Days of Vengeance - The Preterist Archive

20:9-10
sound. Tobolsk was founded in 1587 A.D. Some think
Gomer [Ezek. 38:6] means Germany. It is true the words
‘Gomer’ and ‘Germany’ both begin with a ‘G.’ So does
guesswork.” 38
Woodrow goes on to give reasons why the war of “Gog
and Magog” spoken of in Revelation cannot be
identical to that prophesied in Ezekiel:
1. In Ezekiel, Gog is a prince. In Revelation, Gog is
a nation. [But see Farrer’s alternative explanation,
below.]
2. In Ezekiel, Gog is spoken of as coming against
Israel with people from various countries around
Israel; in Revelation, Gog and Magog are pictured
as nations in the four quarters of the earth, in
number as the sands of the sea.
3. In Ezekiel, Gog and his troops come against Israel,
a people who have returned from captivity and are
dwelling without walls; in Revelation, Gog and
Magog go up on the breadth of the earth and
compass the city of the saints.
4. In Ezekiel the enemy is Gog of the land of Magog;
in Revelation Gog and Magog.
5. In Ezekiel, Gog’s troops are defeated in Israel and
the people burn the remaining weapons for seven
years; in Revelation, Gog and Magog are destroyed
by fire from God out of heaven. . . . Wooden
weapons would be destroyed then and there.
It is not uncommon for the imagery of Revelation to
be based on Old Testament subjects or places. The
“Jezebel” of Revelation is not the same woman as in
Kings. The “Sodom” in Revelation is not the same
Sodom as in Genesis. The “Babylon” in Revelation
is not the Babylon of Daniel. The “New Jerusalem”
in Revelation cannot mean the old Jerusalem. But,
in each instance, the former serves as a type. The
woman Jezebel had already died, the cities of Sodom
and Babylon had already been overthrown, and (in
our opinion) the battle of Ezekiel 38 and 39 (if a
literal battle) had already met its fulfillment within
an Old Testament setting. 39
As Caird points out, in Jewish writings “Gog and
Magog” was a frequent, standard expression for the
rebellious nations of Psalm 2, which gather together
“against the LORD and against His Anointed.” 40 Austin
Farrer comments: “St. John takes the story from Ezekiel
and leaves the symbol undecoded. St. John says that
the nations, or ‘gentiles’ beguiled by Satan are ‘in the
four corners of the earth’ and perhaps he means this, i.e.
that the unreconciled are tucked away in lands remote
from the centre. The simple pairing of ‘Gog and Magog’
must not be taken as fixing on St. John the error of
understanding both names either as tribes or as princes.
In Ezekiel it is perfectly clear that Gog is the prince,
Magog the people. St. John is innocent of the mistake;
he says simply ‘the nations in the four corners of the
earth, Gog and Magog,’ i.e. the power so described by
Ezekiel – as an English orator might have said ‘the
forces of frustrated nationalism, Hitler and Germany.’ It
is certainly curious that St. John equates without
explanation the tribes in the four corners with a tribe
in one corner; only he does exactly the same thing in
the Armageddon vision. Euphrates is dried to let the
kings of the East pass; the three demons beguile all the
kings of the earth to come to Armageddon. The old
biblical picture of invasion from the North East is in
both cases given an ecumenical interpretation.” 41
This is reinforced by St. John’s observation that the
number of them is like the sand of the sea – the same
hyperbolic image used for the Canaanite nations
conquered by Joshua (Josh. 11:4) and the Midianites
overthrown by Gideon (Jud. 7:12) – two of the greatest
triumphs in the history of the Covenant people. Rather
than being a reason for panic and flight, the
surrounding of the saints by a rebellious horde “like the
sand of the sea” is a signal that God’s people are about
to be victorious, completely and magnificently. God’s
reason for bringing a vast multitude to fight against the
Church is not in order to destroy the Church, but in
order to bring the Church a speedier victory. Instead of
God’s people having to seek out her enemies and
engage them in combat one by one, God allows Satan
to incite them into concerted opposition, so that they
may be finished off quickly, in one fell swoop.
9-10 And they came up on the breadth of the earth:
This is reminiscent of Isaiah’s prophecy of a coming
Assyrian invasion, which “will fill the breadth of your
land” (Isa. 8:8); yet, as Isaiah goes onto say, the land
belongs to Immanuel. If the people trust in Him, all the
power of the enemy will be shattered. Faithful Israel
can taunt her attackers:
Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered;
And give ear, all remote places of the earth.
Gird yourselves, yet be shattered;
Gird yourselves, yet be shattered.
Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted;
State a proposal, but it will not stand,
For God is with us! (Isa. 8:9-10)
Yet St. John’s allusion to Isaiah’s prophecy is also a
reminder that old Israel is now apostate. For her there
is no longer an Immanuel. She has definitively rejected
her Maker and Husband, and He has abandoned her.
Instead, God is now with the Church, and it is the
Church’s opponents who will be shattered, though they
be as many in number as the sands of the sea (Gen.
32:12)! Jesus Christ is the Seed of Abraham, and He
will possess the gate of His enemies, for the sake of His
Church (Gal. 3:16, 29; Gen. 22:17).
38. Ibid., p. 41.
39. Ibid., p. 42; cf. T. Boersma, Is the Bible a Jigsaw Puzzle? An Evaluation of Hal
Lindsey’s Writings (St. Catherine, Ont.: Paideia Press, 1978), pp. 106-25; see
also Cornelis Vanderwaal’s discussion of “Goggology” in Hal Lindsey and
Biblical Prophecy (St. Catherine, Ont.: Paideia Press, 1978), pp. 78-80.
40. G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1966), p. 256. Caird cites the following references
in the Talmud: Ber. 7 b , 10 a , 13 a ; Shab. 118a; Pes. 118 a ; Meg. 11 a ; San. 17 a ,
94 a , 97 b ; ‘Abodah Z. 3 b ; ‘Ed. II 10.
41. Austin Farrer, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (Oxford: At the Clarendon
Press, 1964), pp. 207f.
207