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.)

Seven Year Tribulation: Protestant Purgatory?

I think that the 7 year tribulation period posited by many Pre-millennial protestats is the equivalent of what I will call "Protestant Purgatory". Here we have a scenario where we have believers who are rescued from the Tribulation by virture of the fact that they have simply believed in Jesus and received God's grace. But those believers that come to believe during the Trib. are NOT rescued during the Trib. And why not? Well, for no other reason than timing. Their timing was off and so they are punished or 'purified' through an intense trial/tribulation, EVEN THOUGH THEY BELIEVE, while others are afforded divine protection and escape BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE. Isn't this strikingly similiar to a concept of Purgatory? We have some believers who are given preferential treatment due to their belief while others are not, even though their belief is the same. The reason for the difference is that some acted faster than others. I hate to use a cliche, but it's really a judgment based on actions/works and not a judgment rendered due solely to anyone's faith. The judgment rendered is not actually based on their belief (since fairness would say they get the same verdict), but rather it's based on their timing. I think it's a form of Purgatory as Trib-believers are purified for flaws in their faith (lack of promptness), while those of us without that flaw get to skip the intense purifying. And this is only one problem I see with it.