Articles
2
GOG AND MAGOG.
EZEKIEL 38-39 THE ASSAULT OF GOG AND HIS DESTRUCTION
Now, with this remarkable prophecy fully before us, let us ask how it is as a whole to be explained and understood. Are we to regard it as simply an anticipated history of transactions that were to take place precisely in the form and manner here described; or rather as an ideal delineation of what, as to the substance, might certainly be expected to happen, though possibly under aspects and relations widely different from those to be found in the prophet's description? For a satisfactory answer to this question we must look especially to the leading features of the description itself.
[1] And the first thing that strikes us there is the name given to the leader of the hostile party-Gog. From the very mode of its formation this discovers itself at once as an ideal name; it is simply the root of Magog, the only related name known to history. And this Magog is itself the name of a very indefinite territory and people, as appears not only from the want of any express landmarks connected with them here or elsewhere, but also from the parties most closely associated with Gog, as his natural and proper subjects. Of the land of Magog, he is also the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal-tribes that seem to have been contiguous in territory, as they were probably also related in their origin, but which were never, that we know of, actually united into one kingdom, and have long since disappeared as distinct races. When, therefore, we find the prophet giving to the head of the great movement an ideal name, derived from a sort of indefinite, obscurely known territory, it is scarcely possible to avoid the impression at the outset, that the description is intended to possess an ideal, not a real character.
[2] Another thing that presently comes into consideration is the singular combination of the party which this Gog is represented as heading. The nations mentioned are all selected from the distance - remote, in the first instance, from the land of Israel, in the extremities of the earth, and also many of them far apart from one another, and consequently the most unlike naturally to act in concert for any particular purpose. Beside the Scythian tribes, with whom the head of the movement was more immediately connected, there are the Persians, Armenians, the other inhabitants of the far north in Asia and Europe; and then, passing to the opposite extreme, and overleaping all the intermediate regions, he names the Ethiopians and Libyans of Africa,-the people, in short, occupying the most distant and remote territories of the then known world. The principle of assortment and union is evidently the very reverse of the natural one - not nearness, but remoteness of position, as well to the land of Israel as to the associated parties themselves. But this entire omission of the near, and conjunction only of the remote and distant, is so very peculiar a characteristic, and so contrary to all real combinations, that it is impossible to avoid thinking that here also we have but the clothing of an idea-not a literal reality, but the pictorial delineation of one.
[3] Then the huge numbers of this combined party are to be taken into account, in connection with the object for which it was avowedly formed. According to the description, it was to be a marauding host, breaking in like a mighty inundation upon the land of Israel, and again departing after it had enriched itself with the spoil and booty there obtained (chap, xxxviii. 12, 13). That is, myriads of people were to be gathered from the most distant regions of the earth, combining and acting together against all the known principles of human nature: and for what? To spoil and plunder a land which could not, had they got all it contained, have been a handful to a tithe of their number-could not have served to maintain the invaders for a single day! One would think it is impossible in such a case for the most aerial fancy to dream of literality ; and when the prophet is spoken of as furnishing here a plain historical description, one is tempted to ask whether he is supposed to have written for the amusement of children or for the belief and instruction of persons of mature understanding?
[4] This impression is still further increased when we look to the fruits of the victory. The wood of the adversaries' weapons was to serve for fuel to all Israel for seven years! and all Israel were to be employed for seven months in burying the dead! It would be but a very moderate allowance, on the literal supposition, to say that a million of men would thus be engaged, and that on an average each would consign two corpses to the tomb in one day; which, for the 180 working days of the seven months, would make an aggregate of 360,000,000 of corpses! Then the putrefaction, the pestilential vapours arising from such masses of slain victims before they were all buried! Who could live at such a time? It bids defiance to all the laws of nature, as well as the known principles of human action ; and to insist on such a description being understood according to the letter, is to make it take rank with the most extravagant tales of romance, or the most absurd legends of Popery.
[5] Further, on the ground of a literal description, there is the collateral consideration of its becoming utterly impossible to make out a prophetical harmony; the prophets in that case do not mutually confirm, but, on the contrary, oppose and contradict each other. Here the great controversy, which finally adjudges the cause of heathendom, is represented as taking issue on the mountains of Israel, and covering the whole land with the slain. In Isaiah xxxiv, we have, to all appearance, the same controversy - the controversy of the Lord's judgment upon Zion's adversaries, when his indignation was to be "upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies"- determined upon the mountains of Edom. In Joel, again, it takes place in the valley of Jehoshaphat, or the valley of decision (chap. iii. 12, 14); and in Zechariah (chap. xiv.) in the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem, as also in the Apocalypse (chap. 20) around the camp of the saints and the beloved city. Thus we have three or four distinct localities, each represented as the scene of a last conflict, ending in a final triumph to the cause of God over the leagued hostility of the world. If held to be literal descriptions, they, of course, mutually destroy one another; for the localities being different (as also many of the accompanying circumstances), they must either be ideal delineations under various aspects of what was to happen, or they are literal and contradictory descriptions.
[6] Finally, pointing, as all these prophetical descriptions do, and the one before us in particular, to the latter ages of the world - to the times of the Messiah-the gross carnality of the representation in respect to God's dealing with the adversaries demands a non-literal interpretation. Under the old covenant, when the Church was still in its childhood, it was necessary to employ to a large extent the outward and material; carnal elements had a prominent place in the immediate service of God, and they could not fail to be much resorted to in the administration of the kingdom, so long as it had a political existence in the world. His people had then often to defend themselves with a carnal sword, and often in the successful exercise of this did God's power and goodness appear to his people.
-Patrick Fairbairn, Ezekiel and the Book of His Prophecy: An Exposition. Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1876 [Third Edition, 1862] pp 421-431.
Now, with this remarkable prophecy fully before us, let us ask how it is as a whole to be explained and understood. Are we to regard it as simply an anticipated history of transactions that were to take place precisely in the form and manner here described; or rather as an ideal delineation of what, as to the substance, might certainly be expected to happen, though possibly under aspects and relations widely different from those to be found in the prophet's description? For a satisfactory answer to this question we must look especially to the leading features of the description itself.
[1] And the first thing that strikes us there is the name given to the leader of the hostile party-Gog. From the very mode of its formation this discovers itself at once as an ideal name; it is simply the root of Magog, the only related name known to history. And this Magog is itself the name of a very indefinite territory and people, as appears not only from the want of any express landmarks connected with them here or elsewhere, but also from the parties most closely associated with Gog, as his natural and proper subjects. Of the land of Magog, he is also the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal-tribes that seem to have been contiguous in territory, as they were probably also related in their origin, but which were never, that we know of, actually united into one kingdom, and have long since disappeared as distinct races. When, therefore, we find the prophet giving to the head of the great movement an ideal name, derived from a sort of indefinite, obscurely known territory, it is scarcely possible to avoid the impression at the outset, that the description is intended to possess an ideal, not a real character.
[2] Another thing that presently comes into consideration is the singular combination of the party which this Gog is represented as heading. The nations mentioned are all selected from the distance - remote, in the first instance, from the land of Israel, in the extremities of the earth, and also many of them far apart from one another, and consequently the most unlike naturally to act in concert for any particular purpose. Beside the Scythian tribes, with whom the head of the movement was more immediately connected, there are the Persians, Armenians, the other inhabitants of the far north in Asia and Europe; and then, passing to the opposite extreme, and overleaping all the intermediate regions, he names the Ethiopians and Libyans of Africa,-the people, in short, occupying the most distant and remote territories of the then known world. The principle of assortment and union is evidently the very reverse of the natural one - not nearness, but remoteness of position, as well to the land of Israel as to the associated parties themselves. But this entire omission of the near, and conjunction only of the remote and distant, is so very peculiar a characteristic, and so contrary to all real combinations, that it is impossible to avoid thinking that here also we have but the clothing of an idea-not a literal reality, but the pictorial delineation of one.
[3] Then the huge numbers of this combined party are to be taken into account, in connection with the object for which it was avowedly formed. According to the description, it was to be a marauding host, breaking in like a mighty inundation upon the land of Israel, and again departing after it had enriched itself with the spoil and booty there obtained (chap, xxxviii. 12, 13). That is, myriads of people were to be gathered from the most distant regions of the earth, combining and acting together against all the known principles of human nature: and for what? To spoil and plunder a land which could not, had they got all it contained, have been a handful to a tithe of their number-could not have served to maintain the invaders for a single day! One would think it is impossible in such a case for the most aerial fancy to dream of literality ; and when the prophet is spoken of as furnishing here a plain historical description, one is tempted to ask whether he is supposed to have written for the amusement of children or for the belief and instruction of persons of mature understanding?
[4] This impression is still further increased when we look to the fruits of the victory. The wood of the adversaries' weapons was to serve for fuel to all Israel for seven years! and all Israel were to be employed for seven months in burying the dead! It would be but a very moderate allowance, on the literal supposition, to say that a million of men would thus be engaged, and that on an average each would consign two corpses to the tomb in one day; which, for the 180 working days of the seven months, would make an aggregate of 360,000,000 of corpses! Then the putrefaction, the pestilential vapours arising from such masses of slain victims before they were all buried! Who could live at such a time? It bids defiance to all the laws of nature, as well as the known principles of human action ; and to insist on such a description being understood according to the letter, is to make it take rank with the most extravagant tales of romance, or the most absurd legends of Popery.
[5] Further, on the ground of a literal description, there is the collateral consideration of its becoming utterly impossible to make out a prophetical harmony; the prophets in that case do not mutually confirm, but, on the contrary, oppose and contradict each other. Here the great controversy, which finally adjudges the cause of heathendom, is represented as taking issue on the mountains of Israel, and covering the whole land with the slain. In Isaiah xxxiv, we have, to all appearance, the same controversy - the controversy of the Lord's judgment upon Zion's adversaries, when his indignation was to be "upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies"- determined upon the mountains of Edom. In Joel, again, it takes place in the valley of Jehoshaphat, or the valley of decision (chap. iii. 12, 14); and in Zechariah (chap. xiv.) in the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem, as also in the Apocalypse (chap. 20) around the camp of the saints and the beloved city. Thus we have three or four distinct localities, each represented as the scene of a last conflict, ending in a final triumph to the cause of God over the leagued hostility of the world. If held to be literal descriptions, they, of course, mutually destroy one another; for the localities being different (as also many of the accompanying circumstances), they must either be ideal delineations under various aspects of what was to happen, or they are literal and contradictory descriptions.
[6] Finally, pointing, as all these prophetical descriptions do, and the one before us in particular, to the latter ages of the world - to the times of the Messiah-the gross carnality of the representation in respect to God's dealing with the adversaries demands a non-literal interpretation. Under the old covenant, when the Church was still in its childhood, it was necessary to employ to a large extent the outward and material; carnal elements had a prominent place in the immediate service of God, and they could not fail to be much resorted to in the administration of the kingdom, so long as it had a political existence in the world. His people had then often to defend themselves with a carnal sword, and often in the successful exercise of this did God's power and goodness appear to his people.
-Patrick Fairbairn, Ezekiel and the Book of His Prophecy: An Exposition. Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1876 [Third Edition, 1862] pp 421-431.
Patrick Fairbairn.
RELATIONSHIPS IN MINISTRY
The Rev. George Ball continues his Studies in 2 Corinthians - Chapter 7
I like a story with a happy ending. I like a story filled with emotion. I like a true story. Second Corinthians 7 has it all. Up till this point relationships between Paul and the Corinthians had been cool. In particular he was concerned about their reaction to a letter he had previously sent them (see chapter 2 vs.4: – the “severe letter” or “sorrowful letter”). He had spoken frankly and clearly what must be done to tackle the problems in Corinth (ie.immorality and a faction leader who opposed Paul). There was a risk that instead of improving things the letter might instead inflame things. He need not have worried. This chapter brings some welcome good news. Here we have the full spectrum of emotions – from sorrow, grief and stress, to joy, relief, comfort and rejoicing. As we plot these emotions we get a picture of the heart of a pastor and the people and the relationship which was restored. (Incidentally the “detour” which began at 2:12 is now completed at 7:1. I did say it would be interesting!)
What a statement to make even after all the hurts and accusations and heartache they had caused Paul. We could forgive him if he had wanted to press the delete button and just forget about them. But no, he says they matter more to him than life itself! Even though many nasty things were apparently being said about the apostle (vs.2) he did not respond in kind, instead he spoke well of the Corinthians to others. “Paul practices a fundamental principle of good relationships. Show love to people by always seeing the best in them, whatever may be to the contrary.” (Prime). When things go wrong in relationships avoid the temptation of the tit for tat. One positive way to rebuild relationships is to affirm the good things we see in one another.
Paul has already referred in 2:13 to having no rest in his spirit. In other words he couldn’t switch off, he couldn’t settle, he couldn’t concentrate even on his mission work when he knew there were unresolved issues in the congregation. He reveals himself to be very human. Anxiety produces physical symptoms – even in a great apostle. The work takes its toll.
Titus has just returned from Corinth. He has a good report. The crisis at Corinth seems at last to be resolving itself. That “severe” letter had worked a treat. It had made a profound impact on them. They received it (and Titus) together with its recommendations, and it had produced a godly sorrow leading to repentance and salvation. There is a great sense of relief, joy and thankfulness. To whom? Titus? No to God. “God comforted us by the coming of Titus”. Paul recognised Titus as God’s agent of encouragement. I wonder do we recognise sufficiently the importance of encouragement to those in the Lord’s work? And when we receive it do we recognise it as a mercy from God and give thanks? God uses comforters. Paul Barnett makes the comment; “For our part we must ensure that we are loving, concerned and Christlike people whom the “God of all comfort” will employ in the comforting of those who are in distress. There is no lack of opportunity to comfort other believers within the body of Christ. One brother is unemployed, another is depressed about a difficult job situation, a sister has a chronically ill husband, another has rebellious children. The needs are there already within every congregation. Our eyes need to be open and our hearts generous with compassionate care.”
After sending his “severe” letter Paul had second thoughts? Did he do the right thing? Had he been too sharp? Should he have been more conciliatory instead of being so uncompromising? Would it damage his reputation in Corinth even further and provide ammunition for his opponents? Paul emerges here as a very human figure. I find that consoling. Can we not at least identify with the apostle here? Do we not often have second thoughts? Do we not sometimes worry about the effect of our words? Do we not sometimes wonder if we made the right decision in that particular situation?
Paul is pleased and relieved. His letter far from inflaming the situation actually provoked real repentance accompanied by real change (vs.11). The apostle makes a helpful distinction here between true repentance and mere regret (or remorse). Both may look alike characterised by very deep sorrow and distress. But they are completely different. Mere regret or “worldly sorrow” does not produce any real change while repentance does. Why? It is sorrowful over the consequences of a sin, but not over the sin itself. If there had been no consequences there would have been no sorrow. There is no sense of sorrow due to the fact that the sin has grieved God and violates our relationship with God. Therefore as soon as the consequences of the sin go away, the behaviour comes back. The heart has not become disgusted with the sin itself. The book of Judges abounds with sad specimens of “worldly sorrow” – mere regret. As long as the Israelites were oppressed they were sorry. But not sorry enough to stop them returning to their folly. Esau provides another example who, despite tears, found no repentance. (Heb. 12:17). I’m sure you can think also of other examples.
Real repentance is focused, not on the consequences upon us of our sin, but on the injury to God Himself. “Against You, You only, have I sinned,” is the essence of repentance. (Psalm 51). The prodigal in the far country demonstrated real repentance when he said, “I have sinned against heaven and before you”. Repentance is being sorry enough to quit the sin that offends. Real repentance results in real change as we see in verse 11. It provoked a change of attitude and behaviour so much so that Paul was satisfied that they had “proved themselves to be clear in this matter.” It had resulted in repaired relationships. Repentance is not something we do only at the entrance to the Christian life but it should be a pattern that continues. “It is at the cross of Christ that repentance begins, it is at the cross of Christ that it must continue to pour out its heart in the tears of confession and contrition.” (J.Murray).
Let Paul Barnett conclude; “ Unspoken but implied is Paul’s renewed confidence in the power of God which had so clearly worked through the letter Paul had written. His new confidence arose out of the Corinthians’ response to the “sorrowful” letter. It is a serious mistake to underestimate the impact of the Word of God on those who hear and read it….The living God is quite capable of changing apparently intractable attitudes (including ours!) by His Word and Spirit. Ministers of God’s Word can find encouragement and renewal in their ministries by this example of the changed attitudes of the Corinthians.”
- “You are in our hearts” (vs.3)
What a statement to make even after all the hurts and accusations and heartache they had caused Paul. We could forgive him if he had wanted to press the delete button and just forget about them. But no, he says they matter more to him than life itself! Even though many nasty things were apparently being said about the apostle (vs.2) he did not respond in kind, instead he spoke well of the Corinthians to others. “Paul practices a fundamental principle of good relationships. Show love to people by always seeing the best in them, whatever may be to the contrary.” (Prime). When things go wrong in relationships avoid the temptation of the tit for tat. One positive way to rebuild relationships is to affirm the good things we see in one another.
- “We had no rest” (vs. 5)
Paul has already referred in 2:13 to having no rest in his spirit. In other words he couldn’t switch off, he couldn’t settle, he couldn’t concentrate even on his mission work when he knew there were unresolved issues in the congregation. He reveals himself to be very human. Anxiety produces physical symptoms – even in a great apostle. The work takes its toll.
- "God….comforted us” (vs. 6)
Titus has just returned from Corinth. He has a good report. The crisis at Corinth seems at last to be resolving itself. That “severe” letter had worked a treat. It had made a profound impact on them. They received it (and Titus) together with its recommendations, and it had produced a godly sorrow leading to repentance and salvation. There is a great sense of relief, joy and thankfulness. To whom? Titus? No to God. “God comforted us by the coming of Titus”. Paul recognised Titus as God’s agent of encouragement. I wonder do we recognise sufficiently the importance of encouragement to those in the Lord’s work? And when we receive it do we recognise it as a mercy from God and give thanks? God uses comforters. Paul Barnett makes the comment; “For our part we must ensure that we are loving, concerned and Christlike people whom the “God of all comfort” will employ in the comforting of those who are in distress. There is no lack of opportunity to comfort other believers within the body of Christ. One brother is unemployed, another is depressed about a difficult job situation, a sister has a chronically ill husband, another has rebellious children. The needs are there already within every congregation. Our eyes need to be open and our hearts generous with compassionate care.”
- “I do not regret it: though I did regret it.” (vs.8)
After sending his “severe” letter Paul had second thoughts? Did he do the right thing? Had he been too sharp? Should he have been more conciliatory instead of being so uncompromising? Would it damage his reputation in Corinth even further and provide ammunition for his opponents? Paul emerges here as a very human figure. I find that consoling. Can we not at least identify with the apostle here? Do we not often have second thoughts? Do we not sometimes worry about the effect of our words? Do we not sometimes wonder if we made the right decision in that particular situation?
- "Good Grief. (vs. 9-11)
Paul is pleased and relieved. His letter far from inflaming the situation actually provoked real repentance accompanied by real change (vs.11). The apostle makes a helpful distinction here between true repentance and mere regret (or remorse). Both may look alike characterised by very deep sorrow and distress. But they are completely different. Mere regret or “worldly sorrow” does not produce any real change while repentance does. Why? It is sorrowful over the consequences of a sin, but not over the sin itself. If there had been no consequences there would have been no sorrow. There is no sense of sorrow due to the fact that the sin has grieved God and violates our relationship with God. Therefore as soon as the consequences of the sin go away, the behaviour comes back. The heart has not become disgusted with the sin itself. The book of Judges abounds with sad specimens of “worldly sorrow” – mere regret. As long as the Israelites were oppressed they were sorry. But not sorry enough to stop them returning to their folly. Esau provides another example who, despite tears, found no repentance. (Heb. 12:17). I’m sure you can think also of other examples.
Real repentance is focused, not on the consequences upon us of our sin, but on the injury to God Himself. “Against You, You only, have I sinned,” is the essence of repentance. (Psalm 51). The prodigal in the far country demonstrated real repentance when he said, “I have sinned against heaven and before you”. Repentance is being sorry enough to quit the sin that offends. Real repentance results in real change as we see in verse 11. It provoked a change of attitude and behaviour so much so that Paul was satisfied that they had “proved themselves to be clear in this matter.” It had resulted in repaired relationships. Repentance is not something we do only at the entrance to the Christian life but it should be a pattern that continues. “It is at the cross of Christ that repentance begins, it is at the cross of Christ that it must continue to pour out its heart in the tears of confession and contrition.” (J.Murray).
- “Therefore I rejoice” (vs. 16)
Let Paul Barnett conclude; “ Unspoken but implied is Paul’s renewed confidence in the power of God which had so clearly worked through the letter Paul had written. His new confidence arose out of the Corinthians’ response to the “sorrowful” letter. It is a serious mistake to underestimate the impact of the Word of God on those who hear and read it….The living God is quite capable of changing apparently intractable attitudes (including ours!) by His Word and Spirit. Ministers of God’s Word can find encouragement and renewal in their ministries by this example of the changed attitudes of the Corinthians.”