Gog … – <\/B>Gog of the land of Magog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. Gog is here the name of a captain from the land of Magog (compare Gen 10:2<\/span>) the name of a people of the north, placed between Gomer (the Cimmerians) and Madai (the Medes). In the History of Assurbanipal from cuneiform inscriptions, a chief of the Saka (Scythians), called Ga<\/I>–a<\/I>–gi<\/I>, is identified by some with Gog. Rosh, if a proper name, occurs in this connection only.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 2<\/span>. Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog<\/B><\/I>] This is allowed to be the most difficult prophecy in the Old Testament. It is difficult to us, because we know not the king<\/I> nor people<\/I> intended by it: but I am satisfied they were well known by these names in the time that the prophet wrote.<\/P> <\/P> I have already remarked in the introduction<\/I> Eze 1:1<\/span> to this book that there are but two<\/I> opinions on this subject that appear to be at all probable:<\/P> 1. That which makes GOG Cambyses<\/I>, king of Persia<\/I>; and,<\/P> 2. That which makes him ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES, king of Syria<\/I>.<\/P> And between these two<\/I> (for one or other is supposed to be the person intended) men are much divided.<\/P> <\/P> Calmet<\/I>, one of the most judicious commentators that ever wrote on the Bible, declares for Cambyses<\/I>; and supports his opinion, in opposition to all others, by many arguments.<\/P> <\/P> Mr. Mede<\/I> supposes the Americans<\/I> are meant who were originally colonies of the Scythians, who were descendants of Magog<\/I>, son of Japheth<\/I>. Houbigant<\/I> declares for the Scythians<\/I>, whose neighbours were the people of Rosh, Meshech<\/I>, and Tubal<\/I>, that is the Russians,<\/I> Muscovites<\/I>, and Tybareni<\/I> or Cappadocians<\/I>. Several eminent critics espouse this opinion. Rabbi David Kimchi<\/I> says the Christians<\/I> and Turks<\/I> are meant: and of later opinions there are several, founded in the ocean of conjecture. Calmet<\/I> says expressly, that GOG is Cambyses<\/I>, king of Persia, who on his return from the land of Egypt, died in Judea. The Rev. David Martin<\/I>, pastor of the Waloon church at Utrecht, concludes, after examining all previous opinions, that Antiochus Epiphanes<\/I>, the great enemy of the Israelites, is alone intended here; and that Gog<\/I>, which signifies covered<\/I>, is an allusion to the well-known character<\/I> of Antiochus, whom historians describe as an artful, cunning<\/I>, and dissembling<\/I> man. See Da 8:23<\/span>; Da 8:25<\/span>; Da 11:23<\/span>; Da 11:27<\/span>; Da 11:32<\/span>. Magog<\/I> he supposes to mean the country of Syria<\/I>. Of this opinion the following quotation from Pliny<\/I>, Hist. Nat., lib. v., c. 23, seems a proof; who, speaking of Coele-Syria, says: Coele habet Apamiam Marsyia amne divisam a Nazarinorum Tetrarchia. Bambycem quam alio nomine Hierapolis vocatur, Syris vero Magog. “Coele-Syria has Apamia separated from the tetrarchy of the Nazarenes by the river Marsyia; and Bambyce, otherwise called Hierapolis; but by the Syrians, MAGOG.”<\/P> <\/P> I shall at present examine the text by this latter opinion.<\/P> <\/P> Chief prince of Meshech and Tubal<\/B><\/I>] These probably mean the auxiliary forces, over whom Antiochus was supreme; they were the Muscovites<\/I> and Cappadocians<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Since the two former chapters had assured so great and wonderful blessings to the Jews, after the return out of Babylon, and the gathering them together in their own land; it is more than probable the Jews would expect a full accomplishment of all these things quickly after their return, and if troubles should, as they did, intervene, and prove long, would be discouraged, and quarrel with Providence; God doth in this 38th and the 39th chapters forewarn them, by telling what enemies and troubles would interpose themselves, to the great losses and dangers of the Jews, ere they should overcome them, and God should fully and finally deliver them. <\/P> Set thy face against:<\/B> see Eze 20:46<\/span>; 21:2<\/span>; 25:2<\/span>. <\/P> Gog:<\/B> this cannot be one single person, or one only prince, though like enough it points out some one by whom the troubles foretold were begun, yet the successors of this one, whoever he was, are included and designed by this Gog; nor is he to be limited to one certain nation that he was king of, nor yet confined to one age, or (it may be) to two or three. Some will fix the beginnings of this Gog among the Seleucidae, and take in the others who divided the Grecian empire among themselves, and who did much hurt to the Jews. The history of which in part you meet with in the Books of the Maccabees. But if we must account why these are called Gog, perhaps this may suffice: Gyges, who gave name to the land, predecessor to Creesus, (for he was grandson to Gyges,) was conquered by Cyrus, and deprived of the kingdom; and this was made and continued tributary to the Persians, till taken from them by the Grecians; and when that kingdom was divided, it fell among the successors of Alexander in Seleucuss line, and so the Seleucid may, not without some ground, be thought pointed at by Gog, whose country fell into the hand of Seleucus by the successes he had against Antigonus. And of all the Seleucidae, the sixth from Seleucus stands fairest for it; this was Antiochus Epiphanes, type of antichrist, and a fierce enemy of the Jews. Others judge this war, in which Gog is prince and leader, refers to times much later, and there are several particulars that do not well suit with the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. They will therefore rather refer it to some Scythian king or kings, and that the time is still to come wherein this prophecy is to be fulfilled; and that it must intend those enemies of Gods church who descended from the Scythians, and are now masters of Cappadocia, Iberia, Armenia, or are in confederacy with the Tartars, and those northern heathens. Now the arms and equipage here mentioned well suit with these Scythians, and they with the Turks, as like to make up part of this army. But others think that all the enemies of Israel in all quarters, both open and secret enemies, are here intended, and that the antichristian forces and combinations are what the prophet foretells; and if from a conjunction of affairs now, or lately on foot in the world, we might make our guess, the invasions of the Turks on one side, and the contrivance of others on this side Christendom, to extirpate the northern heresy, as some have called our religion, we might be excused, if we err, saying, The Constantinopolitan antichrist, and the Roman antichrist, with all their associates and helpers, are this Gog. <\/P> Magog<\/B> is at least part of Scythia, and comprehends Syria, in which was Hierapolis, taken by the Scythians, and called of them Scythopolis. It is then that country which now is in subjection to the Turks, and may be extended through Asia Minor, the countries of Sarmatia, &c., from those parts under more than one in succession of time, and in the last times under some one particular active, undertaking, and daring prince, enemy of Israel; all their power will be stirred up against Christ and Christians. <\/P> The chief; <\/B>or prince who is supreme in authority, most violent in opposition to the church of Christ, and most active to attempt its ruin. <\/P> Prince; <\/B>what we render prince may well be the proper name of Araxes in Arabic, the principal river of Armenia, and so that the first country mentioned under the command of Gog, or the Scythians of Mount Taurus, which were called Rhos. <\/P> Tubal:<\/B> see Eze 27:13<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 2. Gog<\/B>the prince of the landof Magog. The title was probably a common one of the kings of thecountry, as “Pharaoh” in Egypt. Chakan was the name givenby the Northern Asiatics to their king, and is still a title of theTurkish sultan: “Gog” may be a contraction of this. InEzekiel’s time a horde of northern Asiatics, termed by the Greeks”Scythians,” and probably including the Moschi andTibareni, near the Caucasus, here (“Meshech . . . Tubal”)undertook an expedition against Egypt [HERODOTUS,1.103-106]. These names might be adopted by Ezekiel from thehistorical fact familiar to men at the time, as ideal titles for thegreat last anti-Christian confederacy. <\/P> Magog<\/B> (Gen 10:2<\/span>;1Ch 1:5<\/span>). The name of a landbelonging to Japheth’s posterity. Maha,<\/I> in Sanskrit, means”land.” Gog is the ideal political head of the region. InRe 20:8<\/span>, Gog and Magog are twopeoples. <\/P> the chief prince<\/B>rather,”prince of Rosh,<\/I>” or “Rhos<\/I>“[Septuagint<\/I>]. The Scythian Tauri in the Crimea were so called.The Araxes also was called “Rhos.” The modern Russians mayhave hence assumed<\/I> their name, as Moscow and Tobolsk fromMeshech and Tubal, though their proper<\/I> ancient name was Slavi,<\/I>or Wends.<\/I> HENGSTENBERGsupports English Version,<\/I> as “Rosh” is not found inthe Bible. “Magog was Gog’s original kingdom, though he acquiredalso Meshech and Tubal, so as to be called their chief prince.<\/I>“<\/P><\/p>\n Son of man, set thy face against Gog<\/strong>,…. Of the phrase, “setting the face towards”, or “against”, [See comments on Eze 6:2]<\/span> [See comments on Eze 21:2]<\/span> [See comments on Eze 25:2]<\/span> but who this Gog is the prophet is bid boldly to face, and intrepidly declare the wrath of God against, interpreters are divided about. Calmet m thinks that Cambyses and his army are meant by Gog and Magog, which to mention is enough; and it is the opinion of St. Ambrose n that the Goths who ravaged the Roman empire in the fifth and sixth ages are meant: others, who suppose this prophecy was fulfilled after the Jews’ return from the Babylonish captivity, and before the coming of Christ, take Gog to be a common name of the kings of the lesser Asia and Syria, or the Seleucidae, who distressed the Jews in the times of the Maccabees; the chief of whom was Antiochus Epiphanes, who is supposed, to be more especially designed, and was a type of antichrist; and they are the more strengthened in this opinion, because they find, in Pliny o, that the city of Hierapolis in Syria was called by the Syrians Magog; and they fancy the name of Gog is the same with Gyges a king of Lydia, whose country was called from him Gygea, or Gog’s land, who was grandfather to Croesus; and which country came into the hands of Cyrus, and from the Persians into the hands of the Greeks, and so to the Seleucidae; for which reason they may bear this name in this prophecy; but it is certain that the prophecy refers to what should be in “latter years”, and in the “latter days”,<\/p>\n Eze 38:8<\/span>, phrases which respect the times of the Messiah, the Gospel dispensation, and oftentimes the latter part of that; and even those times when the Jews shall return to their own land, and continue in it for ever, as the preceding prophecy, with which this is connected, shows; and so the Jews always understand it of an enemy of theirs yet to come. Cocceius is of opinion, that the Romish antichrist is meant; and that Gog signifying the covering or roof of a house, fitly points him out; who puts himself between God and man, as the roof is between heaven and earth; and who keeps out the light of divine things, the heat of love, and rain of spiritual blessings, from the church; and compares with this the veil over all nations, Isa 25:7<\/span> and the covering cherub, Eze 28:14<\/span>, but I rather think the Turk is here meant, the eastern antichrist, in whose possession the land of Judea now is; and which, when recovered by the Jews, will greatly exasperate him, and he will gather all his forces together to regain it, but in vain. The learned Vitringa p, though he is of opinion that this prophecy, according to its first and proper sense, respects the kings of Syria, the persecutors of the church, that should bring large and well disciplined armies into the land of the people of God, gathered out of the northern nations, and Scythians, and would be defeated in the land of Canaan; yet mystically intends the Turks, the Scythian nation and northern people, who, by a like attempt, will infest the church of the people of God, and invade their country; and this he makes no doubt of is the proper aspect of Gog and Magog: and Samuel Dauderstat, a Lutheran divine, has wrote a dissertation, “De Antichristo Orientali”, concerning the eastern antichrist, which he explains of Gog and Magog: and Michael Buckenroder, another Lutheran, has written upon the irruption to be made by Gog and Magog into the mountains of Israel q. Osiander thus explains the several names mentioned; by Gog I think the Turk is meant, by Magog the Tartarian, by Meshec the Muscovites, and by Tubal the Wallachians; and Starckius on the place observes, that if this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled, we shall easily find our Gog, and point out his metropolis Constantinople; so that I am not singular in my opinion. Gog signifies “high” r and eminent, one in a very exalted station: it comes from the same root, and has the same signification, as Agag, to whose height and exaltation there is an allusion in Nu 24:7<\/span>, where the Samaritan and Septuagint versions read Gog: it is the same with , “Jagog”, by which name the Arabians called the Scythians that lived far east, particularly those that were situated to the north of China beyond Imaus, as Golius s observes; and Josephus t says that the posterity of Magog are called Scythians, and these inhabited Tartary; and there, as Paulus Venetus u affirms, are the countries of Gog and Magog, which they call Gug and Mungug now; from hence came the Turks, even from Tartary, which is called by the eastern writers Turchestan, whence they had their name; and so may with great propriety be called by the name of Gog; their emperor also being a high and mighty one, whose empire must be destroyed; and which is signified by the passing away of the second woe, and the drying up of the river Euphrates,<\/p>\n Re 11:14<\/span>, upon which passages this and the following chapter may be thought a good commentary: and so the Jews w make Gog to be the general of the Ishmaelites or Turks, as Armillus of the Christians, and who shall reign in the kingdom of Magog or Scythia. Gog is the name of a man, 1Ch 5:4<\/span>, as it is here, and not of a country. The country of Gog is called, as follows,<\/p>\n the land of Magog<\/strong>, of which Gog is king, as Jarchi and Kimchi interpret it: it may be supplied in connection with the former clause,<\/p>\n set thy face against Gog, in the land of Magog<\/strong>; or, “against Gog”, against “the land of Magog”, so Kimchi. The countries of Jagog and Magog, according to the Arabic geographer x, are surrounded by Mount Caucasus, which Bochart y conjectures has its name from thence; it being in the Semi-Chaldee language, the language of the Colchi and Armenians, , “Gog-hasan”, or Gog’s fortress. This land of Magog is the same with Cathaia or Scythia, that part of Tartary from whence the Turks came; and which perhaps may come into their hands again before this prophecy is fulfilled; and even now the Turk calls himself king of Tartary; and the Magog of Pliny in Syria, the same with Aleppo, is in his dominions; which Maimonides z also takes notice of as in Syria, though he seems to distinguish it from Haleb or Aleppo; however, according to him, they were near to one another; though some a think the place in Pliny is corrupted, and that it ought to be read Magog, as it is, by Maimonides, Magbab. Gog is further described as<\/p>\n the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal<\/strong>: some render it, “prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal”; taking Rosh, as the rest, for the name of a place, a part of Scythia, from whence the Russians came, and had their name. So it is rendered by the Septuagint, Symmachus, and Theodotion; and some later Greek writers b make mention of a country called Ros, which, they say, is a Scythian nation, situated between the Euxine Pontus and the whole maritime coast to the north of Taurus, a people fierce and wild. Meshech and Tubal were the brethren of Magog, and sons of Japheth, Ge 10:2<\/span>, whose posterity inhabited those counties called after their name; who, according to Josephus c, are the Cappadocians and Iberians; and among the former is a place called Mazaca, which has some affinity with Meshech; and there was a country called Gogarene d, a part of Iberia. According to Bochart e, these are the Moschi and Tybarenes, people that dwell near the Euxine sea, and under the dominion of the Turk; wherefore the Grand Turk may be called the chief prince of them:<\/p>\n and prophesy against him<\/strong>: foretell his ruin and destruction, which is hinted before. Mention is made of his invasion of the land of Judea, and that for the comfort of the Jews, that they might have nothing to fear from this formidable army.<\/p>\n m Dictionary in the words “Gog” and “Magog”. n “De fide ad Gratianum”, l. 2. sect. 4. col. 144. tom. 4. o Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 23. p Comment. in Jesaiam, vol. 1. p. 954. q Vid. Calmet. Bibliotheca Sacra, art. 67. p. 442. r Hiller. Ononmastic. Sacr. p. 67, 406, 477. s Lexic. Arabic in Rad. col. 26. t Antiqu. l. 1. c. 6. sect. 1. u Apud Schindler. Lex. Polyglott. col. 288. And Harris’s Voyages and Travels, vol. 1. p. 604. w Vid. Huls. Theolog. Jud. par. 2. p. 511. x Geograph. Arab. par. 9. clim. 5. lin. 22, 23. y Phaleg. l. 3. c. 13. col. 187. z Hilchot Terumot, c. 1. sect. 9. a See Hyde Not, in Peritsol. Itinera Mundi, p. 42. b Zonaras, Cedrenus, & Joan. Curopalates apud Selden. de Synedriis, l. 2. c. 3. sect. 6. c Antiqu. l. 1. c. 6. sect. 1. d Strabo. Geograph. l. 11. p. 364. e Phaleg. l. 3. c. 13. col. 188.<\/p>\n (2) Gog, the land of Magog.<\/strong>Magog is mentioned in Gen. 10:2<\/span> (1Ch. 1:5<\/span>) in connection with Gomer (the Cimmerians) and Madai (the Medes), as the name of a people descended from Japhet. Early Jewish tradition, adopted by Josephus and St. Jerome, identifies them with the Scythians; and this view has seemed probable to nearly all modern expositors. But the name of Scythians must be understood rather in a geographical than in a strictly ethnological sense, of the tribes living north of the Caucasus. Driven from their original home by the Massaget, they had poured down upon Asia Minor and Syria shortly before the time of Ezekiel, and had advanced even as far as Egypt. They took Sardis (B.C. 629), spread themselves in Media (B.C. 624), were bribed off from Egypt by Psammeticus, and were finally driven back (B.C. 596), leaving their name as a terror to the whole eastern world for their fierce skill in war, their cruelty, and rapacity. It was probably the memory of their recent disastrous inroads that led Ezekiel to the selection of their name as the representative of the powers hostile to the Church of God.<\/p>\n The name Gog occurs only in connection with Magog, except in 1Ch. 5:4<\/span>, as the name of an otherwise unknown Reubenite. It is also the reading of the Samaritan and Septuagint in Num. 24:7<\/span> for Agag. It has generally been supposed that Ezekiel here formed the name from Magog by dropping the first syllable, which was thought to mean simply place<\/em> or land;<\/em> but an Assyrian inscription has been discovered, in which Ga-a-gi<\/em> is mentioned as a chief of the Saka (Scythians), and Mr. Geo. Smith (Hist. of Assurbanipal) identifies this name with Gog. The text should be read, Gog, of the land of Magog.<\/em><\/p>\n The chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.<\/strong>Rather, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.<\/em> Our version has followed St. Jerome in translating Rosh<\/em> chief, because formerly no people of that name was definitely known; but they are frequently mentioned by Arabic writers as a Scythian tribe dwelling in the Taurus, although the attempt to derive from them the name of Russian<\/em> cannot be considered as sufficiently supported. In Rev. 20:8<\/span>, Gog and Magog are both symbolic names of nations. For Meshech and Tubal see Note on Eze. 27:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2, 3<\/strong>. <\/strong> The chief prince of Meshech and Tubal <\/strong> The nasi rosh <\/em> (chief prince) named here has often been connected with the kohen rosh <\/em> (priest-chief) of 1Ch 27:5<\/span>, and this translation finds some support from a somewhat similar use of the word rosh <\/em> on Persian coins, yet probably the R.V. is better, “the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.” (For Meshech and Tubal, see notes Eze 27:13<\/span>.) Hommel has recently connected Meshech with “the Mosks of Asia Minor” (Hastings’s Dictionary, <\/em> 1900). Where the land of Rosh was is not certain. Schroder refers to the cuneiform inscriptions which mention a land, Mat Ra-a-si, <\/em> situated on the Tigris, at the frontier of Elam; but notices that the position does not harmonize with its close connection here with two peoples of Asia Minor. Perhaps this may be the land which was occupied by the Scythian people, whom Byzantine and Arabian writers have called , and who dwelt on the shores of the Black Sea and on the banks of the Volga ( Pulpit Commentary<\/em>). Rosh has no connection with Russia. The mention of these unknown lands and people only shows that Ezekiel had a better knowledge of the barbarian tribes lying on the frontier of civilization in his day than even the best archaeologists of our time.<\/p>\n 2<\/strong>. <\/strong> Gog, the land of Magog <\/strong> R.V., “Gog, of the land of Magog.” Dr. Adam Clarke says: “This is allowed to be the most difficult prophecy in the Old Testament. It is difficult to us because we know not the king nor the people intended by it.” He mentions numerous queer explanations, such as that Gog was a hidden name for the Americans, and Meshech and Tubal for the Turks or Christians, but approves the view that Gog stood for Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, which country is called Magog by Pliny ( Natural History<\/em>). Every commentator since Clarke has risen from the study of this passage with a sense of defeat. Every attempted suggestion has been a guess. As Cornill says, “No other chapter in Ezekiel is so shrouded in mystery.” Since the discovery in the Assyrian inscriptions of an unknown land Mat-Gahi <\/em> and of the cuneiform name of the well-known Gyges, king of Lydia, written Ga-gi-Gugu, <\/em> the most usual explanation has been that Gyges was the original king of Gog, and that Magog (“land of Gog”) means Lydia. The great invasion of the Scythians, who carried the scalps of their foes at their bridle reins for napkins and drank fresh blood out of cups made from the skulls of their enemies, must have been one of the most vivid reminiscences of the prophet’s youth, and these barbarian hordes were closely associated with Gyges; for it was the savage Kimmerians, known to the Assyrians as Gi-mirre <\/em> (Bib., Gomer, Eze 38:6<\/span><\/em>) whose king Esar-haddon calls a “Manda <\/em> [Scythian] warrior” who swooped down upon Lydia and carried off with them the head of Gyges himself.<\/p>\n Yet the historic Gyges, who had been headless for over half a century, seems very unlike this “prince” of the northern barbarians, who had Persia, Cush, and Put as his subordinates (Eze 38:5<\/span>, R.V.), and who in the far-away future (Eze 38:14-16<\/span>) as had been long predicted (Eze 38:17<\/span>) should invade Israel with such a multitude of warriors that after their destruction by supernatural agencies (Eze 38:20-22<\/span>) their weapons could furnish the sole fuel for all the cities of Israel for a period of seven years (Eze 39:10<\/span>). Even if it were conclusively proved that Gog (Og) had been a well-known name among the northern barbarians from very ancient times (Haupt, American Oriental Society, <\/em> April, 1899), its use in this connection would still require explanation. Many of the most acute commentators of modern times have taken this term as “a poetical representation of the heathen powers of the world who shall meet death in opposing the new theocracy” (Wellhausen, New Review, <\/em> 1893), or as, perhaps, a secret reference to the Babylonian empire, the only great power whose destruction Ezekiel had not previously prophesied (25-32), which power is alluded to under this invented name of Gog not probably for fear of the Chaldean police, but in order not to stir up false hopes and lead the people to revolt (Cornill) though against this latter suggestion Kuenen has urged the decisive objection, “that this is a picture of a time when Israel shall have returned to her own land; which of itself presupposes the overthrow of the Chaldean monarchy” ( Onderzoek<\/em>).<\/p>\n Objections could also be made to Wellhausen’s view (which is not greatly different from John Wesley’s), yet with our present knowledge it seems, with some modifications, the most probable. Possibly these names of northern tribes are intended to symbolize the outlying nations of heathendom, which are not included in the prophecies of destruction against the seven great monarchies previously mentioned: Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt. Gog (Hebrews, hidden, covered<\/em>) is a personification rather than a real person. He appears as the typical incarnation of universal world power, which can marshal the Scythians from the extreme north, the Persians from the east, and the Ethiopians from the south, in that “‘terrible’ day of the end” of which the prophets so often speak, when Israel shall have one last struggle with her enemies and come forth victorious. Evil will not have been fully conquered even after the people return to their own land. A decisive moment will some day come when a supreme attempt will be made, more fearful than any in the past, to overthrow God’s kingdom, but the right will finally prevail. Before, when such a catastrophe had occurred under Nebuchadnezzar, Israel had succumbed; but the nation will be true to its omnipotent God the next time, and therefore will successfully oppose any coalition. No enemy can prevail against the new Israel because it will be faithful to Jehovah.<\/p>\n This mysterious prophecy was never fulfilled literally. It can never be fulfilled other than spiritually. (Compare the New Testament “antichrist,” and see Gautier, <\/em> pp. 318, 323, etc.)<\/p>\n Eze 38:2-3<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Set thy face, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> “This (says Calmet) is one of the most difficult prophesies of the Old Testament. There are very few which have more divided both ancient and modern interpreters. Not to embarrass my commentary too much, (continues he,) I have treated of it in a particular dissertation. Gog <\/em>appears to me to be Cambyses king of Persia, who, upon his return from the war against Egypt, came into the land of Israel, and died there. According to this hypothesis, we may, I think, very aptly explain every part of the prophesy;” and accordingly Calmet’s commentary and dissertation wholly proceed upon this supposition. Gog <\/em>and Magog <\/em>are mentioned in Rev 20:8<\/span> and these, says Bishop Newton, seem to have been formerly the general names of the northern nations of Europe and Asia, as the Assyrians have been since, and the Tartars are at present. The prophesy in the Revelation alludes to this of Ezekiel in many particulars; both the one and the other remain yet to be fulfilled; and therefore we cannot be absolutely certain that they may not both relate to the same event. But it seems more probable, that they relate to different events: the one is expected to take effect before, but the other will not take effect till after the millennium. Gog and Magog in Ezekiel are said expressly, Eze 38:6<\/span>; Eze 38:15<\/span> and chap. Eze 39:2<\/span>, to come from the north quarters, <\/em>and the north parts; <\/em>but in St. John they come from the four corners, <\/em>or quarters of the earth. Gog <\/em>and Magog <\/em>in Ezekiel bend their forces against the Jews, resettled in their own land; but in St. John they march up against the saints and church of God in general. It may therefore be concluded, that Gog and Magog, as well as Sodom, and Egypt, and Babylon, are mystic names in the book of Revelation; and that the last enemies in the Christian church are so denominated, because Gog and Magog appear to be the last enemies of the Jewish nation: who they shall be, we cannot pretend to say with the least degree of certainty. See Bishop Newton’s Dissert. vol. 3: p. 328. Houbigant says, that the prophet here means the Scythians, who are the descendants of Magog, the son of Japheth; and whose neighbours were the people of Rosh,<\/em> <\/p>\n Meshech, <\/em>and Tubal; <\/em>that is to say, the Russians, Muscovites, <\/em>and Tibareni, <\/em>or Cappadocians; <\/em>and thus Theodoret, Josephus, &c. understand it. Instead of, The chief prince, <\/em>Houbigant reads, The prince of Rosh. <\/em>It seems most probable, that this very difficult prophesy refers to a future event, and consequently every interpretation of it must be precarious and conjectural. <\/p>\n Eze 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,<\/p>\n Ver. 2. Set thy face against Gog,<\/strong> ] i.e., <\/em> Against those last enemies of the Church, before Shiloh come; the kings of the lesser Asia and Syria before his first coming (see the books of Maccabees), the Pope and Turk before his second coming. See Rev 20:8<\/span> . See Trapp on “<\/em> Rev 20:8 “<\/em> Against these Ezekiel is commanded to “set his face,” that is, to prophesy with utmost intention of spirit and contention of speech. a<\/em> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The land of Magog.<\/strong> ] Or, In the land of Magog, which some make to be Gog’s country, and especially Hierapolis (for which they allege Pliny, lib. v. cap. 23), a chief city of Syria. This Hierapolis had its name from the multitude of religious houses or idol temples there erected. b<\/em> May not Rome, the metropolis of idolatry, be rightly so called? <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The chief princes of Meshech and Tubal.<\/strong> ] People neighbouring upon the Syrians, and subject unto them, great enemies to Israel. See on Eze 27:13<\/span> . In Meshech, or Cappadocia, the Turks began to grow great and formidable. As for Tubal, Jerome and Josephus among the ancients, Bellarmine and Gretserus among the Jesuits, understand it to be the Spaniards; Rabbi David and Aben Ezra take Meshech for the Italians. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Virtute opus est contra Antichristum dicturo.<\/em> – Polan.<\/em> <\/p>\n b<\/em> Ptolom, In quarta Asiae tabula.<\/em> <\/p>\n Son of man, See note on Eze 2:4. <\/p>\n Gog. A symbolical name for the nations north and east of Palestine, or the nations as a whole. That the prophecies of Ezekiel 38 and Ezekiel 39 are still future is clear from Eze 38:8, Eze 38:14, Eze 38:16; Eze 39:9, Eze 39:25, Eze 39:26; as Israel will have then already been “gathered”, and complete restoration enjoyed immediately following the destruction of Gog “Now will I bring again the captivity of Israel”. It must therefore precede the Millennium; and on that account must be distinguished from Rev 20:8, Rev 20:10; and may therefore perhaps be identified with Rev 16:14; Rev 17:14; Rev 19:17-21. Compare Mat 24:14-30. Zec 12:1-4. It marks the climax of Satan’s effort to destroy Israel from being a People, and clearly belongs to the close of a yet future kingdom age. See Eze 38:8, &c., above). The name is connected with “Og” (Deu 3:1-13), and “Agag “(Num 24:7), where the Samaritan Pentateuch reads “Agog”, and the Septuagint reads “Gog”, Here the Arabic reads “Agag”. The historical interpretation of this prophecy is confessedly impossible. <\/p>\n the land of Magog = of the land of the Magog. If “Gog” denotes and symbolises all that is powerful, gigantic, and proud, then “Magog” is symbolical of the same lands and peoples. Magog was a son of Japheth. <\/p>\n the chief prince = the head, or leader of Rosh. Hebrew Rosh, which may point to Russia. <\/p>\n Meshech and Tubal. The Sept, renders these Mesoch and Thobel: i.e. the Moschi and Tibareni, occupying regions about the Caucasus. All these a nations distant from Palestine: not near nations, or nations connected by consanguinity. They were also descended from Japheth (Gen 10:2). <\/p>\n Gog <\/p>\n That the primary reference is to the northern (European) powers, headed up by Russia, all agree. The whole passage should be read in connection with Zec 12:1-4; Zec 14:1-9; Mat 24:14-30; Rev 14:14-20; Rev 19:17-21, “gog” is the prince, “Magog,” his land. The reference to Meshech and Tubal (Moscow and Tobolsk) is a clear mark of identification. Russia and the northern powers have been the latest persecutors of dispersed Israel, and it is congruous both with divine justice and with the covenants (e.g. (See Scofield “Gen 15:18”) See Scofield “Deu 30:3” that destruction should fall at the climax of the last mad attempt to exterminate the remnant of Israel in Jerusalem. The whole prophecy belongs to the yet future “day of Jehovah”; Isa 2:10-22; Rev 19:11-21 and to the battle of Armageddon Rev 16:14 See Scofield “Rev 19:19” but includes also the final revolt of the nations at the close of the kingdom-age. Rev 20:7-9. <\/p>\n Son: Eze 2:1, Eze 39:1 <\/p>\n set: Eze 6:2, Eze 20:46, Eze 25:2, Eze 35:2, Eze 35:3 <\/p>\n Gog: Rather, “Gog – the princeof the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.” By Magog is most probably meant the Scythians or Tartars, called so by Arabian and Syrian writers, and especially the Turks, who were originally natives of Tartary; and by Rosh, the Russians, descendants of the ancient inhabitants on the river Araxes or Rosh. Rev 20:8, Rev 20:9 <\/p>\n Magog: Gen 10:2, 1Ch 1:5 <\/p>\n the chief prince of: or, prince of the chief of <\/p>\n Meshech: Eze 27:13, Eze 32:26, Isa 66:19 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 2Ki 14:10 – thine heart 1Ch 5:4 – Gog Eze 21:2 – set<\/p>\n Eze 38:2-3. Set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog We find, Gen 10:2, that the second son of Japhet was called Magog, but Ezekiel uses the word here as the name of the country of which Gog was prince: and Michaelis thinks that it denotes those vast regions to the north of India and China, which the Greeks called Scythia, and which we term Tartary. Houbigant also thinks that the prophet here means the Scythians, who are the descendants of Magog, the son of Japhet, and whose neighbours were the people of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal; that is, the Russians, Muscovites, and Tibareni, or Cappadocians; and thus Theodoret and Josephus understand it. The Turks are generally allowed to be of Scythian origin. Scythopolis and Hierapolis, which cities the Scythians took when they overcame Syria, were ever after by the Syrians called Magog: see Plin, 50. 5. c. 23. The Arabs call the Chinese wall Sud Yagog et Magog, that is, the mud wall, or rampart of Gog and Magog. Gog and Magog are mentioned in Rev 20:8; and these, says Bishop Newton, seem to have been formerly the general name of the northern nations of Europe and Asia, as the Scythians have been since, and the Tartars are at present. The prophecy in the Revelation alludes to this of Ezekiel in many particulars; both the one and the other remain yet to be fulfilled, and therefore we cannot be absolutely certain that they may not both relate to the same event. But it seems more probable that they relate to different events: the one is expected to take effect before, but the other will not take effect till after the Millennium. Gog and Magog in Ezekiel are said expressly, Eze 38:6; Eze 38:15, and Eze 39:2, to come from the north quarters, and the north parts; but in St. John they come from the four quarters, or corners of the earth. Gog and Magog in Ezekiel bend their forces against the Jews re-settled in their own land; but in St. John they march up against the saints and church of God in general. Gog and Magog in Ezekiel are, with very good reason, supposed to be the Turks, but the Turks are the authors of the second wo; and the second wo, Rev 11:14, is past before the third wo; and the third wo long precedes the time here treated of. It may therefore be concluded that Gog and Magog, as well as Sodom, and Egypt, and Babylon, are mystic names in the book of Revelation; and the last enemies of the Christian Church are so denominated, because Gog and Magog appear to be the last enemies of the Jewish nation. Who they shall be, we cannot pretend to say with the least degree of certainty. The chief prince of Meshech and Tubal The king or head of all those northern nations which lie upon the Euxine sea: see note on Eze 27:13. The LXX. take the word Rosh, here translated chief, for a proper name, and render the clause, The prince of Rosh, Meshech, &c. So taken it may signify those inhabitants of Scythia from whom the Russians derive their name and original.<\/p>\n 38:2 Son of man, set thy face against {a} Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,<\/p>\n (a) Who were a people that came from Magog the son of Japheth, Gen 10:2 . Magog also here signifies a certain country so that by these two countries which had the government of Greece and Italy he means the principal enemies of the Church, Rev 20:8 .<\/p>\n Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, Gog … – Gog of the land of Magog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. Gog is here the name of a captain from the land of Magog (compare Gen 10:2) the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezekiel 38:2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21438"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21438\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"