The Book of Enoch: A Jewish Sectarian Work

It seems that it has become faddish for some evangelicals to quote the book of Enoch as a sort of authoritative proof text for pet doctrines (usually dealing with speculative eschatology). I think that quoting the book of Enoch in such a manner is very reckless in that taking this view does not take into account that Enoch is 2nd Temple Jewish sectarian literature. The mention of fallen angels, end-of-the-world scenarios, heavenly visions, and such occurs within the context of Second Temple Judaism. The Book of Enoch in particular reflects an Essene outlook on things, in contrast to that of the Pharisees and Sadducees. What "Enoch" means by things like "sinners", "elect", "angels", "righteous", and "judgment" are not what Christianity means by those terms. One cannot look at the Book of Enoch through the lens of Christian belief and practice and expect to accurately interpret it.

Consider for a moment that the Book of Enoch treats the stars in heaven as heavenly beings who have transgressed the divine commands of God by not showing up at their appointed time. This may seem strange, but follow this to the end.

(this is RH Charles' translation)

Enoch 2:1. Observe ye everything that takes place in the heaven, how they do not change their orbits, ⌈and⌉ the luminaries which are in the heaven, how they all rise and set in order each in its season, and transgress not against their appointed order. 2. Behold ye the earth, and give heed to the things which take place upon it from first to last, ⌈how steadfast they are⌉, how ⌈none of the things upon earth⌉ change, ⌈but⌉ all the works of God appear ⌈to you⌉. 3. Behold the summer and the winter, ⌈⌈how the whole earth is filled with water, and clouds and dew and rain lie upon it⌉⌉.

Here "Enoch" mentions how he observes that some of the heavenly luminaries (heavenly lights) don't "transgress" their appointed order and how everything appears to happen at appointed times (see also chapters 3-5). What we will discover from Enoch is that these 'appointed times' are a particular 364 day solar calendar.

In chapter 6 we run into the story about the supposed copulation between the angels and women and we also find the names of the rebellious angels. This story continues on for several chapters

In chapter 12 we see that the watchers are identified with the fallen angels:

1. Before these things Enoch was hidden, and no one of the children of men knew where he was hidden, and where he abode, and what had become of him. 2. And his activities had to do with the Watchers, and his days were with the holy ones. 3. And I, Enoch was blessing the Lord of majesty and the King of the ages, and lo! the Watchers called me--Enoch the scribe--and said to me: 4. 'Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, †declare† to the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place,...

Chapters 17-36 involve Enoch's vision/travel through heaven and hell. It's here we find some interesting information about the rebellious angels:

18:13. I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, 14. The angel said: 'This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven. 15. And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord in the beginning of their rising, because they did not come forth at their appointed times.

Here, the prison at the ends of the earth is for the stars that have transgressed the commandments of God by not appearing at their appointed times, which as we discover if we continue reading Enoch (or Jubilees) means they didn't abide by a 364 day solar calendar.

Chapter 19 mentions the women who copulated with these rebellious angels.

In chapter 20, we meet Raguel, one of the righteous angels whose job is take vengeance on the "heavenly luminaries". Why? As we saw, these heavenly luminaries, the fallen angels, have rebelled against God by transgressing His Holy calendar:

20:4 Raguel, one of the holy angels who †takes vengeance on† the world of the luminaries.

This continues into chapter 21 where Enoch asks about the imprisoned angels:

21:4. Then I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?' 5. Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: 'Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? 6. These are of the number of the stars ⌈of heaven⌉, which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated.'

This continues in chapter 23 where Enoch sees the rebellious luminaries (lights) of heaven being punished for their transgression:

23:2. And I saw a ⌈⌈burning⌉⌉ fire which ran without resting, and paused not from its course day or night but (ran) regularly. 3. And I asked saying: 'What is this which rests not?' 4. Then Raguel, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered me ⌈⌈and said unto me⌉⌉: 'This course ⌈of fire⌉ ⌈⌈which thou hast seen⌉⌉ is the fire in the west which †persecutes† all the luminaries of heaven.

What slowly becomes clear if you read all of Enoch is that he has a particular idea in mind when he mentions sinners and the elect:

38:3. When the secrets of the righteous shall be revealed and the sinners judged,
And the godless driven from the presence of the righteous and elect,
4. From that time those that possess the earth shall no longer be powerful and exalted:
And they shall not be able to behold the face of the holy,
For the Lord of Spirits has caused His light to appear
On the face of the holy, righteous, and elect.

In chapters 41 we find the first mention of astronomical observations dealing with the calendar. In chapter 43, we find more mention of the stars of heaven who are the equivalent of angels:

1. And I saw other lightnings and the stars of heaven, and I saw how He called them all by their names and they hearkened unto Him. 2. And I saw how they are weighed in a righteous balance according to their proportions of light: (I saw) the width of their spaces and the day of their appearing, and how their revolution produces lightning: and (I saw) their revolution according to the number of the angels, and (how) they keep faith with each other.

Chapters 72-79 go into detail on the 364 day solar calendar. And finally in chapter 80, we find the identification of the ultimate sin of men:

1. And in those days the angel Uriel answered and said to me: 'Behold, I have shown thee everything, Enoch, and I have revealed everything to thee that thou shouldst see this sun and this moon, and the leaders of the stars of the heaven and all those who turn them, their tasks and times and departures.

2. And in the days of the sinners the years shall be shortened,
And their seed shall be tardy on their lands and fields,
And all things on the earth shall alter,
And shall not appear in their time:
And the rain shall be kept back
And the heaven shall withhold (it).
3. And in those times the fruits of the earth shall be backward,
And shall not grow in their time,
And the fruits of the trees shall be withheld in their time.
4. And the moon shall alter her order,
And not appear at her time.
5. [And in those days the sun shall be seen and he shall journey in the evening †on the extremity of the great chariot† in the west]
And shall shine more brightly than accords with the order of light.
6. And many chiefs of the stars shall transgress the order (prescribed).
And these shall alter their orbits and tasks,
And not appear at the seasons prescribed to them.
7. And the whole order of the stars shall be concealed from the sinners,
And the thoughts of those on the earth shall err concerning them,
[And they shall be altered from all their ways],
Yea, they shall err and take them to be gods.
8. And evil shall be multiplied upon them,
And punishment shall come upon them So as to destroy all.'

Here we discover that those who don't follow the just mentioned 364 day solar calendar are SINNERS who have followed the fallen angels who they mistake for gods, which are those stars (angels for Enoch) that don't arrive at their prescribed times. The "elect" for Enoch are those who have been enlightened to the TRUE commandments of God and follow the right calendar.

The problem that the author of Enoch didn't consider was that his 364 day calendar was 1.25 days off of what the real solar calendar is, and so as he observes the stars from year to year he will observe that they show up later and later each year from where he thought they would be. So, since he already thought of the stars as heavenly beings/angels, he concludes that the problem isn't the calendar, but the angels.

Especially driving this conclusion is the fact that Enoch's calendar (the Essene calendar that's also found in the book of Jubilees) is extremely symmetrical and very consistent. Unlike the calendars of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Essene calendar didn't depend on the observation of the moon, so on the Essene calendar feast days occur at the same time every year, on the same days of the week, and don't shift/rove around as they do if you are using a strict lunar calendar. Also interesting is that if you project the Essene calendar back onto the Old Testament, no "work" can be dated to have occured on the Sabbath. This is admittedly a pretty impressive accomplishment. The downside is that in order to make the calendar work out in that desired way, their new year must start on the 4th day of the week contrary to the Pharisee and Sadducee calendars which started on the first day of the week.

For "Enoch", given the nice symmetry of his calendar where feast days occur with high regularity and where no event in the Old Testament occurs on the Sabbath, the curious occurrence of the stars not showing up at appointed times must not be the fault of such a pretty calendar that had obviously been ordained by God. The problem for Enoch was that the stars were angels who transgressed God's command. Sinners were those who followed the wrong calendar (ie, the Pharisees and Sadducees). The elect (ie, the Essenes) were the ones enlightened to the truth of God's commands and so followed the proper calendar.

The book of Enoch is 2nd Temple Jewish sectarian literature, and has no bearing on Christian belief and practice other than looking at the New Testament in it's historical context.

For more see:
"Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian", Beckwith, Roger T.
"The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls", Vanderkam and Flint.

Ritual, Tradition, Worship, and Football

I became curious this morning sitting in church and thinking about a good weekend of college football. I thought about a frequent repulsion on the part of some worshipers when it comes to ritual and tradition. Many people don't like the idea of falling into a pattern of tradition and ritual when it comes to worship. The thought is, I think, that people feel that tradition and worship lead to a lack of heart and soul being poured into the worship experience and they understandably fear being in the position of just going through the motions of worship without the worship itself carrying any meaning. But, after thinking about football (yes, that's right), I'm not sure that sort of reasoning actually carries much weight.

Think about it for a minute from the perspective of an SEC football game. The ritual and tradition that surround a home game begins a day or two before with people arriving for the game in an RV. People park in the same location every Saturday, eat generally the same food, and usually with the same people. The method of wearing clothes becomes somewhat of a superstition as people prefer the shirts and hats that helped the team win the last 2 games straight. In the stadium, the program follows ultimate predictability. The team comes out to warm up following the same warm up pattern they have followed every weekend under the current coach. Videos are shown on the jumbo tron in a certain order and at a specified time. The band marches around the field the same as they have done for the past several decades playing the same songs in the same order as they march around. The teams break from their warm up and go into the locker rooms. The cheerleaders lead the entire crowd in the same cheers and in the same order as they always do. The national anthem is played. The same videos show up on the screen again and the team storms out through the dry ice all to the sound of the school's fight song. All of this is only a fraction of the tradition and ritual that occur on any given Saturday.

College football is the ultimate experience of ritual, tradition, and in many instances downright superstition that would make the ancient pagans blush. But even in the midst of all of this pure tradition and ritual, people still have their emotions running through the clouds. People are still screaming their heads off at full volume as the climactic moment of kick-off rolls around. And people still come back week after week eager and ready to repeat the process yet again.

But when it comes to our worship, many people seem to think that ritual and tradition have no place as it leads to dead worship where people just go through the motions. I disagree with that sort of thinking and say that college football (or many of the other sports where the same things occur) falsifies this sort of rationality. The problem with tradition and ritual worship is not the tradition and ritual itself. I think in many cases the problem lies with the worshiper themselves and with their own heart, desires, and expectations.

Maybe those against tradition and ritual need to "get their heads in the game"?

Rabbi's Talk About the Pharisees

Given the harsh words directed toward the Pharisees, in Matthew's gospel in particular, it's interesting to see what the Rabbi's say about their own:

"Our Rabbis have taught: There are seven types of Pharisees: the shikmi Pharisee, the nikpi Pharisee, the kizai Pharisee, the ‘pestle’ Pharisee, the Pharisee (who constantly exclaims) ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’, the Pharisee from love (of God) and the Pharisee from fear. The shikmi Pharisee — he is one who performs the action of Shechem. The nikpi Pharisee — he is one who knocks his feet together. The kizai Pharisee — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: He is one who makes his blood flow against walls. The ‘pestle’ Pharisee — Rabbah b. Shila said: (His head) is bowed like (a pestle in) a mortar. The Pharisee (who constantly exclaims) ‘What is my duty that I may perform it?’ — but that is a virtue! — Nay, what he says is, ‘What further duty is for me that I may perform it?’ The Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear — Abaye and Raba said to the tanna (who was reciting this passage), Do not mention ‘the Pharisee from love and the Pharisee from fear’; for Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: A man should always engage himself in Torah and the commandments even though it be not for their own sake, because from (engaging in them) not for their own sake, he will come (to engage in them) for their own sake. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What is hidden is hidden, and what is revealed is revealed: the Great Tribunal will exact punishment from those who rub themselves against the walls”(Jerusalem Talmud, “Berachot,” 14b; Babylonian Talmud, “Sotah” 22b).

Shimki: Literally the 'shoulder' Pharisee. Probably wore his deeds on his shoulders for everyone to see.

Nikpi: Pharisee who would always wait to act, or 'knocked his feet together'. He tries to find some sort of advantageous act for himself to perform. So, he falls short in his duties as a rabbinical leader since he was unsure if he should or wanted to act.

Kizai: Pharisee who was 'blind' in that he walked around with downcast eyes to avoid looking at the unclean. He 'makes his blood flow against walls' because he can't see where he's going and so runs into walls.

Pestle: The 'humpbacked Pharisee". Probably indicates that he walked around hunched over in false humility.

"What is my Duty": A Pharisee that always kept tabs on the good duties he performed in order to outweigh the bad ones. Or perhaps he thought that he had already fulfilled his obligations.

Love: The Pharisee who acted out of love for God.

Fear: The Pharisee who acted out of fear/awe/respect for God (or possibly fear of punishment).

Isaiah 9:6 Variant in the Aramaic Targum

The Aramaic Targum of Isaiah 9:6 has yet another interesting reading:

T. Isaiah 9:6 "The Prophet said to the House of David, for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity, wonderful, the mighty God, who lives in eternity, the messiah, whose peace shall be great upon us in his days".

Isaiah 9:6 Variant in the LXX

I was intrigued by a variant reading in Isaiah 9:6 today:

Here is the normal reading from the Masoretic Text (MT) as translated in the NRSV:

Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Here is the variant reading that occurs in the Septuagint (LXX) translated in to English in the New English Translation of the LXX:

Isaiah 9:6 "Because a child was born to us, a son was also given to us, whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder, and he is named Angel of mighty council, for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to him".

Interesting is the use of "Angel of mighty council". Several church fathers seem to have had a preference for the LXX rendering (and some even seem aware of the MT reading):

"“A Son,” they say, has been given to us, on whose shoulder the government is from above; and His name is called the Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the strong and mighty God.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Antiochians, 3)

"The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child, thus prophesying by Esaias: “Lo, to us a child has been born, to us a son has been given, on whose own shoulder the government shall be; and His name has been called the Angel of great Counsel.” Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.5)

"And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty counsel," (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 76)

"He has been, it is true, called “the Angel of great counsel,” that is, a messenger, by a term expressive of official function, not of nature. For He had to announce to the world the mighty purpose of the Father, even that which ordained the restoration of man. But He is not on this account to be regarded as an angel, as a Gabriel or a Michael." (Tertullian, [Against Marcion] On the Flesh of Christ, 14)

"To him the names of Captain, and great High Priest, Prophet of the Father, Angel of mighty counsel, Brightness of the Father’s light, Only begotten Son, with a thousand other titles, are ascribed in the oracles of the sacred writers. And the Father, having constituted him the living Word, and Law and Wisdom, the fullness of all blessing, has presented this best and greatest gift to all who are the subjects of his sovereignty." (Eusebius, the Oration of Eusebius, 3.7)

"Well then, He says by the prophet, ‘A Son is born and given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Angel of Great Counsel, mighty God, Ruler, Father of the coming age’ "(Athanasius, On Luke 10:22, section 5)

"But Isaiah also says: “His name is called Angel of Great Counsel" (Origen, Commentary on John, 1.34)

"For the Spirit Himself is Power, as you read: “The Spirit of Counsel and of Power (or might).” And as the Son is the Angel of great counsel, so, too, is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Counsel (Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit 2.2.20)

"For there, in clear and uncontrovertible terms, there is indicated by the prophecy the dispensation of His Humanity; for “unto us,” he says, “a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name is called the Angel of mighty counsel.” And it is with an eye to this, I suppose, that David describes the establishment of His kingdom" (Gregory of Nyssa, Dogmatic Treatises, 11.3)

(see also: John Cassian, Against Nestorius, 2.3. Novatian, Concerning the Trinity, 18, 28. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3.2.Question 83.Article 4.)



Worth exploring is the possibility that this LXX variant reflects an earlier Hebrew text and what light this might shed on understanding 9:6

Perpetual Virginity

I was given reason today to consider the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary and consider why I don't accept such a theory. The simple reason is that I can find no good reason to accept it. I find no exegetical reason and nothing that can make a positive case for such a thing. I think a natural reading of the text would indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters, among whom would be James and Jude.

I don't see a reason to immediately accept the idea that 'adelphos' (Greek word for brother) should automatically be taken to mean something other than 'brother' (as in two people from the same womb). I understand that it doesn't necessarily carry such a connotation all the time, but pointing to a range of meanings for a word doesn't really solve anything. It isn't logical to accept a meaning among a range of meanings without sufficient reason for making the choice.

After considering a the literary techniques used in Mark 3, the cultural background of 1st century Palestine (large families were the norm), the fact that Joseph and Mary had a real marriage (ie, a consumated one rather that a fictional and unconsumated one, which seems rather confusing anyway), the fact of James assuming the leadership of the Jerusalem church (rather than Peter, John, or another disciple), and the recent discovery of James' ossurary with the Aramaic inscription ("James son of Joseph brother of Jesus") [1], I must say that what seems to me to be the natural reading of 'adelphos' looks like it has firm support for continuing to see it as the correct reading, and there is as of yet no good reason to think otherwise. This is to say that Jesus had other brothers and sisters and so Mary did not remain a perpetual virgin.

There may be other reasons for thinking one way or another, those are just my initial thoughts.



[1] I realize this might be more controversial due to the debate over authenticity that initially surrounded the ossurary discovery. The forgery trial that ensued and lasted for 5 years has come to a close though. See:
"Strata: Forgery Trial Ends.” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/Jun 2010.
"Strata: Forgery Case Collapses.” Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan/Feb 2009.

Immaculate Conception

Thanks to Turretinfan for providing the following:

A list of interesting Papal comments on the sinlessness of Mary:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-many-popes-does-it-take-to-deny.html

Thomas Aquinas and other church fathers on the issue:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/08/thomas-aquinas-and-fathers-of-church-on.html

Augustine:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-augustine-teach-sinlessness-of-mary.html

Hermeneutic Assumptions

Here is a short/concise list of assumptions I make when I read the bible. First, note that we all bring a set of assumptions to the table when we read any piece of text (be it bible, newspaper, novel, or whatever). It's often due to significant differences in assumptions that lead to sometimes radically different interpretations of a passage. Here are the assumptions I use, with a quick explanation for some of them:

(1) Human words, sentences, and thoughts have definite content and meaning.
(2) The content and meaning of our words, sentences, and thoughts take on a meaning as the author of them intend.
(3) The meaning of an author words, sentences, and thoughts is discoverable by the context in which those things occur.

When approaching the bible, it's important to consider the following in order to determine the author's intent:
(4) Historical Context
(5) Cultural Context
(6) Literary Context
(7) Genre/Form
(8) Redaction
(9) Sources
(10) Canonical Context
(11) Usage of grammar and vocabular
(12) Author
(13) Ideal Audience

Further I make the following assumptions and conclusions about the bible and use these when reading the text:
(a) The bible is inspired by God
(b) The bible is a collection of many books, with many human authors, many scribes, many genres, several different cultural settings, and many different timeframes
(c) The intent of the author determines the meaning of the passage.


This list might not be all inclusive, so I will update it as appropriate.

Gog and Magog: Coded Reference to the Historical Babylon

I want to explore the possibility of identifying Gog and Magog as historical figures. Besides the much discussed Eze 38-39 and Rev 20:8, the location of Magog and identity of Gog are unattested in the bible apart from Gen 10:2, 1 Chr 1:5, and 1 Chr 5:4 where Magog is clearly a nation/people descended from Japeth and Gog is the name of a person.I think it highly possible that Ezekiel is using cover words, or code words, by using Gog and Magog. If this is the case, I think the obvious candidates for Gog and Magog are Babylon (the historical Babylon, not a metaphoric one) and it's king.

First, note that Ezekiel has a long list of oracles against various nations in Eze 25-32 (Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre, Sidon, Egypt, Lebanon, Assyria, Elam, Meshech-Tubal). This list of oracles against various nations covers Israel's historical enemies up to the time of Ezekiel with the exception of one - Babylon - the major power that was contemporary with Ezekiel. Why does Ezekiel leave out the name of the power that sacked Jerusalem, burned the Temple, and carried people away into exile? Isaiah and Jeremiah have no trouble making pronouncements against Babylon, but Ezekiel surprisingly leaves them out. Or does he? It must be remembered that Isaiah lived prior to Ezekiel and that Jeremiah had gone into exile into Egypt (Jer 43). Ezekiel, however, lived among the captives in Babylon (Eze 1:1). As a captive trying to make do with his captors, Ezekiel must not openly oppose the king if he wants to preserve his messages and possibly his life. In this case, Ezekiel reserves one of his most lengthy and climactic oracles for Babylon, but he uses the cover words of "Gog" and "Magog" in order for protection. There are several other supporting reasons that this may indeed be the case:

(1) Gog is referd to as the prince of Meshech and Tubal in 38:1-3 (two lands that were north of Israel in Asia Minor). Nebuchadrezzar conquered these regions during his reign.

(2) Gog is said to come from the North (38:6). King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon attacks from the north (Eze 26:7; Jer 25:9).

(3) Gog leads "many peoples" with him into battle (Eze 38:6,9). King Nebuchadrezzar leads many peoples into battle (26:7, 31:11).

(4) Gog attacks with horses, swords, shields, and helmets (38:4-5). King Nebu. attacks with horses, swords, shields, and helmets(23:23-24, 26:10).

(5) The title "Prince of the head of Meschech and Tubal" may be a title that was even given to King Nebu. due to his brokering a peace treaty during his reign between Lydia and the Medes when a dispute arose over control of Meschech and Tubal (Barton, John. Oxford Bible Commentary p 559).

(6) Elsewhere in Ezekiel King Nebuchadrezzar is described in a rather positive light where he is the conqueror of many nations (26:7, 29:18-19, 30:10,24) and even has the title "king of kings" (26:7) and he weilds Yahweh's sword (30:24). Curiously Jeremiah seems to speak of him very negatively calling him a monster (51:34) and painting him as the king who captured Jerusalem and exiled the Israelite people. And unlike Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and Isaiah don't mind giving oracles against Babylon (Jer 50-51; Is 14, 21, 48; Hab 1:6) Why doesn't Ezekiel speak negatively of Nebuchadrezzar as Jeremiah did? I think if we consider that Ezekiel is living among the exiles in Babylon, it makes sense not to speak against the Babylonian king in such a direct manner. But if Ezekiel is using cover words in chapters 38-39 then he does indeed speak against Babylon and her king just as Jeremiah did.

(7) Magog itself may be a cryptogram for "Babel" in a very similiar manner to the way Jeremiah makes a cryptogram with "Sheshach" in Jer 25:26 and 51:41 and "Leb-qamai" in Jer 51:1 (for an explanation of how the cryptogram works see: Boe, Sverre. "Gog and Magog", p 96). Here is how the cryptogram works in Jeremiah 51:1:

“Sheshach” is a code name for Babylon formed on the principle of substituting the last letter of the alphabet for the first, the next to the last for the second, and so on. On this principle Hebrew שׁ (shin) is substituted for Hebrew ב (bet) and Hebrew כ (kaf) is substituted for Hebrew ל (lamed). On the same principle “Leb Kamai” in Jer 51:1 is a code name for Chasdim or Chaldeans which is Jeremiah’s term for the Babylonians. No explanation is given for why the code names are used. The name “Sheshach” for Babylon also occurs in Jer 51:41 where the term Babylon is found in parallelism with it. (NETBible: Jeremiah 51 )

Given this information, it is very possible to see Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 as a coded reference to Babylon and the Babylonian king, and it may even be possible to directly identify the king as Nebuchadrezzar, though I don't think it needs to be seen as being that specific. The setting of Eze 38-39 still has a very future aspect to it though and it seems to take on almost cosmic proportions as a great battle against the whole earth. It's completely understandable that the defeat of Babylon, it's vassals, and it's allies would be described in such futuristic terms though. After all, for Ezekiel Babylon was still the world superpower and so of course it's defeat would be in the future - a future that would be realized when Babylon was actually defeated by the Persians. The defeat of Babylon takes on cosmic proportions as a great battle because Ezekiel ties the release of the Israelite exiles and the defeat of the arch enemy (Babylon) to the vindication of Yahweh's own Name. When the nations saw the end of Israel's exile and the appearent improbable defeat of Babylon, they should realize that Yahweh had vindicated His Name (Eze 36-37). The battle against Babylon would have been seen as a battle against the whole earth since in the time of Ezekiel Babylon controlled the known earth. I think it's safe to say that there is warrant for concluding that Gog and Magog are nothing more than code for the historical Babylon (not a metaophorical Babylon).

Definition of Apocalyptic

Here is a good definition of apocalyptic from one of the best scholarly studies on the topic:

"(ii) Apocalyptic seems essentially to be about the revelation of the divine mysteries through visions or some other form of immediate disclosure of heavenly truths

(iii) The use of the word apocalyptic to describe the literature of Judaism and early Christianity should, therefore, be confined to those works which purport to offer disclosures of the heavenly mysteries, whether as the result of vision, heavenly ascent or verbal revelations. Such a description also extends to those visionary reports which give evidence of the same kind of religious outlook as the apocalypses, even if the contexts in which they are now found cannot be said to conform to the literary genre of the apocalypse.

(iv) Although eschatology is an important component of the heavenly mysteries which are revealed in the apocalypses, it is difficult to justify the selection of this particular element as the basis of the definition of apocaalyptic. The consequence ofthis can lead to an indifference to the fact that apocalyptic is concerned with the revelation of a variety of different matters. Any attempt, therefore, to use the term apocalyptic as a synonym of eschatology must be rejected.....

(v) Although content and form should not in the first instance be the bases for a definition of apocalyptic, it cannot be denied that apocalyptic frequently finds expression in a particular literary genre. In Judaism this is usually an apocalypse granted to some great figure of Israel's past who then reveals to subsequent generations tge secrets which have been disclosed to him and gives advice to them about the sort of life which God expects of the righteous. "(Rowland, Christopher. "The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity", pp 90-72.)