Gog and Magog: The End of the Beginning

Saddam Hussein really wanted to be the new Nebuchadnezzar, the foreign conqueror who took it to the Jews. Saddam is now with the old Nebuchadnezzar, though. Hitler couldn't have taken out all the Jews in Europe, let alone the entire world. Haman, though, could have rubbed out all Jews for all practical purposes, since the Jews were confined within the boundaries of the Persian Empire.

The beginning of Satan's scheme to stop Genesis 3:15 come to fruition would come to its Old Testament climax in the book of Esther, when Haman, number two man in the Persian kingdom, concocted a plan to do in all the Jews. Never before has anyone tried to exterminate all God's chosen people. Not Pharaoh. Not Neb. Not Cyrus. Not Alexander the Great. Not Caesar. Haman, Satan's number one man at the time, went where no man had gone before.

Haman was an Agagite according to Esther 3:1. Agag was king of the Amalekites, a long standing enemy of the Jews, that King Saul was commissioned to destroy back in 1 Samuel 15, but Saul failed to do all God's command. Mordecai, Esther's cousin and guardian, was a descendant of King Saul. So Agag's descendant and Saul's descendant met in the capital city of Susa, where Haman would determine to kill all Mordecai's people scattered throughout the Persian empire.

So the book of Esther is no ordinary story. Considering this unique plot to kill all the Jewish seed, which would mean killing the seed from whom the Seed of woman and the Seed of Abraham would come, we would have to conclude that this earth-shattering event would have been prophesied for sure by some of God's mouthpieces prior to the book of Esther. Had Haman succeeded, there would be no Jesus, no one to squash Satan's own head, and Genesis 3:15 would be proven wrong, so this is not some minor footnote on the pages of human history.

Ezekiel lived many decades prior to Esther. He was a Jewish exile from the 597 B.C. captivity of Jerusalem. In chapters 38 and 39 of his book, God's people were forewarned of a future leader named Gog (Hebrew spelling very similar to Agag; remember Haman was an Agagite) from the land of Magog who would build a "united nations" army to destroy all of the Jews. Such was the case in the book of Esther. Gog is not Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, Germany or any other modern nation. The list of nations with Persia heading the list in chapter 38 were nations that were in existence at the time of Ezekiel to Esther.

The type of military weaponry mentioned in chapter 38 does not belong to modern warfare. They belong to the era back then. Our brave soldiers in Afghanistan do not ride on horses with shields and bucklers and bows and arrows. Also we read that the time period when this confederacy of nations would come against all the Jewish people would be a time when the Jews lived in "unwalled villages." While Esther and Mordecai lived in the Persian capital, many Jews had returned to Israel years prior to repopulate the land, under the generous offer from King Cyrus. The temple had been rebuilt, but until Nehemiah came along in the mid 5th century B.C., which was years after Esther, all the Jews lived in unwalled villages with neither gates nor bars. Nehemiah came specifically to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem.

There are over 400 miles of walls around Jerusalem today. So much for Gog and Magog being a prediction of what would occur in the modern state of Israel! The walls today serve as a protective barrier from Palestinian terrorists who would drive cars and trucks laden with bombs. Walls today, though, can not prevent bombs from being dropped from planes or from missiles being fired from long range destinations. But walls back in the Old Testament days were essential for protection because the type of warfare then was totally different than what they are today.

We are told in Ezekiel 38-39 that God would come to the rescue of the Jews, which was the case in Esther 8-9. Haman's plot was foiled, God's promise in Genesis 3:15 would stand, and the enemies of God would be destroyed. Israel would take seven years to burn all the confiscated weaponry for fuel purposes, something that would be unnecessary in today's "natural gas/oil" world but it would be something very practical and useful for the days back then. It would take seven months for the house of Israel to bury all the dead. It would not take that long today, but it would take that long during the days of the Old Testament with all the ceremonial restrictions placed upon the Jews and with the lack of modern equipment.

The mass burial place for these arch enemies of the Jews would be called Hamon-Gog or Hamonah. Does anybody see a remarkable similarity in the spelling of that burial site with Haman, the villain in the book of Esther?

All of the events of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39 would be for the express purpose of God setting His glory among the nations, and that all nations would come to know that Israel went into exile because of their iniquity, and that is why God led them into captivity in the first place. Israel would come to recognize the Lord is God, and that Israel would put away their false gods. All of this places the events of Gog and Magog in the days then and not in the days now.

I don't have to wait for the NY Times or Fox News or CNN to report what may seem to be a non-literal fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39. All I need to do is read the Bible, the book of Esther, and there I find literally the end of the beginning of Satan's plot to thwart Genesis 3:15 in the chronology of Old Testament events.

In Esther 8:17 we discover that the nations did come to acknowledge the Lord God, for many of the Gentiles within the Persian empire became God-fearing Jews, monotheists in a polytheistic world. Never before had this happened in the pages of the Old Testament, when a massive number of Gentiles from various ethnic groups became believers in the one true Yahweh God. (The book of Esther has many unique historical/providential features.) Would not that also in all likelihood be prophesied in the pages of Scripture?

Haggai and Zechariah were two prophets God used in the time of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. This is post-Ezekiel, but pre-Esther. In Zechariah 2, God says that Jerusalem would be inhabited without walls (Ezekiel 38!), but God would protect her by being a wall of fire around her. The Jews would flee from the land of Babylon (which they did in three separate returns), and that He would protect them from the nations who would seek to destroy Israel (Ezekiel 38-39, Haman's confederacy of nations in Esther!). Like in Esther 9, the tables are turned, and the victims become the victors. The Feast of Purim today celebrates this wondrous miraculous deliverance. And in Zechariah 2:11, many nations would join themselves to the Lord in that day and will become His people (sounds like Esther 8:17 to me!).

Esther was her Persian name. Her Hebrew name was Hadassah, which means "myrtle", as in myrtle trees. How convenient that in Zechariah 1, God enables Zechariah to see a vision of a man among the hadassahs, the myrtle trees.

All of this is not as scintillating as the modern prophecy experts who have mapped out all types of scenarios of an incoming invasion of foreign forces against modern day Israel. There is another difference too. Modern prophecy experts have all been proven wrong over time, and the Bible has been proven right all throughout time.

"All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the Word of the Lord abides forever." 1 Peter 1:24-25

Yours in Christ,

Bro. Chris

The Dirty (and Necessary) Business of Politics

Writing this on election eve, maybe one of the most historic midterm elections ever, I am struck how well-intentioned Christians can be poles apart when it comes to the subject of politics. On one extreme are those that think the pulpit and a political platform or candidate should be connected at the hip. On the other extreme are those that think that anything political in nature should be disconnected at the lip. One church may be decorated in red, white and blue, and it may be hard to distinguish it from an American Legion hall (except maybe for the smell of beer) or a political convention (except maybe for the smell of champagne). The other church at the opposite may think if is a sure sign of ungodliness to do or say anything about "politics", which has to be one of the works of the flesh that should have made the list in Galatians 5.

Both extremes are extremely disappointing and dangerous. To be intoxicated with political pursuits, be it in liberal or evangelical churches, advances the kingdom of man and not the kingdom of God, no matter how justified a person or an entire church may feel toward politics in general and certain hot button issues. To be indifferent toward political matters, though, advances also the kingdom of man and not the kingdom of God, no matter how "spiritual" a person or church may feel by ignoring politics in general and certain hot button issues. Silence and inactivity on the part of those who are called to be salt and light can do as much damage as any misguided political overzealousness.

Some Christians in the land of the free and the home of the brave find any mention of politics as totally repulsive. It should be off limits altogether, because they think somehow it betrays a trust in God's providence by putting one's trust in man instead. These same people though find nothing wrong in going to work on a daily basis, as if God's providence is not going to help them pay the bills and put food on the table.

Politics is a dirty business. So what else is new? We live in a fallen world and everything we do is dirty, because we are all dirty. Being a firefighter is dirty business. Being a salesman is dirty business. Being a nurse is dirty business. Being a preacher of the gospel is dirty business. Jesus washed the feet of the disciples, because when you walk through this world you get dirty. And might it be that God wants to use His children as cleansing agents in all spheres of life, including politics, if He truly is Lord of all?

It reminds me of the raging debate in Martin Luther's day (since we just celebrated Reformation Day on October 31) if a Christian could be a soldier at the same time. Today some of the "spiritually indifferent" would have us to believe that it may not be possible for a person to be a Christian and involved in politics in any sense of the word. The ungodly and unbelievers in our land would love to have all us Christians to become so "spiritual" so we would let others direct the course of our nation, while we have our heads buried in our Bibles and in the sand. If our high and mighty indifference toward anything political is a route we feel compelled to take, just remember that we will have Jehovah's Witnesses as some traveling companions.

Anytime a person erects a new man-made criteria for advanced spirituality, i.e. uninvolvement in anything political, then that only breeds a haughty judgmentalism toward those "weaker brothers" whom they judge to have soiled themselves with political matters. Romans 14 has much to say about these matters, regardless where one fits on the political involvement spectrum. "Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

Do we not recall how the saints and the prophets in the Old Testament were involved in the affairs of government in their day? Whether it be Joseph serving in a heathen Pharaoh's court, or Daniel serving in Babylonian or Persian administrations, or Esther finding herself as first lady, what would the Old Testament redemption story look like if any one of those three had removed themselves from the dirty business of secular government life? What if Nathan had decided not to confront the governmental leader of his day, King David, because he thought it would be more spiritual to stay aloof from messy governmental concerns? Be it Moses, Amos, Isaiah or Jeremiah, one can not read their stories and their preaching without finding a man of God who was deeply informed with the main issues of his day and then told the political machinery of his day what he thought about the main issues of the day. John the Baptist lost his head at a dance because he refused to dance around the politics of his day.

Jesus did not come to start a political movement nor a new political party. The Democrats could try to say that Jesus is one of them because he cared for the poor and he rode a donkey and not an elephant into Jerusalem. The Republicans may try to say that Jesus is one of them because after all does not GOP stand for God's Own Party? As Joshua learned when He faced the Commander-in-Chief with a drawn sword in Joshua 5:13-15, our Lord does not take sides; He is here to take over. Jesus came to die for man's sin, because man's chief problem is not his political position but his spiritual condition.

At the same time, Jesus was not afraid to throw Himself in the political arena, be it His involvement with Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees or the Pharisees. Jesus was not a Zealot out to overthrow the government by political and military maneuvering (although He did have a Simon the Zealot as an apostle), but neither was He an Essene, who withdrew from the dirty business of daily living by just waiting on God out in the desert (after all, He did have a government employee in Matthew as an apostle).

If it were not for our nation's forefathers, most of them very active churchmen including ministers among the group, we would not have a Declaration of Independence or a Constitution or a nation called the USA. So much for spiritual indifference and aloofness. Read the sermons of those God-fearing Revolutionary ministers, and one will not find the extreme of political intoxication, nor will one find the extreme of high-minded spiritual indifference.

If we sit back and do nothing except go to Bible studies, then who are we to blame if our American culture continue its slide toward Gomorrah so that we are not as able to "lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity." (1 Tim. 2:2)? Exactly how is uninvolvement a wiser and higher ground we must take? Do not Scripture and history say otherwise?

I am very eager to vote tomorrow, because I am very concerned about the future of our country, which I love very much. I do not want my children to live in a different country, totally different than what our forefathers had in mind and what I have enjoyed for much of my life. This country had the hand and heart of Providence guiding it, and I am not going to let my hand and heart be idle on election day, just as I get up tomorrow morning to head off to work (after I vote) while trusting in Providence to provide for my needs.

I hope my candidates win, and I hope they live up to my expectations. If not, then I can vote them out the next round. If my preferences do not win, I will not writhe in agony and utter hopelessness. God is not limited on man's terms, and God is not term limited. Regardless who is on man's throne, even if it is Nero in the case of Paul, then we must pray for him or her (1 Tim. 2:1-2). God can change the hearts of the kings (Proverbs 21:1) and He can use us in a free country to change our "kings"--our senators, our governors, our presidents, our mayors, etc. How many in other countries would give their right arm to have the right to choose their leaders like we do in ours?

I will not tell the congregation whom to vote for, nor will I have candidates come in to give a political commercial. The church members can watch Fox News and listen to talk shows or read the daily newspaper, but I must preach the Word. The gospel is not for sale to the highest political bidder. At the same time, I will not sit on the sidelines when it comes to election day and all the days leading up to it. Ignorance is not bliss, nor is uninvolvement more blissful.

When it comes to the doctrine of election, I will enthusiastically preach it when the text calls for it. When it comes to the duty of election, I will enthusiastically do it when the day calls for it.

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew; And then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Niemoller

Yours in Christ,

Chris