Scotth1960
Member
Dear friends, The meaning of Ezekiel 38, Ezekiel 39, among some modern evangelical commentators is not based upon sound exegesis of the Hebrew words or the KJV and other valid translations of the Hebrew or of the Greek OT for that matter, newspaper exegesis reading modern political controversies into current texts will not do. Russia is nowhere mentioned in Ezekiel. Rosh refers to "chief" as in chief prince, not to a modern nation of Russians.
I read (in Gary DeMar (2008): "Ezekiel's prophecy is about the protection of the Jewish people of his day. Without the restoration and rescue of Israel after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities there could be no Redeemer (see Rev. 12:1-6). If Israel had suffered annihilation at the hands of "Gog", then God's redemptive plan would have been thwarted. According to Ezekiel's prophecy, God rescues Israel so the promised redeemer -- Jesus the Messiah -- would be born. Jesus makes it clear that He is the focus of the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy and of all prophecy, "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10). "Then beginning with Moses and with "all the prophets", Jesus explained to them the things "concerning Himself" in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:28). Ultimately, the prophecy in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is about Jesus and how the Christ-centered genealogy continued forward so it would read at the time of Jesus' birth, "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah" (Matt. 1:6). If Gog (Haman) had been successful in his day, now long past, the Jewish people would have been wiped off the face of the earth (Esther 3:12), and the world would be a very different place. As it is, God controls history, and God controlled the enemy of His people.
"Word Play
"If these two chapters in Ezekiel do not refer to a end-time battle that included modern-day Russia, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, and Libya, then the entire prophetic scenario that is promoted in nearly every prophecy book published today is without biblical merit. ..." (p. 73).
"All Do Not Agree
"Scofield claims that "all agree" that Russia heads the northern (European) alliance against Israel in "the last days". All do not agree. The views of Scofield, Lindsey, LaHaye, Hindson, Ice, Hitchcock, Rhodes, and others are not supported by numerous Bible-believing Christian historians, archaeologists, commentators, and linguists. Charles L. Feinberg writes that while "there have been many writers who connected the name Rosh with the Russians, but this is not generally accepted today". Edwin M. Yamauchi, professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, is an authority on the subject, and takes issue with Lindsey's analysis. He writes that the Hebrew word "rosh" "can have nothing to do with modern "Russia"". This would be a gross anachronism, for the modern name is based upon the name "Rus", which was brought into the region of Kiev, north of the Black Sea, by the Vikings only in the Middle Ages". He considers such identifications as "groundless", having "unfortunately gained widespread currency in the evangelical world through many channels. Most evangelical scholars agree with Dr. Yamauchi:
There is no evidence from the ancient Near East that a country named Rosh every existed. Some would understand "rosh" as modern Russia. Proponents of this view usually appeal to etymology based on similar sounds (to the hearing) between two words. Such etymological procedures are not linguistically sound, nor is etymology alone a sound hermeneutical basis on which to interpret a word. The word "Russia" is a late eleventh-centry AD term. Therefore, the data does [sic] not seem to support an interpretation of "rosh" as a proper name of a geographical region or country". [p. 77.].
Gary DeMar. (2008). Why the End of the World Is Not in Your Future: Identifying the Gog-Magog Alliance. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press.
God bless all nations. God save a remnant of every nations who are in Christ Jesus, Christians throughout the world, some millions or billions of believers.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
I read (in Gary DeMar (2008): "Ezekiel's prophecy is about the protection of the Jewish people of his day. Without the restoration and rescue of Israel after the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities there could be no Redeemer (see Rev. 12:1-6). If Israel had suffered annihilation at the hands of "Gog", then God's redemptive plan would have been thwarted. According to Ezekiel's prophecy, God rescues Israel so the promised redeemer -- Jesus the Messiah -- would be born. Jesus makes it clear that He is the focus of the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy and of all prophecy, "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10). "Then beginning with Moses and with "all the prophets", Jesus explained to them the things "concerning Himself" in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:28). Ultimately, the prophecy in Ezekiel 38 and 39 is about Jesus and how the Christ-centered genealogy continued forward so it would read at the time of Jesus' birth, "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah" (Matt. 1:6). If Gog (Haman) had been successful in his day, now long past, the Jewish people would have been wiped off the face of the earth (Esther 3:12), and the world would be a very different place. As it is, God controls history, and God controlled the enemy of His people.
"Word Play
"If these two chapters in Ezekiel do not refer to a end-time battle that included modern-day Russia, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, and Libya, then the entire prophetic scenario that is promoted in nearly every prophecy book published today is without biblical merit. ..." (p. 73).
"All Do Not Agree
"Scofield claims that "all agree" that Russia heads the northern (European) alliance against Israel in "the last days". All do not agree. The views of Scofield, Lindsey, LaHaye, Hindson, Ice, Hitchcock, Rhodes, and others are not supported by numerous Bible-believing Christian historians, archaeologists, commentators, and linguists. Charles L. Feinberg writes that while "there have been many writers who connected the name Rosh with the Russians, but this is not generally accepted today". Edwin M. Yamauchi, professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, is an authority on the subject, and takes issue with Lindsey's analysis. He writes that the Hebrew word "rosh" "can have nothing to do with modern "Russia"". This would be a gross anachronism, for the modern name is based upon the name "Rus", which was brought into the region of Kiev, north of the Black Sea, by the Vikings only in the Middle Ages". He considers such identifications as "groundless", having "unfortunately gained widespread currency in the evangelical world through many channels. Most evangelical scholars agree with Dr. Yamauchi:
There is no evidence from the ancient Near East that a country named Rosh every existed. Some would understand "rosh" as modern Russia. Proponents of this view usually appeal to etymology based on similar sounds (to the hearing) between two words. Such etymological procedures are not linguistically sound, nor is etymology alone a sound hermeneutical basis on which to interpret a word. The word "Russia" is a late eleventh-centry AD term. Therefore, the data does [sic] not seem to support an interpretation of "rosh" as a proper name of a geographical region or country". [p. 77.].
Gary DeMar. (2008). Why the End of the World Is Not in Your Future: Identifying the Gog-Magog Alliance. Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press.
God bless all nations. God save a remnant of every nations who are in Christ Jesus, Christians throughout the world, some millions or billions of believers.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington