God's War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible

by Walid Shoebat

  The far more reasonable translation of the Hebrew word rosh in Ezekiel 38 is, “head of” or “chief”. The word Rosh appears nearly 600 times in the Bible, and all but once, it is interpreted as meaning “head, chief, top, best” or something similar. Why, then, would we make an exception here and translate it as a proper noun? The word Rosh here is the Rosh that we find in the Rosh Hashana—The chief day of the year—the Jewish New Year.

  According to Bible scholar Dr. Merrill F. Unger, “Linguistic evidence for the equation [of Rosh with Russia] is confessedly only presumptive.”10

  So who then is right? Is Rosh a proper noun? Or does Rosh mean “chief?”

  Theologian and historian Edwin Yamauchi notes that even if one translated the Hebrew rosh as a proper name, it can have nothing to do with modern Russia. He writes, “This would be a gross anachronism, for the modern name [of Russia] is based upon the name Rus, which was brought into the reign of Kiev, north of the Black Sea, by the Vikings only in the Middle Ages.”11 That means that it would have been nearly two thousand years after the time of Ezekiel that the supposed “Rosh peoples” became the “Russians.”

  Prophecy teacher Mark Hitchcock argues that Yamauchi’s argument stands in direct opposition to the arguments presented by the Hebrew scholars Gesenius, James Price, and Clyde Billington.12 But do these scholars really substantiate Hitchcock’s arguments? When one actually looks them up, they do not.

  Hitchcock quotes Billington, “Those Rosh people who lived to the north of the Black Sea in ancient and medieval times were called the Rus / Ros / Rox / Aorsi from very early times…From this mixture with Slavs and with the Varangian Rus in the 9th century, the Rosh people of the area north of the Black Sea formed the people known today as the Russians.”13 Did you notice that? Billington admits that the “Rus” did not even become “Russians” until they migrated and intermarried with Slavic peoples from the north in the 9th century. That is over fifteen hundred years after Ezekiel penned this prophecy.

  While Hitchcock conveniently selected quotes from Billington to support the idea that the ancient Rus peoples through intermarriage, and migration eventually became “the Russians,” he failed to explain that Billington did not place “Rosh” geographically in Russia at the time of Ezekiel. Instead Billington argues that the Rus peoples lived to the north of the Black Sea: “From a variety of sources it is known that a people named the Ros or Rus lived in the same area near the Black Sea where the Tauroi people lived.”14 Geographically north of the Black Sea would be the Ukraine. Billington adds “early Byzantine Christian writers identified the Rosh people of Ezekiel 38-39 with an early group of people of southern Russia whom they called the ‘Ros.’”15

  While this may be true, the Byzantine era was thousands of years after Ezekiel. Why must those who support a Russian presence in Bible prophecy jump forward nearly two thousand years to twist Ezekiel’s words? At best, Billington puts Rosh in the Ukraine, north of the Black Sea or possibly in southern Russia which would be the Muslim regions of Georgia and Chechnya.

  And what about Bible scholar James D. Price, whom Hitchcock simply mentions as a refutation to anyone who objects? In an article in the Grace Theological Journal, Price identifies Rosh as “a well-known land in antiquity on the banks of the Tigris river, bordering on Elam and Ellipi,” in the far western part of modern Iran.16 So now Rosh is in Iran? Why does Hitchcock only cite Billington but not Price? One man’s argument might sound good, until they are examined by another.

  But ultimately here’s the real problem with Hitchcock’s approach: In all of the names mentioned in Ezekiel 38, Hitchcock locates where they existed in Ezekiel’s day and then identifies the nations that now occupy those regions as key players in the Gog Magog invasion. So if during Ezekiel’s day, Magog was located in Asia Minor, then Magog comes to represent modern day Turkey. This is the geographical method of identifying the names listed. Hitchcock uses this method to identify every one of the eight names—except Rosh. When we get to Rosh, then Hitchcock’s methodology is suddenly switched up. With Rosh, Hitchcock’s method is to use “the ancestral migration” method. So although the Rosh peoples of Ezekiel’s day may have lived in the region that is modern day Ukraine, (others as we just saw, argue otherwise) Hitchcock does not identify them with the Ukraine. Instead he identifies them with the nation that their ancestors—after migrating and intermarrying with the Slavic people to the north—eventually founded, which is Russia. But why suddenly change methods? If we applied the ancestral migration method with every other name, we would have an absolute mess. Tracking the intermingling and migration of numerous ancient peoples is often an exercise in futility. The history of this world is the story of the intermingling and migration of every race tribe and people. As such, the regional method is by far preferred and should be stuck with.

  So even if Rosh is interpreted as a proper noun, it could point to the Ukraine, Chechnya or Georgia and possibly even Iran. But to point to one small tribe that possibly lived north of the Black Sea as proof to point to the vast nation that is Russia is highly irresponsible.

  Now let’s examine the identity of the other nations that will be involved in the Great Battle.

  MAGOG

  Magog encompasses Asia Minor. But some prophecy teachers try to claim that Magog is also pointing to Russia. Tim Lahaye, author of the best-selling Left Behind series, points to Josephus’ identification of Magog as “the land of the Scythians—the ancient northern nomadic tribes who inhabited the territory from Central Asia across the southern Steppes of modern Russia.”17

  Lahaye’s assessment of the Scythians is accurate, yet it proves the point that if Magog is the Scythian territory, then this land mass is in the southern region of the former USSR, but not Russia proper.

  The problem with using this method to see Russia in Ezekiel’s prophecy, however, is that the southern Steppes of modern Russia include portions of the former USSR. Still, it is not part of modern Russia proper. These Muslim states split from Russia when Communism fell.

  Ancient Scythia includes the regions of Asia Minor (Turkey) and the several Central Asian states (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc.). These are all Muslim nations.

  Analysis that supports the “Magog Russia theory” uses correct references, but draws faulty conclusions. The theory is based on the assumption that Russia proper would always control the southern Muslim states, but to everyone’s surprise, Communism fell and the Soviet Union collapsed. The unexpected split seems not to have effected Western analysts’ interpretation of end-time events.

  Prophecy author Grant Jeffrey, who also interprets Magog as Russia by quoting Rawlinson, says, “The areas…that were ruled by the Scythians are located south of Russia and in the southern republics of the Commonwealth of Independent states (the former USSR).”18 Although Jeffrey correctly quotes Rawlinson, he insists on seeing Russia in Ezekiel’s prophecy since this theory had become a standard interpretation.

  The Latin Church Father Jerome says that Magog denotes, “Scythian nations, fierce and innumerable, who live beyond the Caucasus and the Lake Maeotis, and near the Caspian Sea, and spread out even onward to India, which represents the Assyrian Mat Gugi, or ‘country of Gugu,’ ‘the Gyges of the Greeks.’”

  Magog: Turkey, Syria, Northern Iran and The Turkic Regions of Central Asia

  The Matthew Henry Complete Commentary speaks of this diversity of opinion. “Some think they find them [Gog and Magog] afar off, in Scythia, Tartary, and southern Russia. Others think they find them nearer the land of Israel, in Syria, and Asia the Less Turkey. (Matthew Henry, Bible Commentary)

  Josephus also points to the Scythians as Magog: “Magog founded the Magogians, thus named after him, but who by the Greeks are called Scythians.”

  But again, where was the “Scythian” territory of Magog? It was not Russia.

  The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, citing ancient Assyrian writings, places the location of Magog in the landmass
between ancient Armenia and Media19—in short, the Republics south of Russia and north of Israel, comprised of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Turkestan, Chechnya, Turkey, etc.

  I agree with all these quotes and I add; these are all Muslim nations.

  Many who support the “Magog Russia theory” also use Hesiod as an example. Hesiod, the father of Greek didactic poetry, identified Magog with the Scythians in the 7th century B.C.20 Philo as well, in the first century, identifies Magog with Turkey and the southern steppes of the former USSR—that entire northern region is described in Ezekiel 38 as the “remote parts of the north.”21

  Some argue that because the passage points to the “farthest north,” it must be referring to Russia. But the word “farthest” is not to be found in the Hebrew.

  Another interesting point is that in Ezekiel 39:18 the dead bodies of the fallen soldiers of Magog are called, “fatlings of Bashan.” While most Bible encyclopedias identify Bashan with Syria, there is also an area called Bashan in the Caucasus or the Caucasian Region. But one cannot call Russians “fatlings of Bashan.”22

  If we examine some of the greatest Biblical references, like the Macmillan Bible Atlas, Oxford Bible Atlas, and The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands, they all locate Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Gomer and Beth Togarmah in Asia Minor, and not Russia.

  Are they all wrong?

  Another important point is that Meshech and Tubal must be tied to Magog, yet these are in Asia Minor and not Russia. Magog is specifically referred to as the region of “the land of Magog, chief prince (head or leader of) of Meshech and Tubal.” (Ezekiel 38:2) Because Meshech and Tubal are regions of Turkey—Magog must thus be related to Turkey. Otherwise the passage would make little sense. How could Russia be the head over regions of Turkey? It makes better sense to conclude that Gog is a leader from the land of Magog and the leader of Meshech and Tubal, all of which are in Turkey.

  When it comes to the geographic location of Meshech and Tubal, you will never find a serious historian, Bible dictionary or Bible map that would agree with any of the proponents for a Russian location. What you will find written by supporters of the Magog Russia theory are words like “probably” “possibly” and “maybe” interspersed throughout their arguments.

  One common denominator in the argument over the Gog and Magog story is that everyone at least agrees that Gog is Prince of Meshech and Tubal. No serious historian would argue that Meshech and Tubal are not in Turkey. If we go with the translation that Gog is “prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal” are we then to say that Gog rules both Russia and Turkey?

  You might want to counter that Gog could indeed be the chief over this whole confederacy. But apart from the fact that these two nations have warred against each other from time immemorial, why didn’t the Bible then give him the title of “prince of Rosh, Meshech, Tubal, Persia, Phut, and Cush”?

  Gog is of the land of Magog, a very specific place, and he is the ruler of his domain; “Meshech and Tubal,” which must be associated with Magog. All these are given for locators and are not intended to lead us into a wild goose chase or a genealogical and historical puzzle.

  It is actually far simpler than some make it.

  The error of the Russian theory arose from the Scofield Study Bible, which identifies Meshech and Tubal with the modern Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk. The only basis for this interpretation is the somewhat similar sound of the two words. Thus: Meshech sounds like Moscow, and Tubal sounds like Tobolsk. However, one cannot simply take a word from an ancient Semitic language (in this case, Hebrew) and find a correlation to a modern name from a drastically different language (in this case an early form of Scandinavian) simply because the two words “sound the same.” While this may be convincing to some for the sole reason of phonetics, it is very irresponsible hermeneutics.

  Tim LaHaye for example explains the reason that we may know that Ezekiel 38 and 39 “can only mean modern-day Russia” is because of “etymology,” that is, by studying the origin of words.

  If phonetics is the yard stick to prove where Gog comes from, then Meshech fits best with the ancient Moschi/Mushki far better than it does with Moscow. Likewise Tubal fits far better with the ancient Tubalu peoples than it does with modern Tobolsk, especially because the two locations were well known regions of Asia Minor Ezekiel’s day. There is no need to look any further.

  Even Hitchcock admits that Meshech and Tubal are in modern Turkey, or possibly in parts of southern Russia and northern Iran.25 Yet Hitchcock chose Russia for Rosh and Turkey for Meshech and Tubal. As I mentioned above, this forces a strange reading of the passage that combines Turkey and Russia under a single ruler as Gog is the prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal.

  I presume that knowledge and refinement are increasing the closer we get to the actual events. What is missing is a humble stern gradual correction and refinement as we watch the Middle East. I am not saying that our Western Christian prophecy authors have tried to hide something or had any hidden agenda. That would be unfair to say, they are simply teaching what they have been taught by their teachers who taught the same false conclusions. Much of the other material on prophecy presented by Hal Lyndsey, Tim Lahaye, Grant Jeffrey and Mark Hitchcock are excellent and worthy of the edification of the Church. But on this point, the wild geese have migrated and they are wasting their time chasing them so far to the north. Turkey is far enough.

  MESHECH

  Meshech appears in Assyrian texts as Muski or Musku from 1200 B.C. onwards. The people of Musku were known to be aligned with Tubal. There is little doubt that the frequent Biblical association of Meshech and Tubal (Genesis 10:2; Ezekiel 27:13; 32:26; 38:2-3; 39:1; I Chronicles 1:5) reflects this ancient political alliance in central Asia Minor during Ezekiel’s day.24

  Like Magog, the support for Meshech and Tubal to be in Asia Minor gains the blessings of historians even in Ezekiel’s day—Herodotus tells us that the name of the Cappadocians (Katpatouka) was applied to them by the Persians, while they were termed by the Greeks “Syrians” or “White Syrians” (Leucosyri). One of the Cappadocian tribes that Herodotus mentions are the Moschoi, associated by Flavius Josephus with the Biblical figure Meshech, son of Japheth, “and the Mosocheni were founded by Mosoch; now they are Cappadocians.”26

  Cappadocia of course, is in Turkey. Yet some still try to associate Meshech with Moscow. Again, unless one can legitimately trace the roots of a particular word back to its Hebrew origin, then the argument is based on extremely weak evidence. This error is caused by relying on words similar in their sounding, a common thing within certain prophecy circles. Some have even gone so far as to claim that “Gomer” is referring to Germany. This position has some serious flaws. First, in order to make the root word for “Gomer” to work with “Germnay” one must reverse the “R” and the “M.” Ezekiel wrote of GMR not GRM. Such a reversal is completely unwarranted. Furthermore, this similarity and inversion is based upon a comparison of Ezekiel’s GMR with a modern English (from Latin) designation for Deutschland. Clearly, the similarity is only superficial and only serves to highlight the American-centric mentality of so many American prophecy teachers who forget that the Bible was not written for English speakers. These two errors rule out, absolutely, any possible identification of Gomer with Germany.27

  Imagine how foolish the use of this methodology could become: One could even go so far as to make Biblical Javan be referring to Japan or Saksin be Anglo-Sakson—after all, they sound similar, do they not? Another could argue that Scythia is in Scotland, which is inhabited by “Scots” since “Scyths,” and “Scots” can be mildly manipulated to sound similar. Yet some serious Bible teachers follow this flawed approach and equate Tubal with “Tblisi” in Georgia.28

  But try to follow the logic: Even if it were true, that some particular modern nation adapted a name that related to its ancient ancestors, it does not override its original location. This would be like saying that because there is a Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, the Messiah must be fro
m Pennsylvania. Scythia is in Eurasia and not in Scotland or Siberia. Even Spain or the Iberians are of Anatolian origin (Celtiberian) and descend from Gomer. So are the Celtic, the Gaels, the Irish, the Welsh, the Britons and the French who trace themselves to Gomer part of the Gog coalition also? And if not, then why are we including Russia simply because she may have descended from the Rosh? There is no difference between the two.

  If phonetics and migration patterns are the yardstick that God has ordained for us to identify these nations, then we are in serious trouble because we will be forced to ultimately include virtually every nation in Europe. Then by adding Cush and Phut who are the children of Ham, we can also include all of Africa in Gog’s coalition. We can even theorize that China came from Mongolia who is linked to the ancient Magogite/Scythians as well. In fact, if we continue with the lineage and migratory path then we might as well include the whole globe. The U.S. has peoples from every ancient people imaginable, so is the U.S. also part of the Gog coalition?

  But if the ancestral, migration method is the method that we need to be using, why then would the Bible go through all of the effort of giving us the names of nations? Why not simply say that Gog is chief prince of the entire globe, and then forget about providing us with all of these ancient names? Why simply pick on the Russians? Why not the Scots, the Irish, the Eskimos…?

  Had God intended a European nation to be included in the Gog coalition, He would have simply mentioned them. Iberia is mentioned in the Bible. So is Chittim, which was the ancient name for Rome—did God forget to mention it in this prophecy?