The Presentation of Ezekiel 38 in Evangelism (Concluded)
The most difficult question remains to be considered. Is this phrase in Ezekiel 38:2 correctly translated "chief prince"? Should nesi' ro'sh be rendered "chief prince" of Meshech and Tubal or should it be translated "prince of Rosh"?
The most difficult question remains to be considered. Is this phrase in Ezekiel 38:2 correctly translated "chief prince"? Should nesi' ro'sh be rendered "chief prince" of Meshech and Tubal or should it be translated "prince of Rosh"?
Now the facts of the translation of the Hebrew word ro'sh are these. The word ro'sh occurs some 599 times in the Old Testament, with the meaning of "head" primarily, but it is also translated "chief," "first," "top" (top of a mountain), et cetera. If it is truly a proper name here in Ezekiel 38:2, that would be the only time of the 599 that it would appear as a proper name other than the one occurrence in Genesis 46:21, where "Rosh" is listed as a son of Benjamin.
It must be admitted that there are problems in Bible translation as to whether a certain Hebrew word is a name or a title. For example, the King James Version has "Tartan" as a proper name (Isa. 20:1). Later studies in Assyriology show that this was a title of persons holding certain offices in the Assyrian empire, and should be rendered "the turtiinu," as in the Assyrian records. Also, there are many other places where a word or expression may occur so infrequently that there is a question as to whether it should be translated as a proper name or as a common noun or as a title of some sort. For example, the expression translated "an heifer of three years old" in the King James Version is rendered as the name "Eglath-shelishiyah" in the R.S.V. (Isa. 15:5). However, this difficult situation is not true regarding the Hebrew word ro'sh.
Actually, when one analyzes the situation in Ezekiel, whether the word ro'sh, "head," should be translated "chief" or transliterated "Rosh" as a proper name as in the Septuagint and some later versions, there is really no identification possible with Russia, ancient or modern. All the evidence must be examined carefully as to which is preferable, "chief prince" or "prince of Rosh."
In the first place, all the other peoples or countries mentioned in Ezekiel 38 are elsewhere mentioned in the Old Testament. It has been previously noted that ten out of eleven of them are actual sons, grandsons, or great-grandsons of either Japheth or Ham. Second, no nation contemporary with Tubal, Meshech, et cetera, that can plausibly be identified as "Rosh" is known in secular history. Third, the syntactical structure of the text, though somewhat unusual, is just what it would have to be to properly express in the construct state in Hebrew a -nomen regens in the singular followed by a compound nomen rectum. The verse is somewhat difficult syntactically, but not from this standpoint; the chief difficulty lies in the use of the definite article with the proper name Magog (a usage that occurs in Hebrew, but not commonly). A slight change of the Masoretic vocalization gives the reading "a prince, the chief [one] of Meshech and Tubal." In context, this is probably as good a solution as can be offered.
Next, one should consider what follows, as found in Ezekiel 38:4, 8. "And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords." "After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them."
According to these references the plan of the confederacy of heathen nations, though apparently deferred for a time, would finally be consummated in an attack against Israel. Israel is pictured as having been brought out of the heathen nations and dwelling peacefully, safely, and prosperously. In the light of God's plan for Israel, and the conditional aspects of Israel in Bible prophecy, it can be understood that at some time after the Babylonian exile, Israel would have -been- blessed by God, and would have incited the jealousy of the heathen nations. The picture presented here in Ezekiel 3g is that these nadons would all band 'together to take away from Israel her, city, her land, and her property, and along with that, they would plan to destroy God's people.
In a similar usage the apostle John uses the names "Gog" and "Magog" to represent the hosts of heathen that will gather after the thousand years (Rev. 20:8). Thus, what might have occurred with literal Israel, as a nation, as God's people, will ultimately, in broad outline, be fulfilled in the final struggle between good and evil. Possibly John uses "Gog" and "Magog" somewhat poetically as symbolic of all the wicked host that will be deceived by Satan as used in Ezekiel, being a chief prince of these nations would represent the individuals, and "Magog," as used by Ezekiel, being the chief nation in the confederacy against Israel, would be used by John to represent the various nations who will be gathered to fight against the New Jerusalem.
They too, as presented in Revelation, will fight against God's people and God's city, until fire from heaven devours them (Rev. 20:9). Compare that with Ezekiel 38:22 and see what would have happened to the confederacy led by Gog, with Magog being the chief nation; will plead [contend] against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone." The close parallel to Revelation 20:9 is obvious (compare Rev. 16:21).
Next it would be well to examine Ezekiel 38:16. "And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, 0 Gog, before their eyes." Next consider what is said in verse 11: "And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates." Here is depicted some of what the Lord planned and intended for Israel. The Lord was to be a wall to the cities of restored Israel, a protection about them, as well as Himself providing the armies of the nation. "And said unto him, Run, speak to this young man, saying, Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls for the multitude of men and cattle therein: for I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her" (Zech. 2:4, 5). According to the Lord's plan, this would have been the protection for the city. The evil confederacy of the heathen or Gentile nations is represented as saying in effect (Eze. 38:11), "Let us capture this place that is without walls, where the people are dwelling safely—a place that we can capture easily."
Significantly perhaps there is only one Spirit of Prophecy reference listed in The SDA Bible Commentary for chapters 3742 of Ezekiel, and it is not a direct quotation from the verse listed, Ezekiel 38:22. Because there is only one listed, it may be worthwhile to quote it. The context will be recognized immediately. "At His own will, God summons the forces of nature to overthrow the might of His enemies,—`fire and hail, snow and vapors, stormy wind fulfilling his word.' When the heathen Amorites had set themselves to resist His purposes, God interposed, casting down 'great stones from heaven' upon the enemies of Israel. We are told of a greater battle to take place in the closing scenes of earth's history, when 'Jehovah hath opened his armory, and hath brought forth the weapons of his indignation.' Hast thou,' He inquires, 'entered into the treasures of the snow or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?' "—Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 509. Notice that this is not a quotation of Ezekiel 38:22 but is referred to it by some indexers of the Spirit of Prophecy writings.
No study of Ezekiel 38 would be complete without a quick resume of chapter 39. The first verse of the latter plainly introduces a continuation of the narrative of chapter 38. Verses 1 to 7 depict the defeat of Gog and Magog. Following the death of the invading hosts, Israel went out and gathered in such a great amount of weapons that they used them for firewood (verses 8-10). The hosts of the armies of Gog and Magog slain by the Lord were so great that Israel would not have needed to chop any wood for some seven years (verse 9). Then the burial of the fallen hosts is described in verses 11 to 16.
Now this is what might have been. The details do not fit in with the pattern of Revelation 20, because the Revelator depicts the final eschatological destruction of the wicked, when they will be completely consumed by fire. In this description by Ezekiel apparently not all the wicked were to be involved, but rather just this particular host of Gog and Magog. These particular armies that had the audacity to come up and fight against the people of God would be slain, and it would take some time to bury them. It would take such a long time, and there would be so many of them, that they would call the name of the place where they were buried "the valley of Hamon-gog" (verse 15), meaning "the valley of the multitude of Gog." The burial traffic would be so great that it is mentioned as stopping normal traffic on the road to the valley of slaughter. The time or lapse of time implied in the Hebrew by the expression "in that day" (verse 11) is not significant—it simply is used to refer to something that occurs subsequently, the next thing in the prophetic picture.
At that time the beasts and birds are invited to come and eat the flesh of the fallen hosts (verses 17-22). Burial is not quick enough but that there would be some food from the corpses for the animals and birds of prey. This parallels very closely Revelation 19:17, 18: "And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, . . . both free and bond, both small and great." This passage in Revelation 19 is applicable to the beginning of the thousand years, and Revelation 20:9, the fighting of Gog and Magog, applies to the end of the thousand years.
This fact possibly indicates that in the entire prophecy of chapters 38 and 39 the prophet is not so much concerned as to whether it would take place at the beginning of the thousand years or at the end of the thousand years, but rather is presenting an eschatological picture of something that would happen at the end of time. Thus Ezekiel 39 closes by depicting God's final purpose for Israel (verses 23-29).
Perhaps it is too much to expect all of our evangelists to see this subject alike. However, the message of these chapters of Ezekiel may be understood somewhat more clearly in the light of what might have been for Israel. How, then, can an evangelist present the subject to our people, including both what is now taking place in these momentous days of earth's history and what will occur in the future? How can it be presented evangelistically to the public? Should one refrain completely from mentioning Russia? That is rather difficult, is it not? It is hard to ignore the subject of Russia while other evangelists advertise titles such as "Russia in Bible Prophecy" and "Will Russia Rule the World?" How can we present some of these topics and still remain on a solid base of Biblical exegesis?
Here are some suggestions that may be of value in our evangelistic presentations:
- It is often well to ask questions in advertising rather than to make statements. If one advertises "Russia in Bible Prophecy," he might have little worth-while material to present. But one could advertise "Is Russia in Bible Prophecy?" and the latter title would probably draw just as large a crowd as the former.
- The interest of the audience may be sustained by citing what others have said on this subject. One may say, "Evangelist Blank has said thus and thus"; then the evangelist can turn to the Word of God and give his own presentation.
- Be firm in sticking to supportable facts and stating as facts only those things for which there is ample Biblical or historical evidence.
- The general subject "Is Russia in Bible Prophecy?" or its equivalent can be utilized by transferring the interest of the audience to the greater prophetic picture. For example, one could well say, "Hitler loomed large in world affairs, and now he is off the scene of action. Granted, Russia now looms large, but it too may pass. However, Satan will never cease his opposition to God's work on earth until the great controversy is over."
- One can quickly minimize the sensational and uncertain by using it as an introduction and a transition to a solid Bible doctrine. This general subject could be used to introduce many different topics. Just one example: The evangelist could point out that just as ancient Babylon was the enemy of God's people, ancient Israel, and just as now it is spiritual Babylon that is the enemy of God's church on earth, so spiritual Gog and Magog (as depicted in Revelation 20:8) will oppose the Redeemer at the close of the one thousand years. Then the evangelist can launch right in and present the subject of the millennium. It is not difficult to see how one can use the subject "Is Russia in Bible Prophecy?" as a launching pad, so to speak, for many another Bible subject.
- To my mind, the most important thing in evangelistic presentation is to stick to supportable Bible facts and sound exegesis. The final suggestion I consider the second most important. That is, one should never let the audience feel that one's advertising claims have not been lived up to. Don't let the people go away empty. If this whole subject is introduced as a question, the evangelist can answer that question by either Yes or No, of course, furnishing Bible proof for his answer.
There can be no dogmatism in studying a difficult subject of this kind, but perhaps a careful consideration of the above suggestions will aid all of us in presenting a more sound doctrine and a more unified message in the future.