes. Their number enrolled by genealogies, for service in war...

So this idea of chiefs and princes are rank terms that have some relationship to each other. That might be the best way to understand this. Who is Gog? He's the chief, the prince. He's the prince and the chief of Meschech and Tubal. Rōʾsh there is not a place name in that option.

Rōʾsh is not a place name in option number two, either, because there was no place rōʾsh in the ancient world. You could translate it this way: "Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal." They're both nouns, but you would take one as functioning adjectivally. In this case, the word rōʾsh is chief prince. Rō’sh functions adjectivally in other places. There are places that refer to the high priest as kohen ha ha ro’sh. So rōʾsh, even though it's a noun, can function adjectivally very easily and very well and does so in the Hebrew Bible. So this is another good option: “Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.” And, of course, your first option was "Gog, the prince, the chief of Meshech and Tubal." Either one of those works according to the rules of Hebrew grammar. Rōʾsh is not a place name. Russia has nothing to do with this.

In my book, Reversing Hermon, I discuss how the Septuagint really is no help with any of this. I hesitated to even bring this into the episode because it may or may not translate well to audio. But I'm going to read this excerpt from Reversing Hermon just because I don't want anybody listening to this episode thinking, "Well, Mike, the answer here is the Septuagint! In the Septuagint, Russia is a place name... Gog is a giant,” and all this sort of stuff. Well, that isn't true. Even if you get Reversing Hermon and you read chapter 11 about the connections of the book of Revelation back to the Watchers story and back to the giants, there is a conceptual connection between the eschatological enemies (including the antichrist) to Gog and also to giants. That's valid, at least in terms that there were ancient Jews who thought in those terms. I give you all the data for that in the book. But it's not true to base that on the words of Ezekiel 38. I'm just going to read this, and you're going to see how confused the Septuagint translators were when it came to these names. I'm not blaming them and I'm not picking on them. Some of them might deserve a little criticism because they basically just change the text, but others are just confused and they make mistakes—they're human. That just happens. So here's what I wrote in part of that chapter of Reversing Hermon:

The Septuagint (LXX) translator of Ezekiel also misunderstood the grammatical limitations of nesiʾ rōʾsh, leading to several mistakes in translation.

In Num 24:7, part of the Balaam oracle, the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text reads, “[Jacob’s] king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.” The point is that Israel’s (eventual, Davidic) king will defeat the king of his enemies (in this case, a reference to Agag of the Amalekites in 1 Sam 15). But the Septuagint—created long after the days of Samuel and Agag—does something quite surprising with this passage. Instead of “than Agag” (Hebrew: mʾgg; mem, aleh, gimel, gimel) the Septuagint has “his kingdom shall be higher than Gog.” The effect is to transform the prophecy of Balaam into a remote, end times prophecy pitting Gog against the Davidic messiah, as opposed to an Israelite king having victory over Agag in the early days of Israel’s monarchy.

How are we to understand this dramatic difference between the traditional text and the Septuagint? The LXX translation is only textually explainable if the Hebrew text being used by the Septuagint translator read mgwg (mem, gimel, waw, gimel) instead of the Masoretic Text’s mʾgg (mem, aleh, gimel, gimel). However, it is more likely that the Septuagint translator may have been confused by mʾgg (mem, aleh, gimel, gimel) and invented “from Gog” as a translation solution.

The reason that confusion seems to be the best answer to the odd situation in Num 24:7 is that the Septuagint translator certainly blunders elsewhere with respect to Gog.

Again, the Septuagint was translated by more than one person so I'm not saying it's the same translator in the passages that I'm going to refer to next. But what it does show is that the people doing the Septuagint translation found the mem, aleph, gimel, gimel in Numbers 24:7 difficult to deal with. They didn't quite know what to do with it. And in other places they had problems.

Compare the traditional text with the Septuagint at the end of Amos 7:1:

Masoretic Text

This is what the Lord God showed me: behold, he was forming locusts when the latter growth was just beginning to sprout, and behold, it was the latter growth after the king’s mowings [grass clippings] (gzy; gimel, zayin, yod).

Septuagint

Thus the Lord showed me and behold, an early offspring of grasshoppers coming, and behold one locust larva, Gog (gwg; gimel, waw, gimel) the king.

It's just so different! Gog is gimel, waw, gimel. It would have to be a different text than the Masoretic Text. I referred to Johan Lust earlier in reference to his DDD article.

Lust notes in regard to this verse, “In Amos’ vision of the plague of locusts (7:1), the LXX translator read gwg (gwg; gimel, waw, gimel) for gzy (mowings; gzy; gimel, zayin, yod), focusing on Gog as the leader of a threatening army represented as a swarm of locusts.” It’s very hard to follow the logic of the Septuagint translator. The waters get muddied a bit more when we discover that the Septuagint translator arbitrarily transforms Og of Bashan in Deut 3:1, 13 and 4:47 to “Gog” in his translation. [MH: The Septuagint translator just adds a letter and changes the word!] Even more confusing is the fact that at least one Septuagint manuscript does the reverse—swapping in Og for Gog in Ezekiel 38:2.

So in one passage Og becomes Gog and in another passage Gog becomes Og in the Septuagint. This is the kind of thing I'm referring to that you look at it and you go, "You know what? They just didn't know what to do with this." It's just confusion.

One certainty arises out of this messiness: at least some Second Temple Jews were comfortable associating Gog with the giant of Bashan/Hermon and the great eschatological enemy. The question is why?

So at least a handful of Jewish people were writers. And, of course, their readers are going to be influenced by what they write. But some of them were comfortable mixing all that stuff. The question is, why? Why did they feel that was okay, or why did they feel that made sense? I address this in Unseen Realm a little bit, but I'm going to continue reading in Reversing Hermon as to why this is. This is going to lead us to the end of this episode and transition to the next one.

The real answer here, I think… The reason why the Septuagint translators weren't bothered by how they were fiddling with the text was because Gog for them was an enemy of the mythological—the mythic north. They were taking north not just as a reference to geography—not just something "up there" geographically—but they associated the northern location in earthly geography with the dominion of Baal, with the dominion of darkness and with dark powers cosmically. So we leave literal geography and we go to cosmic geography. That's what we mean by "mythic geography," something that's supernatural in focus. If you think that way, then you are in the territory of Baal and Mount Hermon and the Watchers and the giants. So they were thinking on these terms and there were good reasons (not just contrived reasons) why they were thinking on these terms. They may have fiddled with the names Og and Gog in different passages or just not known what to do with them, but they were doing it because other things that are actually in the biblical text sort of legitimized it for them. Now, what am I talking about here? In Reversing Hermon I have a little section on Gog and the mythic supernatural north.

In terms of physical geography, the region of Bashan constituted the northern limits of the Promised Land. Biblical people of course knew there were enemy cities and peoples beyond Hermon. It is of no small consequence that when enemies from these northern regions invaded the land of Israel they came “from the north.” The physical north, therefore, was associated with the terror of tyrants bent on Israel’s destruction. [MH Israel got invaded from the north all the time. It was a scary thing.]

The “tyrant from the north” factor is one of the reasons why Antiochus IV has become the prototype for the final end times antichrist. Antiochus IV, whose violent career tracks closely with events of Daniel 8-11, was ruler of Seleucid Syria, just north of Bashan. It was he who invaded Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period, forced Jewish priests to sacrifice unclean animals on the temple altar, and saw himself as an exalted deity. It is therefore understandable that a figure like Gog, the invader from “the uttermost parts of the north” (Ezek. 38:6, 15; 39:2) is viewed by scholars as a foreshadowing of Antiochus.

Antiochus comes later than Ezekiel's time. Antiochus comes in the period between the testaments. So when Antiochus shows up and does what he does, it naturally would have made people think of Gog, because Antiochus came from the north and did all these awful things.

But these observations merely scratch the surface. There’s much more to see. As readers will recall, Bashan was the land of the Rephaim, the region associated with gateways to the realm of the dead, and home to the city of Dan, the central cultic site for the worship of Baal, the lord of the Underworld. The foot of Mount Hermon overlapped the northern boundary of the region of Bashan. As I wrote in The Unseen Realm [MH: So here I put a little Unseen Realm into Reversing Hermon]:

The word “north” in Hebrew is tsaphon (or zaphon in some transliterations). It refers to one of the common directional points. But because of what Israelites believed lurked in the north, the word came to signify something otherworldly. The most obvious example is Bashan. We’ve devoted a good deal of attention to the connection of that place with the realm of the dead and with giant clan populations like the Rephaim, whose ancestry was considered to derive from enemy divine beings. Bashan was also associated with Mount Hermon, the place where, in Jewish theology, the rebellious sons of God of Genesis 6 infamy descended to commit their act of treason. But there was something beyond Bashan—farther north—that every Israelite associated with other gods hostile to Yahweh. Places like Sidon, Tyre, and Ugarit lay beyond Israel’s northern border. The worship of Baal was central in these places… Specifically, Baal’s home was a mountain, now known as Jebel al-Aqraʿ, situated to the north of Ugarit. In ancient times it was simply known as Tsaphon (“north”; Tsapanu in Ugaritic). It was a divine mountain, the place where Baal held council as he ruled the gods of the Canaanite pantheon. Baal’s palace was thought to be on “the heights of Tsapanu/Zaphon.” . . . In Ugaritic texts, Baal is “lord of Zaphon” (baʿal tsapanu). He is also called a “prince” (zbl in Ugaritic). Another of Baal’s titles is “prince, lord of the underworld” (zbl baʿal ʾarts). . . . It is no surprise that zbl baʿal becomes Baal Zebul (Beelzebul) and Baal Zebub, titles associated with Satan in later Jewish literature and the New Testament.

Back to Reversing Hermon:

An ancient reader would therefore not only have feared the north because of the threat of invading tyranny, but for supernatural-theological reasons. This is the conceptual grid through which Gog of Magog must be understood.

The failure to find any secure historical referent for Gog and the fact that the “far north” from which Gog hailed was so clearly associated with dark supernatural powers has led many scholars to consider Gog as a supernatural terror [MH: instead of a historical person]. This trajectory is in fact more coherent.

Several scholars have proposed that Gog could be viewed as a personification of darkness, based on the meaning of the Sumerian gûg (“darkness”). This view has found little acceptance, but its detractors have offered next to nothing in the way of evidence for rebuttal. A supernatural figure of darkness actually comports well with Rev 20:7-10, which mentions Gog and Magog along with Satan and human armies arrayed against Jerusalem (the “holy city”).

Kooste, osio 1

5 keskeistä kohtaa:

Maantieteelliset viitteet Hes. 38-39 ovat selvät. Siinä ei esiinny tämän päivän Venäjä. Kaikki paikan, alueen, nimet löytyvät Anatoliasta - muinaisesta Vähä-Aasiasta - Kreikan saariin. Alueet ovat siis Kreikan saaret ja nykyinen Turkki.

Ro’sh ei ole paikan nimi. Tämä kappale ei ole Venäjästä. Antiikissa ei ollut paikkaa nimeltä Ro’sh.

Koska kaikki paikan, alueen, nimet ovat pohjoisesta, Googin hyökkäys on parhaiten ymmärrettävissä kosmisena hyökkäyksenä. Se olisi yhdistetty pimeisiin voimiin ja hyökkääjiin, jotka olivat uhka, koska yliluonnolliset pahan voimat voimaannuttivat heidät.

Tulemme seuraavassa osiossa näkemään, että tällä tavoin Johannes Ilmestyskirjassaan ja toisen temppeliajan kirjoittajat ymmärsivät nämä Raamatun kohdat. Ihmisten joukot “pahasta paikasta” - maantieteellisesti pohjoisesta, joka oli yliluonnollisten voimien hallinnan alaisuudessa, joka oli kosminen pohjoinen - ne olivat vihollisia. Paikka, josta he tulivat, oli Baalin, kuolleitten herran, joka oli Saatana, vallassa, herruudessa.

Tämän johdosta on harhaanjohtavaa katsoa Googia jonkin erityisen nykyaikaisen poliittisen kokonaisuuden kautta. Ajatuksena on Saatanan voimaannuttama uhka, joka etsii (tavoittelee) Jahven perintöomaisuutta (Jerusalem ja Siion) omakseen, hänen jumalalleen, joka on Saatana - huolimatta siitä, tunnistaako kyseinen hahmo tämän tai ei.