Who are Gog and Magog in the book of Ezekiel?

After reading this short article consider taking a look at the following resources:

           The identity of גּוֹג֙ and מָּג֔וֹג in the visions of the prophet Ezekiel has been for centuries the target of much speculation and uncertainty. Scholars have proposed the most different positions concerning this mysterious character of Ezekiel’s prophecy and this lack of consensus indicates how difficult and delicate the task is.

            In order to establish the identity of Gog, affirms Block, “we are dependent entirely on this oracle.”[1] There is no mention of Gog and as a historical character in the OT. Attempts have been made to associate Gog with Gyges, the king of Lydia. Given the association of Gog with Meshech, Tubal and other parts of the region of Anatolia (supposedly Magog), Alan Millard affirms that: “There is no reason to doubt, therefore, that Gog and Magog in Ezek 38-39 are the King Gyges of Lydia and his realm.”[2] On the other hand, this association does not seem to fit neither history nor the character of Gog in the oracle. The prophecy describes Gog and his associates as a threat to the restored people of Israel; on the other hand there is no historical proof that Gyges or any prince from the region of Lydia has ever made any attempt against Israel after its restoration from Babylonian captivity. It might be argued that the association of Gog with Gyges was only illustrative and not literal. But even so the association is still inadequate given that Gog and his horde is described as a massive invincible super-power while Gyges was utterly defeated by the Assyrians. The historical Gyges does not represent the fearful Gog. According to Iain Duguid, “Gog of Ezekiel transcends historical categories and takes on mythical proportions, rather like the figure of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie The Terminator.”[3]

            Given the unique characteristics of Gog, Fairbairn seems to be right when he said that it is an “ideal name” and not a real person[4]. Block reinforces the old Scottish theologian affirming that the “combination of mystery and brutality made Gog and his confederates perfect symbols of the archetypal enemy, rising against God and his people.”[5] But who is this enemy? The answer lies in the redemptive-historical reading of the prophecy. Robertson wisely notes that “the names of the nations attacking Israel derive from the ancient table of nation in Genesis 10.”[6] Noah’s blessings to Shem and curses to Canaan were carrying over the enmity between the seed of the woman and the serpent (Gen. 3:15), between the sons of Seth and the sons of Cain (Gen. 5) and between the sons of God and the sons of man (Gen. 6). Gog, therefore, represents the archenemy of God and his people, Satan, along with all his allies (Magog) doing what he has been doing since creation: assaulting God’s children.

            There are other factors in the oracle which supports this biblical-theological reading. First, David is the king of the restored people, resurrected by God in Ezekiel 37, since David has been dead for quite some time when Ezekiel revealed this oracle to Israel, it is reasonable to assume that this new David is the Messiah. As Fairbairn says, “the new David, the all perfect and continually-abiding Shepherd, presides over them, and at once prevents the outbreaking of internal disorders, and shields them from the attacks of hostile neighbors.”[7] Therefore, while ultimately Gog’s war is against Yahweh, the oracle depicts the battle between Satan and the Messiah.

Second, the presence of elements of eschatological proportions (seven nations representing the totality of peoples of the earth, their scattered geographic location representing the whole world) forces the attentive reader to consider the redemptive-historical character of the prophecy. The gory description of the final battle and its unrealistic high number of dead soldiers along with the presence of a cataclysmic earthquake links this prophecy with others known passages in Scripture which are widely recognized as eschatological. The earthquake is found in Isaiah 29:6 and in Joel 3:16 and the great final battle engaged against an ideal enemy is found in Numbers 24:17-24, Isaiah 14:28-32, Joel 3 and Daniel 2:44-45. In fact, the prophecy itself issues a rhetorical question from Yahweh which demands an affirmative response (Ezek. 38:17) linking this conflict with Gog with the other prophecies from the past. Fairbairn writes: “It (the prophecy) appeared now only in a new form, but the thing in itself had been many times described by God’s servants.”[8]

Third, this eschatological battle finds its fulfillment in the Day of Judgment as revealed in Revelations 19-21. That John intended these chapters to depict the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy is clear from the similarities between the final vision of Ezekiel (chapters 37-48) and the celestial Jerusalem (chapters 20-21)[9]. The presence of Gog and Magog, the infinity number of nations (“as the sand of the sea”) associated with Gog, their destruction by fire before they can do any harm to the saints, all these elements follow the prophecy of Ezekiel and depicts it as being fulfilled here.

Given these reasons it seems extremely unwise to try to locate Gog and Magog in the history of human kind in any place else except in the return of Christ. Against fellow brothers who associated this super-villain with the Goths (Augustine), the Turks (Luther), or the communist Soviet empire (dispensationalists), we affirm that Gog and Magog are a figurative representation of Satan as his allies who strived against the Messiah and were utterly defeated and will be totally destroyed in the day when Yahweh will judge all.

Among many practical applications from this great battle, Christian should be encouraged by at least two. First, the absolute and sovereign control that Jehovah possess over the forces of darkness. It is God who raised them for He himself predicted their coming. It is God also who restring their attack and control them in all that they do. And it is God who finally brings them to complete destruction. All these things should bring Christians courage to fight their battles and dependence on God knowing that only in Him they can overcome the enemy of their souls. Second, it also give Christians great assurance that nothing can take away from them the harmonious fellowship and peaceful relationship they have now with Yahweh in Christ. With Paul, they can be sure that nothing can separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:31-39). According to Christopher Wright: “the destruction of Gog as the final great enemy of Israel and Yahweh thus stands as ultimate reassurance to God’s people that their future is secure, No enemy will disturb the peach of god’s people in God’s earth ever again.”[10]

---

[1] Daniel Isaac Block, The Book of Ezekiel, The New international commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1997), 432.

[2] New International Dict of OT Theology & Exegesis. Pradis CD-ROM:Topical Dictionary/G/Gog and Magog.

[3] Iain M Duguid, Ezekiel, NIV application commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1999), 447.

[4] Patrick Fairbairn, Commentary on Ezekiel (Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Publications, 1989), 429-430.

[5] Block, The Book of Ezekiel, 436.

[6] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets (Phillipsburg, N.J: P & R Pub, 2004), 307.

[7] Fairbairn, Commentary on Ezekiel, 434.

[8] Ibid., 425N3.

[9] Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2007). 1145.

[10] Christopher J. H Wright, The Message of Ezekiel: A New Heart and a New Spirit, The Bible speaks today (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 317.

Preaching from Genealogies

It is often hard to preach from genealogies and preachers generally skip  them. But Rev. Marty Martin from Fellowship Presbyterian Church (who happens to be my pastor) did an magnificent job last Sunday on the genealogy of our Saviour registered in the Gospel of Matthew.

Here is the sermon:



Check as well this suggestions on the subject:

Does Psalm 150 allow worshiping God with dancing?

            Psalm 150 is part of the last collection of Hallel psalms in the Hebrew Psalter. This last collection starts in Psalm 146 and some theologians have notice a progression in this five psalms of the theme halelu yah (Praise Yahweh) in which the worship of God starts in the individual (Psalm 146), extends to the community (Psalm 147), until it encloses the whole creation (Psalm 150).[1] If this progression is questionable, the generalized imperative to the whole body of creation (celestial or earthly beings, live or lifeless entities, rational and irrational beings, Israel and other nations, all kinds of musical instruments) to worship its Creator is not.

1. Does it speak of dancing in this Psalm?

            The word מָח֑וֹל appears seven times in the Hebrew Bible: one time as a proper name[2], three times it is contrasted with the word “mourning” (מִסְפֵּד or אֵבֶל)[3], one time with the word שָׂחַק[4], and two times with the musical instrument תֹּף.[5]

English translations in their great majority translated מָח֑וֹל as “dancing”. This is also the position of the most known commentaries on the book of Psalms. The NIDOTTE associates this word etymologically to the root חול which means “to perform a whirling dance”.[6] In spite of affirming the possibility that in Psalm 149 and 150 the word may denote the idea of musical instrument, this meaning is not fruit of the original meaning of the word itself (in other words, of its root) but is consequence of a figurative usage (synecdoche). The enhanced edition of BDB also affirms the root of מָח֑וֹל as חול and, thus, its meaning as “dancing”. It seems that this root association was influence by an article written in 1981 by M. I. Gruber.[7] On the other hand, Gruber seems to have been influenced yet by another scholar. Julian Morgenstern, professor in the Hebrew Union College, wrote an article in 1916 in which he also affirmed that מָח֑וֹל was a development of חול.[8] If all this sources are correct and no doubt can be raised concerning the relationship between root and derivative word, then one is stuck with the rendering of מָח֑וֹל as “dancing”.

But among all the commentaries consulted in the composition of this paper one alone mentioned an alternative root for מָח֑וֹל. On Calvin’s commentaries on Psalm 149 there is a footnote, certainly not from Calvin[9], which affirms that the root of מָח֑וֹל is the Hebrew חל which means, to make a hole or opening.[10] According to someone named Parkhurst[11], the translation of מָח֑וֹל to English should be “some fistular wind instrument of music, with holes, as a flute, pipe, of fife”. The footnote also mentions the observation made on the translation on the word מָח֑וֹל by the Methodist Rev. Dr. Adam Clark who said: “I know of no place in the Bible that מחוֹל, mechol, or מחלת, mechalatah, mean dance of any kind; they constantly mean some kind of pipe.”[12] It is important to remark, although, that I could not find the root חל in modern lexicons.

In 1894 this position on the root and meaning of מחוֹל as a musical instrument was still prevalent. The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, published in that same year, in its sixth volume, pages 763 to 773, presents a well researched article on music instruments in the Bible in which it asserts that “the word ‘dance’ is used in the AV for the Hebrew term machol, מחוֹל, a musical instrument of percussion supposed to have been used by the Hebrews at an early period of their history.”[13] The article also indicates the changing in meaning of the word mentioning “some modern lexicographers who regard machol as synonymous with rakod (Eccles. iii, 4), restrict its meaning to the exercise or amusement of dancing.”[14] In spite of the arising controversy, it reinforced its main proposition of מחוֹל being a musical instrument by recurring to the Semitic and Arabic[15] versions of the Old Testament and the Targumists rendering of that word. Among scholars, in addition to Dr. Adam Clarke and Parkhurst, it finds support in Rosenmuller who “in his commentary on Exod. xv, 20, observes that, on comparing the passages of Judg. xi, 34; 1 Sam. xviii, 6; and Jer. xxxi, 4, and assigning a rational exegesis to their context, machol must mean in these instances some musical instrument, probably of the flute kind, and principally played on by women.”[16] Another scholar mentioned in the article is Joel Brill, who wrote a preface to Mendelssohn’s Psalms, who comments precisely on Psalm 150 and affirms of it that “it is evident from the passage, “Praise him with the toph and the machol,’ that machol must mean here some musical instrument, and this is the opinion of the majority of scholars.”[17]

Therefore, given the existence of a different translation for the word מחוֹל, especially one that fits perfectly with the context of Psalm 150, it seems appropriate to affirm that this psalm is not refereeing to the activity of dancing but to another musical instrument that along with all other indisputable instruments mentioned in the pericope must be employed in the praise of Jehovah.[18] The necessity remains now of an investigation to discover why in around 22 years this meaning of machol was so neglected and rejected to the point that modern lexicons do not even mention it as a usage once employed. I suspect that at some point in the history of the study of Biblical Hebrew language, given the difficulty of the word, scholars simply embraced the meaning by the Septuagint to מחוֹל without asking too many questions. Gesenius seems to have adopted this position.[19] Another possibility is the imposition of a synonymity between מחוֹל and x, in Ecclesiastes 3:4, restricting the meaning of the former to the “exercise or amusement of dancing.”[20]

---

[1] Geoffrey Grogan, Psalms – Two Horizons Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 225.

[2] I Kings 5:11.

[3] Psalm 30:12, Jeremiah 31:13, Lamentations 5:15.

[4] Jeremiah 31:4.

[5] Psalm 149:3, Psalm 150:4.

[6] New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Pradis CDROM.

[7] M. I. Gruber, “Ten Dance-Derived Expressions in the Hebrew Bible,” Bib 62, 1981, 320-346. The text in the NIDOTTE affirms that it owes its definition of the root חול to him.

[8] J. Morgenstern, “The Etymological History of the Three Hebrew Synonyms for ‘to Dance,’ HGG, HLL, KRR, and their Cultural Significance,” JAOS 36, 1916, 321.

[9] On his commentary on Psalm 150, Calvin seems very secure in understanding the Hebrew words on verses 3 to 5 as instruments used in the praise of the Lord. Yet he affirms “I do not insist upon the words in the Hebrew signifying the music instruments.”

[10] John Calvin, Commentary on the book of Psalms, Vol. 2, Ages Software.

[11] In spite of all my efforts, I could not find anywhere who is this person.

[12] John Calvin, Psalms, Vol. 2, Ages Software.

[13] John M’Clintock and James Strong, The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6 (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1894), 772.

[14] Ibid., 772.

[15] The Arabic equivalent for the Hebrew מחוֹל refers to a drum with either one or two faces, not to a flute or pipe.

[16] M’Clintock and Strong, The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, 773.

[17] Ibid., 773.

[18] The most literal translations of Psalm 149 and 150 in the Portuguese language render מחוֹל as flute and also favor this position.

[19] Ibid., 773.

[20] Ibid., 772.