Gog and Magog: Ezekiel 38-39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19,17-21 and 20,7-10 3161475208, 9783161571770

Table of contents :
Cover
Titel
Preface
Table of Contents
Abbreviations
I: Introduction
1.1 The task
1.2 History of research
1.2.1 Revelation’s use of the Old Testament
Studies at the beginning of the twentieth century
Studies after 1950
Critical objections
1.2.2 The exegesis of Revelation 20,8
The identity of Gog and Magog in Revelation 20,8
The use of traditional material in Revelation 20,8
The double use of Ezekiel 38–39 in Revelation 19,17–20,10
1.2.3 The Gog and Magog traditions
1.3 Methodological considerations
1.3.1 Author- and reader-oriented exegesis
1.3.2 Synchronic and diachronic exegesis
1.3.3 Apocalyptic literature as a methodological challenge
1.3.4 Tracing allusions in Revelation
Definition of terms
Seeking parallels
1.3.5 Criteria for the choice of relevant texts
1.4 Introductory comments on the book of Revelation
1.4.1 The author
1.4.2 Adressee
1.4.3 Time
1.4.4 Historical situation
1.4.5 The question of genre
1.4.6 Outline of Revelation
II: Gog and Magog in the OT outside of Ezekiel
2.1 Gog and Magog in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament
2.1.1 Magog in Genesis 10,2 and 1 Chronicles 1,5
2.1.2 Gog in 1 Chronicles 5,4
2.2 Gog and Magog in the Septuagint and other versions
2.2.1 Gog for Agag in the versions to Numbers 24,7
The Samaritan Pentateuch
Other versions and texts
The Balaam text from Deir ´Alla
The translation of Numbers into Greek
Possible explanations of the Gog-reading
Possible interpretations of the Gog-reading in Numbers 24,7
Conclusions
2.2.2 Gog for Og in Cod. Vat. in Deuteronomy 3,1.13; 4,47
King Og from Bashan
2.2.3 Gog in the Septuagint of Amos 7,1
A. The terms for locusts
B. εἷς – ‘one’
C. The name Γωγ
The translation of Amos into Greek
The relationship to Joel
The title of king
The nature of the enemy
The locusts as a metaphor for a military army
Interpretations of Gog as a mythological figure
To what time do the locusts refer?
The locusts as punishment
Conclusions
2.2.4 “Haman, the Gogite” in ms. 93 to Esther 3,1 and 9,24
2.2.5 Gog in Cod. Vat. to Sirach 48,17
Conclusions to Chapter Two
III: Gog from Magog in Ezekiel 38–39
3.1 The context of Ezekiel 38–39
3.1.1 The book of Ezekiel
3.1.2 Ezekiel 38–39 within its context: Ezekiel 33–48
Ezekiel 36,16–38
Ezekiel 37,1–14
Ezekiel 37,15–28
Ezekiel 40–48
The appropriateness of Ezekiel 38–39 in the context
3.2 Analysis of Ezekiel 38–39
Integrity and unity of Ezekiel 38–39
The genre of Ezekiel 38–39
The relation of Ezekiel 38–39 to apocalyptic
3.3 The identity of Gog from Magog in Ezekiel 38–39
3.3.1 Preliminary remarks on the names “Gog” and “Magog”
Gog and Magog as rhyme-words
3.3.2 Proposed identifications of Gog
1. Gog as king Gyges of Lydia
2. Gog as a prince called Gâgi living north of Assyria
3. Various identifications with other historical persons
4. Gog taken from Numbers 24,7
5. Gog as a district called Gaga
6. Gog derived from a Babylonian deity called “Gaga”
3.3.3 Proposed identifications of Magog
1. Magog as the Scythians
2. Magog as the Babylonians
3. Magog as the Lydians or the Parthians
3.3.4 Symbolic explanations of “Gog”
1. Gog derived from a Sumerian word Gug
2. Gog and the Cuthean legend of Naram-Sin
3.3.5 The relationship between the two names
1. “Gog” formed from “Magog”
2. “Magog” formed from “Gog”
Conclusions
3.4 The other names of Ezekiel 38–39
Rosh
Meshech and Tubal
Persia, Cush and Put
Gomer
Beth-togarmah
Sheba, Dedan and Tarshish
“Those who live in the coastlands”
The possibility of a mythological character of Gog’s army
Conclusions
3.5 Main themes in Ezekiel 38–39
3.5.1 The combatants
Israel
Gog’s army
The relationship to previous prophecy
The enemy from the north
The motivation for Gog’s attack
3.5.2 The warfare
The battlefield
Did Gog really capture Jerusalem?
God’s intervention
The Day of Yahweh
The eschatological assault of the nations
Similar war-accounts in Daniel and Zechariah 7–14
3.5.3 The outcome
Gog’s weapons as fuel for Israel
The burial of Gog’s army and the purification of the land
The significance of the number seven
Gog’s army presented as Yahweh’s sacrifice
The recognition of Yahweh
The pouring out of God’s spirit
3.6 Ezekiel 38–39 in the Septuagint
3.6.1 The general character of the Septuagint to Ezekiel
3.6.2 Ezekiel 38–39 in the Septuagint
The names Gog and Magog
The other names
The shorter version in 38,4
The insertion of the name “Gog” in 38,17
The pouring out of “anger” instead of “spirit” in 39, 29
3.6.3 Text-historical matters
Conclusions to Chapter Three
IV: Gog and Magog in other literature
4.1 Gog and Magog in the Sibylline Oracles
The third book of the Sibylline Oracles
Gog and Magog in the Sibylline Oracles 3,319–22
Gog and Magog in the Sibylline Oracles 3,512–13
Allusions to Ezekiel 38–39 in Sibylline Oracles 3,635–731
Conclusions
4.2 Gog and Magog in the book of Jubilees
The Book of Jubilees
The geographical orientation in Jubilees
Gog and Magog in Jubilees
The relationship between the regions of Gog and Magog
Jubilees’ possible use of Ezekiel
Conclusions
4.3 Gog and Magog in Qumran
The use of Ezekiel in Qumran
Gog in 1QM XI,16
The general picture of the enemies in the War Scroll
The enemies in 1QM XI
Ezekielian traditions in 1QM
Is there a role for Messiah in the Gog-battle in 1QM XI?
Magog in the Pesher on Isaiah 11,1–5 (4Q161)
4Q161 8–10 col III 18–25:
Magog in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen)
1QapGen XII,12
1QapGen XVII,16
1QapGen XVII, 10
Gog and Magog in 4Q523
Conclusions
4.4 Allusions to Ezekiel 38–39 in 1 Enoch 56,5–8
The relations to Ezekiel 38–39
Conclusions
4.5 Josephus on Magog
Conclusions
4.6 Magog in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
Conclusions
4.7 Gog and Magog in the Targumim
4.7.1 Introductory comments
The names Gog and Magog
4.7.2 Gog and Magog in the Targumim
Targum Jonathan to Ezekiel 38–39
The Targumim to Genesis 10,2
The Targumim to Numbers 11,26
Gog and Magog and the Messiah(s) in the Targumim
Additional references to Gog and Magog in the Targumim
Conclusions
Excursus 1: Gog and Magog in rabbinic writings
The age of the rabbinic references to Gog and Magog
The time of Gog and Magog’s attack
Gog and the Messiah ben Joseph
The identity of Gog and Magog
Other passages related to Gog and Magog
Conclusions
Excursus 2: Gog and Magog in 3 Enoch 45,5
4.8 The Armenian province of Gogarenê and the port of Gogana
Gogarenê
Gogana
Excursus 3: The Church Fathers on Gog and Magog
From Justin to Augustin
Identifications with contemporary enemies
Conclusions
Excursus 4: Alexander’s Wall and the enclosed nations
Alexander’s Iron Gates according to Josephus
Alexander’s Gate and Gog and Magog in Medieval literature
Gog and Magog in the Koran
Other suggestions
Theories about the growth of these traditions
Conclusions to Chapter Four
V: John’s use of the Gog and Magog traditions
5.1 Literary analysis of Revelation 19,11–21,8
5.1.1 Objections to the integrity of Revelation 19,11–22,21
5.1.2 Revelation 19,11–21,8 and the rest of the book
5.1.3 The number of visions in Revelation 19,11–21,8
5.1.4 Text-critical matters
5.2 Main theological lines in Revelation 19,11–21,8
Introductory comment
5.2.1 Revelation 19,11–16: The rider on the white horse
5.2.2 Revelation 19,17–18: The invitation of the birds
5.2.3 Revelation 19,19–21: The battle against the beasts
5.2.4 Revelation 20,1–3: Satan’s imprisonment
5.2.5 Revelation 20,4–6: The millennial kingdom
5.2.6 Revelation 20,7–10: The battle against Gog and Magog
5.2.7 Revelation 20,11–15: The final judgement
5.2.8 Revelation 21,1–8: The New Jerusalem
5.2.9 Conclusions
5.3 The Gog and Magog traditions in Revelation
Echoes of Ezekiel 38 in Revelation 16,17–21
5.3.1 The Gog and Magog traditions in Revelation 19,17–21
Then I saw an angel standing in the sun
He called to all the birds that fly in midheaven
Come, gather
... for the great supper of God
To eat
... the flesh of
Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth
With their armies
Gathered
To make war
And the beast was captured
The lake of fire
And the rest were killed
And all the birds were gorged with their flesh
The imagery of the birds’s supper
Conclusions
5.3.2 The Gog and Magog traditions in Revelation 20,7–10
When the thousand years are ended
Satan will be released
From his prison
And will come out
To deceive
The nations
At the four corners of the earth
Gog and Magog
The use of the article with “Gog”
Are “Gog” and “Magog” names of persons or nations?
Gog and Magog as demons or spirits of the dead
Batto’s interpretation of a double elimination of evil
Malina’s astronomical interpretation
Mealy’s interpretation of “the nations” as resurrected peoples
In order to gather them for battle
They are as numerous as the sands of the sea
They marched up
Over the breadth of the earth
And surrounded
The camp
The saints
And the beloved city
And fire came down from heaven
Fire
Came down
From heaven
And consumed them
The devil thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur
Was thrown
Where the beast and the false prophet were
And they will be tormented
Day and night
Forever and ever
Conclusions
Other Gog and Magog traditions compared to Rev. 20,7–10
Conclusions concerning Gog’s identity
Other conclusions
5.4 In dialogue with other scholars
5.4.1 John’s possible consciousness about the text of Ezekiel
Objections against such theories
Evidence of John’s use of Ezekiel
Some theories about John’s knowledge and use of Ezekiel
5.4.2 John and some different eschatological Schemata
Various Jewish traditions about the eschatological events
Deviations from the Ezekielian Schema
John’s use of eschatological Schemata
John’s selfconsciousness as a prophet
5.4.3 ‘Fulfillment’ in Rev. 19,17–21 and 20,7–10?
5.4.4 Did John direct his readers/listeners to Ezekiel 38–39?
5.4.5 The double use of Ezekiel 38–39 in Rev. 19,17–20,10
Aalder’s theory
Alexander’s claim of a double fulfilment
Caird’s double elimination of evil
Batto’s two-stage destruction of evil
White’s argument for recapitulation
R.L. Thomas’ explanation
Mealy sees Ezekiel 38–39 as two distinct prophecies
O. Andersen’s suggestion
Evaluation
5.4.6 A role for Israel in Revelation 19,17–20,10?
Conclusions
VI: Summary
Appendix: Tables
Table 1
Table 2 a
Table 2 b
Bibliography
A. Sources
B. Lexica and tools
C 1: Commentaries to Ezekiel
C 2: Commentaries to Revelation
D: Other works
Index of Sources
Old Testament
New Testament
Jewish Texts
Christian Texts
Other Texts
Index of Names
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament • 2. Reihe Herausgegeben von Martin Hengel und Otfried Hofius

135

Sverre B0e

Gog and Magog Ezekiel 38 - 39 as Pre-text for Revelation 19,17-21 and 20,7-10

Mohr Siebeck

SVERRE B0E, born 1958; studied theology in Oslo (the Norwegian Lutheran School of Theology), besides other studies in U S A (Decorah, Iowa), Germany (Celle), and the University of Oslo. 1981-85 part-time preacher in Vestfold, Norway; 1 9 8 6 - 9 9 teacher at Fjellhaug Mission Seminary, Oslo. 1999 Dr. theol. at the Norwegian Lutheran School of Theology, Oslo. From 1999 Associate Professor at Fjellhaug Mission Seminary, Oslo.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek -

CIP-Einheitsaufhahme

B0e, Sverre: Gog and Magog : Ezekiel 38 - 39 as pre-text for Revelation 19,17-21 and 20,7-10 / Sverre B0e. - Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, 2001 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament : Reihe 2 ; 135) ISBN 3-16-147520-8

978-3-16-157177-0 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019

© 2001 J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P.O. Box 2040, D-72101 Tübingen. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Guide-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Heinr. Koch in Tübingen. Printed in Germany ISSN 0340-9570

Preface This book is a revised version of my 1999 dissertation with the same title presented to the Norwegian Lutheran School of Theology, Oslo, in 1999. It was prof. Ernst Baasland who introduced me to a scholarly study of the inter-textual relationship between Revelation and Ezekiel. He was my supervisor up to 1997, when he was elected bishop of Stavanger, Norway. Prof. Hans Kvalbein was my supervisor up to the public defense September 24. and 25. 1999. My opponents were prof. David E. Aune, Notre Dame University, USA, prof. Jarl H. Ulrichsen, University of Trondheim, Norway, and ass. prof. Reidar Hvalvik, the Norwegian Lutheran School of Theology, Oslo. The many valuable comments from these and other scholars have enabled me to revise my dissertation at many points. I cordially thank them all. I am also privileged to present my study to the public forum of biblical scholars through the WUNT II-series of J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Hopefully this can contribute to a further study of the issue. Particularly I want to thank prof. Martin Hengel and Mr. Matthias Spitzner for this opportunity. This book has grown out of almost ten years of part-time studies. I have had the privilege of teaching at Fjellhaug Mission Seminary since 1986, and my teaching duties have been reduced over several periods. I thank my seminary and the principals Egil Sjaastad (1986-99) and Ola Tulluan (from 1999) for this opportunity. I also wish to thank cand. philol. Hanne Tulluan, and Mr. Geir Magne Karlsen for various assistance in the project. I want to dedicate this book to my wife Heidi, who constantly has supported my work without a single negative comment, and to our five children Nils Klre, Kari Anne, Per Sigmund, Bard Kristian and Osmund Olav. The happy life in the family balances and gives perspectives to the scholarly work at the seminary. Most of all I wish to thank my God for the texts he has given us, the message therein, and the ability to read and meditate upon them. The aim of all my work is to learn and teach according to his word, and I hope that my shortcomings and mistakes will not mislead anyone who sincerely wants to understand the Bible. November 2000

Sverre Böe, Fjellhaug Mission Seminary, Oslo.

Table of Contents Preface Table of Contents Abbreviations

I: Introduction

V VII XV

1

1.1

The task

1

1.2

History of research

5

1.2.1 Revelation's use of the Old Testament

6

Studies at the beginning of the twentieth century

7

Studies after 1950

8

Critical objections 1.2.2 The exegesis of Revelation 20,8 The identity of Gog and Magog in Revelation 20,8

12 14 14

The use of traditional material in Revelation 20,8

16

The double use of Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in Revelation 19,17-20,10

16

1.2.3 The Gog and Magog traditions

19

1.3

21

Methodological considerations

1.3.1 Author- and reader-oriented exegesis

21

1.3.2 Synchronic and diachronic exegesis

22

1.3.3 Apocalyptic literature as a methodological challenge

23

1.3.4 Tracing allusions in Revelation

24

Definition of terms

25

Seeking parallels

29

1.3.5 Criteria for the choice of relevant texts

31

1.4

35

Introductory comments on the book of Revelation

1.4.1 The author

35

1.4.2 Adressee

36

1.4.3 Time

37

1.4.4 Historical situation

37

1.4.5 The question of genre

39

1.4.6 Outline of Revelation

42

II: Gog and Magog in the OT outside of Ezekiel

45

2.1

45

Gog and Magog in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament

2.1.1 Magog in Genesis 10,2 and 1 Chronicles 1,5

45

2.1.2 Gog in 1 Chronicles 5,4

49

2.2

Gog and Magog in the Septuagint and other versions

2.2.1 Gog for Agag in the versions to Numbers 24,7

50 50

The Samaritan Pentateuch

52

Other versions and texts

52

VIII

Table of Contents The Balaam text from Deir 'Alia

53

The translation of Numbers into Greek

54

Possible explanations of the Gog-reading

54

Possible interpretations of the Gog-reading in Numbers 24,7

57

Conclusions 2.2.2 Gog for Og in Cod. Vat. in Deuteronomy 3,1.13; 4,47 King Og from Bashan 2.2.3 Gog in the Septuagint of Amos 7,1

58 58 60 61

A. The terms for locusts

63

B. eii - 'one'

64

C. The name Tory

64

The translation of Amos into Greek

65

The relationship to Joel

65

The title of king

66

The nature of the enemy

66

The locusts as a metaphor for a military army

67

Interpretations of Gog as a mythological figure

68

To what time do the locusts refer?

69

The locusts as punishment

70

Conclusions

70

2.2.4 "Haman, the Gogite" in ms. 93 to Esther 3,1 and 9,24

71

2.2.5 Gog in Cod. Vat. to Sirach 48,17

73

Conclusions to Chapter Two

75

III: Gog from Magog in Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9

76

3.1

76

The context of Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9

3.1.1 The book of Ezekiel

76

3.1.2 Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 within its context: Ezekiel 33-48

77

3.2

3.3

Ezekiel 36,16-38

78

Ezekiel 37,1-14

78

Ezekiel 37,15-28

79

Ezekiel 40-48

80

The appropriateness of Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in the context

81

Analysis of Ezekiel 38-39

83

Integrity and unity of Ezekiel 38-39

85

The genre of Ezekiel 38-39

86

The relation of Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 to apocalyptic

87

The identity of Gog from Magog in Ezekiel 38-39

3.3.1 Preliminary remarks on the names "Gog" and "Magog" Gog and Magog as rhyme-words 3.3.2 Proposed identifications of Gog 1. Gog as king Gyges of Lydia

88 89 90 91 91

Table of Contents

3.3.3

3.3.4

3.3.5

3.4

3.5

2. Gog as a prince called Gagi living north of Assyria

93

3. Various identifications with other historical persons

94

4. Gog taken from Numbers 24,7

94

5. Gog as a district called Gaga

95

6. Gog derived from a Babylonian deity called " G a g a "

95

Proposed identifications of Magog

95

1. Magog as the Scythians

95

2. Magog as the Babylonians

96

3. Magog as the Lydians or the Parthians

97

Symbolic explanations of " G o g "

97

1. Gog derived from a Sumerian word Gug

97

2. Gog and the Cuthean legend of Naram-Sin

97

The relationship between the two names

98

1. " G o g " formed from " M a g o g "

98

2. " M a g o g " formed from " G o g "

98

Conclusions

99

The other names of Ezekiel 38-39

99

Rosh

100

Meshech and Tubal

101

Persia, Cush and Put

102

Gomer

103

Beth-togarmah

104

Sheba, Dedan and Tarshish

104

"Those who live in the coastlands"

105

The possibility of a mythological character of G o g ' s army

105

Conclusions

106

Main themes in Ezekiel 38-3 9

3.5.1 The combatants Israel

107 107 107

G o g ' s army

Ill

The relationship to previous prophecy

113

The enemy from the north

114

The motivation for Gog's attack

116

3.5.2 The warfare

3.5.3

IX

118

The battlefield

118

Did Gog really capture Jerusalem?

118

God's intervention

119

The Day of Yahweh

121

The eschatological assault of the nations

122

Similar war-accounts in Daniel and Zechariah 7 - 1 4

122

The outcome

125

G o g ' s weapons as fuel for Israel

125

The burial of G o g ' s army and the purification of the land

126

X

3.6

Table of

Contents

The significance of the number seven

127

G o g ' s army presented as Y a h w e h ' s sacrifice

128

The recognition of Yahweh

131

The pouring out of God's spirit

131

Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in the Septuagint

132

3.6.1 The general character of the Septuagint to Ezekiel 3.6.2 Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in the Septuagint

133

The names Gog and Magog

133

The other names

134

The shorter version in 38,4

134

The insertion of the name "Gog" in 38,17

134

The pouring out of "anger" instead of "spirit" in 39, 29

135

3.6.3 Text-historical matters

135

Conclusions to Chapter Three

138

IV: Gog and Magog in other literature 4.1

Gog and Magog in the Sibylline The third book of the Sibylline

140

Oracles

140

Oracles

140

Gog and Magog in the Sibylline

Oracles 3 , 3 1 9 - 2 2

142

Gog and Magog in the Sibylline

Oracles 3,512-13

145

Allusions to Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in Sibylline

Oracles 3 , 6 3 5 - 7 3 1

Conclusions 4.2

4.3

132

147 149

Gog and Magog in the book of Jubilees

150

The Book of Jubilees

150

The geographical orientation in Jubilees

152

Gog and Magog in Jubilees

153

The relationship between the regions of Gog and Magog

155

Jubilees' possible use of Ezekiel

158

Conclusions

158

Gog and Magog in Qumran

159

The use of Ezekiel in Qumran

160

Gog in 1QM XI,16

161

The general picture of the enemies in the War Scroll

163

The enemies in 1QM XI

164

Ezekielian traditions in 1QM

167

Is there a role for Messiah in the Gog-battle in 1QM XI?

169

Magog in the Pesher on Isaiah 11,1-5 (4Q161)

170

4Q161 8 - 1 0 col III 18-25: Magog in the Genesis Apocryphon

170 (lQapGen)

174

l Q a p G e n XII ,12

174

lQapGen XVII,16

175

l Q a p G e n XVII, 10

176

Table of Contents

4.4

4.5 4.6

Gog and Magog in 4Q523

177

Conclusions

178

Allusions to Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in 1 Enoch 5 6 , 5 - 8

178

The relations to Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9

182

Conclusions

184

Josephus on Magog

184

Conclusions

186

Magog in Liber Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

Conclusions 4.7

189 189

The names Gog and Magog

191

Gog and Magog in the Targumim

191

Targum Jonathan

4.8

186 189

Gog and Magog in the Targumim

4.7.1 Introductory comments 4.7.2

XI

to Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9

192

The Targumim to Genesis 10,2

193

The Targumim to Numbers 11,26

193

Gog and Magog and the Messiah(s) in the Targumim

196

Additional references to Gog and Magog in the Targumim

197

Conclusions

198

Excursus 1: Gog and Magog in rabbinic writings

199

The age of the rabbinic references to Gog and Magog

199

The time of Gog and Magog's attack

201

Gog and the Messiah ben Joseph

202

The identity of Gog and Magog

204

Other passages related to Gog and Magog

205

Conclusions

206

Excursus 2: Gog and Magog in 3 Enoch 45,5

207

The Armenian province of Gogarenê and the port of Gogana

208

Gogarenê

209

Gogana

209

Excursus 3: The Church Fathers on Gog and Magog

210

From Justin to Augustin

211

Identifications with contemporary enemies

216

Conclusions

218

Excursus 4: Alexander's Wall and the enclosed nations

219

Alexander's Iron Gates according to Josephus

221

Alexander's Gate and Gog and Magog in Medieval literature

222

Gog and Magog in the Koran

228

Other suggestions

228

Theories about the growth of these traditions

229

Conclusions to Chapter Four

230

XII

Table of Contents

V: John's use of the Gog and Magog traditions

235

5.1

235

Literary analysis of Revelation 19,11-21,8

5.1.1 Objections to the integrity of Revelation 19,11-22,21

236

5.1.2 Revelation 19,11-21,8 and the rest of the book

238

5.1.3 The number of visions in Revelation 19,11-21,8

239

5.1.4 Text-critical matters

244

5.2

Main theological lines in Revelation 19,11-21,8

245

Introductory comment

245

5.2.1 Revelation 19,11-16: The rider on the white horse

246

5.2.2 Revelation 19,17-18: The invitation of the birds

252

5.2.3 Revelation 19,19-21: The battle against the beasts

252

5.2.4 Revelation 20,1-3: Satan's imprisonment

254

5.2.5 Revelation 20,4-6: The millennial kingdom

257

5.2.6 Revelation 20,7-10: The battle against Gog and Magog

264

5.2.7 Revelation 20,11-15: The final judgement

267

5.2.8 Revelation 21,1-8: The New Jerusalem

271

5.2.9

Conclusions

273

5.3

The Gog and Magog traditions in Revelation

274

Echoes of Ezekiel 38 in Revelation 16,17-21

274

5.3.1 The Gog and Magog traditions in Revelation 19,17-21 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun

276 277

He called to all the birds that fly in midheaven

278

Come, gather

279

... for the great supper of God

281

To eat

283

... the flesh of

283

Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth

289

With their armies

290

Gathered

291

To make war

292

And the beast was captured

294

The lake of fire

294

And the rest were killed

295

And all the birds were gorged with their flesh

296

The imagery of the birds's supper

296

Conclusions

298

5.3.2 The Gog and Magog traditions in Revelation 20,7-10 When the thousand years are ended

300 300

Satan will be released

301

From his prison

303

And will come out

304

To deceive

304

Table of Contents

5.4

XIII

The nations

305

At the four corners of the earth

308

Gog and Magog

311

The use of the article with "Gog"

311

Are "Gog" and "Magog" names of persons or nations?

312

Gog and Magog as demons or spirits of the dead

315

Batto's interpretation of a double elimination of evil

318

Malina's astronomical interpretation

319

Mealy's interpretation of "the nations" as resurrected peoples

320

In order to gather them for battle

322

They are as numerous as the sands of the sea

323

They marched up

324

Over the breadth of the earth

325

And surrounded

327

The camp

327

The saints

329

And the beloved city

330

And fire came down from heaven

333

Fire

335

Came down

335

From heaven

336

And consumed them

338

The devil thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur

339

Was thrown

340

Where the beast and the false prophet were

341

And they will be tormented

341

Day and night

341

Forever and ever

342

Conclusions

342

Other Gog and Magog traditions compared to Rev. 20,7-10

343

Conclusions concerning Gog's identity

344

Other conclusions

345

In dialogue with other scholars

345

5.4.1 John's possible consciousness about the text of Ezekiel Objections against such theories

347 347

Evidence of John's use of Ezekiel

349

Some theories about John's knowledge and use of Ezekiel

352

5.4.2 John and some different eschatological Schemata Various Jewish traditions about the eschatological events

353 354

Deviations from the Ezekielian Schema

357

John's use of eschatological Schemata

360

John's selfconsciousness as a prophet

362

5.4.3 'Fulfillment' in Rev. 19,17-21 and 20,7-10?

364

XIV

Table of Contents

5.4.4 Did John direct his readers/listeners to Ezekiel 38-39? 5.4.5 The double use of Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in Rev. 19,17-20,10 Aalder's theory

367 371 372

Alexander's claim of a double fulfilment

373

Caird's double elimination of evil

375

Batto's two-stage destruction of evil

375

White's argument for recapitulation

376

R.L. Thomas' explanation

376

Mealy sees Ezekiel 38-39 as two distinct prophecies

377

O. Andersen's suggestion

377

Evaluation 5.4.6 A role for Israel in Revelation 19,17-20,10? Conclusions

378 379 380

VI: Summary

383

Appendix: Tables

389

Table 1

389

Table 2 a

390

Table 2 b

391

Bibliography

392

A. Sources

392

B. Lexica and tools

397

C 1: Commentaries to Ezekiel

398

C 2: Commentaries to Revelation

399

D: Other works

401

Index of Sources Old Testament

422 422

New Testament

429

Jewish Texts

435

Christian Texts

438

Other Texts

439

Index of Names

440

Index of Subjects

446

Abbreviations AB ABD ANF APOT A USS BETL Bib BKAT BZNT CBQ DJD DSD Frg. Tg. FS HAT HNT HSM HUCA ICC Int JBL JETS JSNT JSNTSS JSOT JSOTSS JSPSS KAT LCL Ms. NovTest NA 26 NRSV NTS OS OTL OTP RB RevQ SBL SEÀ SVT TDNT

The Anchor Bible The Anchor Bible Dictionary (edited by D.N. Freedman) The Ante-Nicene Fathers Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (edited by R.H. Charles) Andrews University Seminary Studies Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblica Biblischer Kommentar; Altes Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Catholic Biblical Quarterly Discoveries in the Judean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Fragment Targum Festschrift Handbuch zum Alten Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpretation Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Kommentar zum Alten Testament Loeb Classical Library Manuscript Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Graece (edited by K. Aland et al.) 26. ed. New Revised Standard Version New Testament Studies Oudtestamentische Studien The Old Testament Library The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (edited by J.H. Charlesworth) Revue Biblique Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature Svensk Exegetisk Arbok Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich)

XVI Tg. Neb. Tg. Neof. Tg. Onq. Tg. Ps.-J. UBSGNT VT WBC WUNT ZAW ZBK

Abbreviations Targum to the Prophets Targum Neofiti Targum Onqelos Targum Pseudo-Jonathan The Greek New Testament (edited by K. Aland et al.) 3. ed. Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare

I: Introduction

1.1 The task President Ronald Reagan once said in a famous speech: Ezekiel tells us that Gog, the nation that will lead all of the other powers of darkness against Israel, will come out of the north. Biblical scholars have been saying for generations that Gog must be Russia. What other powerful nation is to the north of Israel? None. But it didn't seem to make sense before the Russian revolution, when Russia was a Christian country. Now it does, now that Russia has become communistic and atheistic, now that Russia has set itself against God. Now it fits the description of Gog perfectly. 1

Most biblical scholars probably feel embarrassed by provocative quotations like this, even though it places our texts right at the center of the public agenda. It challenges us continously to study the Bible historically and with a critical mind towards anachronistic combinations such as this. Who, or what, is really the biblical 'Gog'? The names Gog and Magog occur both in Jewish, Christian and even a few times in Samaritan and Muslim writings. Still the tendency has been to leave such passages to those who have a special preoccupation with apocalyptic writings; throughout church history it has mainly been 'the sects' that offered 'expositions' of Gog and Magog. Biblical scholars are aware of the Gog from Magog oracles in Ezekiel 38-39 as well as their reappearance in Rev 20,8, but no scholar known to me has up to the present made any major survey of the broader material attached to the two names Gog and Magog. Possibly it has been considered an isolated theme at the fringes of the biblical canon. A list of the main references to both or one of the two names apart from Rev 20,8 can broaden this perspective: -

Magog is mentioned in Gen 10,2 and 1 Chron 1,5 as the second son of Noah's son Japhet - Gog takes the place of Agag in both the Septuagint and the Samaritan version of Balaam's oracle in Num 24,7 as the counterpart of the future, glorious king - a descendant of Reuben is called Gog or Goug in 1 Chr 5,4

1 Ronald Reagan in 1971, then California governor, in a dinner speech to state legislators; here cited from Lind 1996: 320.

2

I:

Introduction

- according to Ezekiel 38-39 Gog from Magog will gather a world-wide army, which after an extended period of peace will attack Israel, only to be defeated by God's own interference from heaven. This defeat is described in great detail and gross colors, and several of these features reappear in a number of later texts. This is by far the oldest and the longest text (52 verses) combining the names Gog and Magog - Gog is called the king of the locusts in the Septuagint version of Amos 7,1; these locusts attack the land of Israel - Gog and Magog appear twice in woe-oracles in the third book of the Sibylline Oracles (3,319.512); their location is associated with Ethiopia - Magog appears twice and Gog once in the book of Jubilees (7,19; 8,25; 9,7-8), all places in a context of the division of the earth after the deluge, and located far to the north - Gog appears in 1QM XI,16 as God's and Israel's opponent in the eschatological war - Magog is described as a subject of king Messiah's rule in 4Q161 a in a pesher to Isa 11,5 - Magog is mentioned three times in the Genesis Apocryphon (lQapGen XII,12 and XVII,10.16) concerning the distribution of land after the deluge - Gog and Magog are mentioned in the very fragmentary 4Q523 - Josephus says in Antiquities 1,222-23 that "Magog founded the Magogians", which he associates with the Scythians - Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum ('Pseudo-Philo') refers four times to Magog in a genealogy of Noah's descendants - The Targumim and the (other) rabbinic writings2 refer frequently to Gog and Magog, but the dates of these references are unsure, and the meaning of the references differ widely - The Koran refers to Yadjudj wa Madjudj in Sure XVIII,93 and XXI,96 as two remote eschatological adversaries, confined behind a peculiar wall, like in a number of Christian and Jewish Medieval writings Even a brief list like this suffices to show that there is a fairly broad material, or a set of traditions, that challenges biblical scholarship. It has been a lasting surprise for me to find that only isolated pieces of these traditions have been investigated critically, not to say in combination with the other texts.3 My original intention was to relate these traditions, especially as they are found in Ezekiel 38-39, to John's 4 reference to Gog and 2 The expression "the Targumim and the (other) rabbinic writings" will be explained in ch. 4.7 and Excursus 1 of this study. 3 Cf. ch. 1.2 of this study. Vivian 1977 is until now the most extensive presentation. 4 We shall return to the question of Revelation's authorship in ch. 1.4. The matter is not so much whether his name was 'John' as which 'John' this was.

1.1 The task

3

Magog in Rev 20,8. This interest was aroused by the many resemblances between Rev 19,11 - 22,5 and Ezek 36,25 - 48,35, to which we shall return in a moment. But since no scholar had yet explored the Gog and Magog traditions consequtively, this left me with two separate tasks: The first task of the present study is to investigate the history of the Gog and Magog traditions as such (Chapters Two, Three and Four). The other part explores in detail the Gog and Magog reference in Rev 20,8 in the broader context of John's use of the Gog and Magog traditions (Chapter Five). Hopefully this can shed light on the overarching and intertwined question of the use of the OT in Revelation. Obviously a comprehensive investigation of all texts referring to either Gog or Magog or both would fill more than one monograph by itself. My investigation has thus been restricted in two ways: My presentation of the Gog oracles in Ezekiel 38-39 builds on a number of earlier studies, and my discussion of this key text will basically be a survey and evaluation of other scholars' works, along with some observations of my own. 5 Further my interest in this text differs from the previous studies by focusing on this text as it came to be, not on the diachronic growth of the text. This also means that investigations into contemporary exilic and post-exilic history and geography, as well as theories about a possible pre-history of Gog and Magog material, will only be referred to. The Wirkungsgeschichte of Ezekiel 38-39, however, is of the utmost interest to our study of Rev 20,8; a thorough investigation of all accessible references to Gog and Magog from the period between Ezekiel and Revelation is needed, both to appreciate the development of the traditions and to compare John's use of this material. A starting point for my study of Rev 20,8 was the idea that this Gog and Magog reference is not an isolated or accidential reference of little concern to John, which he included as an accomodation to stock apocalyptic imagery, as some have suggested, 6 but rather a visible sign of John's consequent engagement with the prophecies in the last chapters of Ezekiel. Rev 20,7-10 includes the reference to Gog and Magog simply as an apposition, without any further explanations: When the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, in order to gather them for battle; they are as numerous as the sands of the sea. They 5

A presentation of these studies will be given briefly in ch. 1.2. Rowland 1982: 417: "This sequence of events is best explained by what John's biblical sources dictated". Similarly Kraft 1974: 258 claims: "Unser Verfasser hat an diesem Teil der Erwartungen nur geringes Interesse (...) Er wollte nicht frei erfinden, hatte aber die hergehorigen Traditionen bis auf eine bereits verbraucht." 6

4

I:

Introduction

marched up over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from heaven and c o n s u m e d them. And the devil w h o had decieved them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 7

From one perspective we could ask the crucial question of this monograph this way: What would have been lost to John, to his original readers and to us if this apposition had not been included? At the least we could say that John would have made it more difficult for the reader to see his intertextual relationship with traditional material, in this case particularly with Ezekiel. The present study wants to explore the positive indications of John's interaction with tradition, and particularly with Ezekiel, in his visions of the last events. In addition to this explicit reference to Gog and Magog there is also a passage in Rev 19,17-21 with allusions to Ezekiel 38-39; the invitation to the birds to eat the flesh of dead soldiers picks up a peculiar theme almost verbatim from Ezek 39,4.17-20. This double use of Ezekiel 38-39 in Rev 19,17-20,10 calls for a number of observations and discussions which will be taken up primarly in ch. 5.4. It is a well known fact that Revelation 20 contains one of the greatest cruces of biblical exegesis and a matter of much controversy in church debates. And though I by no means suggest that the reference to Gog and Magog can bring these discussions to an end, it is always helpful if one chiffre is somehow brought into the light. The debates about the millennium is not a matter of independent interest in this study. But since Gogrelated material is found immediately before and after the passage about the millennium (20,1-6), we shall briefly clarify the implications of our study to this debate. Revelation gives a number of accounts of the final victory of Christ, some of which are very short and obviously anticipatory, others more extended and directly related to the defeat of Satan and his allies. The two major accounts of the defeat of evil in Revelation happen to be the two passages using Gog-related material, that is Rev 19,11-21 and 20,7-10. To some scholars this is a major argument for recapitulation in the millennial debate. 8 Others find the double use to be supplementary, indicating Christ's victory over evil in two seperate realms or spheres. 9 This again 7 8

All biblical texts are cited from the New Revised

Standard

Version

(NRSV).

White 1989: 3 2 8 finds this to be an argument "with telling force against the postmillennial and premillennial interpretations of 1 9 , 1 1 - 2 0 . 1 0 . " Giblin 1994: 8 2 f o l l o w s White c l o s e l y on this point. 9 S o m e of the many suggestions in this direction will be presented in the f o l l o w i n g ch. 1.2.2 of this study.

1.2 History of research

5

shows how intertwined our investigation of this material is with classical questions of the interpretation of Revelation. Our contribution to this will be restricted to the implications of John's use of Ezekiel 38-39. Concerning the comparison of the Gog and Magog references with Ezekiel 37-48 a broader parallelism can be found. J. Lust has pointed to a certain parallelism between the two texts: 10 Revelation: 1. The first resurrection: 20,4 and the Messianic millennial kingdom: 20,4—6. 2. The final battle against Gog and Magog: 20,1-10. 2.a The second resurrection: 20,11-15. 3. The descent of the heavenly Jerusalem: 21-22.

Ezekiel: 1. The revival of the dry bones: 3 7 , 1 - 1 4 and the reunited kingdom governed by the messianic king David: 3 7 , 1 5 - 2 8 . 2. The final battle against Gog of Magog: 3 8 - 3 9 . 2.a 3. The vision of the New Temple and New Jerusalem: 4 0 - 4 8 .

A first look at this chart discloses both similarities and differences. It is the task of the present study to explore these carefully, to test the thesis of a possible Ezekielian 'context' or 'pre-text' for Rev 19,17-21,8, as our subtitle suggests. Though our study concentrates on Rev 19,17-21 and 20,710, we shall also look at the further context, which can be set to 19,1121,8 or even up to 22,5. Allusions to Ezekiel in Rev 19,11-22,5 are not confined to the Gog and Magog oracles in Ezekiel 38-39. 1 1 Further considerations about these other allusions along with an overall discussion of John's use of Ezekiel in the final chapters of Revelation will be taken up in ch. 5.4.

1.2 History of research We have already had the opportunity to regret the lack of studies on the Gog and Magog traditions. There is still no single study which has collected the various texts about Gog and Magog, let alone examined them critically or given a presentation of earlier scholarship. Our presentation of the research that has been done on individual aspects or the intertwined questions will start with the broader question of the overall uses of the OT in Revelation; then it will proceed to the exegesis of Rev 20,8 and finally present the attempts to study the Gog and Magog traditions.

10

Lust 1980: 179. We shall also at the beginning of ch. 5.3 consider the possible allusions to Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in Rev 16,17-21; cf. Ruiz 1989: 2 6 1 - 6 5 , and Fekkes 1994: 121-125. 11

6

I:

Introduction

1.2.1 Revelation's use of the Old Testament12 A number of aspects of Revelation's use of the OT can be analyzed: - the text-form of the OT used by John - the comparative uses of the OT in Revelation and in various contemporary Jewish communities - the use in Revelation of the individual books of the OT - the thematic correspondences between Revelation and various features from the OT - the methodology of tracing allusions to the OT - the theological meaning(-s) of OT-allusions in Revelation - the knowledge and the use of the OT among the readers of Revelation We will have these aspects in mind when focusing on the use of Ezekiel in Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10, - insights from related areas are often valuable. The many instances of OT allusions, where concepts, characters and institutions are woven into Revelation's composition, have amazed its interpreters in many respects. Revelation is perhaps the NT-book that "uses the OT most, while citing it the least." 13 In terms of quantity Revelation probably utilizes the OT more than any other NT book. 14 H.B. Swete counted 278 of a total of 404 verses in Revelation to have some affinity with the OT. 15 Still Revelation does not present any single quotation from the OT with introductory or concluding formulae. 16

12

Ruiz 1989: 11-180 presents this material. The present writer has also surveyed some of the recent studies in a Norwegian article, Boe 1992: 2 5 3 - 6 5 . 13 Cf. Ruiz 1989: 63. 14 Still the UBSGNT index of "quotations" lists 634 "quotations" of the OT in Revelation, since every OT-cross-reference in the text is listed as a "quotation ". N A 2 6 differentiates between "direct quotations" in italics and "allusions" in normal type, but still ends up with 25 "direct quotations" in Revelation. Cf. Fekkes 1994: 6 1 - 6 2 . This number is much higher than those reached by the monographs to which we shall now turn. 15 Swete 1911: cxl. 16 The most explicit reference to the OT in Revelation is Rev 15,3 about the song of Moses and the Lamb. Yet there follows no verbatim citation from the OT, rather "an amalgamation of various themes of the OT", as Vos 1965: 19 calls it. If by "citation" we mean any literary resemblance, however, there are several such, as Vanhoye showed throughout his article, Vanhoye 1962. The definition of terms such as quotation/citation, allusion, echo, correspondence, context, pre-text etc. as used in this study will be given in the following ch. 1.3.

1.2 History of research

Studies at the beginning of the twentieth

7

century

Biblical exegesis at the beginning of the twentieth century was heavily influenced by religionsgeschichtlich oriented scholars like H. Gunkel, 17 H. Gressmann 18 , W. Bousset 19 and A. von Gall 20 . They all contributed directly or indirectly to the study of Revelation by seeking points of contact between Revelation and other writings and practices originating in other religious and ideological circles than the Jewish-Christian. Many of their observations have proved to be helpful, though at times onesided. The use of the OT in Revelation was not an area of priority to these scholars. A. Schlatter represents in many ways a completely different approach through his work Das alte Testament in der johanneischen Apokalypse. The title is, however, somewhat misleading, as by "the OT" he includes later rabbinic writings as well. 21 He concluded that no parts or aspects of Revelation were taken from any other sources than those known to any Galilean or Jerusalemite member of a synagogue; it could all be traced back to the OT prophets. 22 Hence there was no need to search for any other source for Revelation than the OT. This relation is further explored by Strack and Billerbeck, whose work on Revelation covers 70 pages. 23 Both Schlatter's book and Strack and Billerbeck's work are useful to our study mainly through their many suggestions of related material to Rev 20,8, not so much from their partly anachronistic and atomistic evaluations. In Britain a different debate took place between H.B. Swete 24 and R.H. Charles 25 . Their sophisticated skills in the LXX and the intertestamental literature made their commentaries on Revelation a lasting contribution to all later research. Of particular help for the further research was their discussion of the text-form used by John. Swete claimed that this was the Greek of the LXX, but Charles's even more detailed study showed that John used the Hebrew directly, and in a form very close to what we know as the MT. 26

17

Gunkel 1895. Gressmann 1905 and 1929. 19 Bousset 1906. 20 von Gall 1926. 21 Schlatter 1912. 22 Schlatter 1912: 104. 23 Strack & Billerbeck 1969. 24 Swete 1911. 25 Charles 1920. 26 Two monographs have focused on this: Trudinger 1963 a and Ozanne 1964, who held that John was solely dependent on the Hebrew, while Trudinger held that John preferred the Hebrew. Cf. Moyise 1995: 17 for further details and references. 18

8

I:

Introduction

Studies after 1950 Hardly any contributions of lasting value appeared on Revelation's use of the OT until A. Vanhoye 27 in 1962 published his study on the use of Ezekiel in Revelation. He tried to develop a classification of the OTallusions, and he distinguished between utilisation certaine, which he graded either fidèle or libre, and another group called contacts littéraires, which he again graded according to their degree of probability. He also had a column for autres influences. This classification represented a great step forward for the study of Revelation's use of the OT; a number of later studies have followed this approach. (Cf. ch. 1.3 of this study on methods.) Concerning the two Gog-related passages in Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10, both are labelled as utilisation certaine, libre. Vanhoye also operates with a category for large-scale references or evocations found seven places in Revelation. He calls them utilisation d'ensemble, and both 19,17-21 and 20,7-10 are counted as such. These are texts where several verbal correspondences and exact citations of details are involved. It is somewhat disappointing to find that only 12 plus 4 lines are devoted to our texts in his study. One of the points that Vanhoye does comment upon is the combination of Ezekiel 39 and Isa 25,6 in Revelation's description of the birds' banquet, 19,17-21. 28 Ezekiel 39 presents this as a sacrifice. Vanhoye finds that this aspect of Ezekiel 39 is replaced by the festival character found in Isa 25,6. Since the idea of any other sacrifice than Christ's is contrary to John's theology, he "répugnait sans doute" these aspects. Thus John has transformed the sacrifical feast of Ezekiel 39 into a joyous celebration, by combining the Ezekiel allusion with a similar text from Isaiah. 29 We shall also return to the question of whether the use of Ezekiel 38-39 conveniently should be labelled under the same rubric both in Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10. Revelation's affinities with Danielic material have been explored by G.K. Beale. 30 He claims that the book of Daniel forms the background both for individual passages and for the overall structure of the book of Revelation; key chapters of Revelation should be read as a midrash on Daniel 7, and the whole book is "to be conceived of ultimately within the framework of 27

Vanhoye 1962. Vanhoye 1962: 469. 29 A similar observation on John's use of the temple-imagery from the OT is found by McKelvey 1969: 174: "He prints over the image of the compact and clearly demarcated Ezekielian city another image, the comprehensive image of Isaiah, or, more correctly, since the images are not mutually exclusive, he concentrates on the Isaianic features of the city already portrayed until these predominate to the exclusion of anything else." 30 Among his many studies on the subject, cf. Beale 1984. 28

1.2 History of

research

9

Daniel 2". 31 This is done to show the fulfilment of these prophecies in Christ or in the Christian church. Critics have questioned his terminology and his methodology. 32 His claim of Danielic priority on the structure of the book has been challenged by J.M. Vogelgesang 33 and J.P. Ruiz. 34 Both have written their dissertations on the use of Ezekiel in different parts of Revelation, and though their methodology and overall theological results differ in many respects, their research have shown that extensive portions of Revelation are based on Ezekiel rather than on Daniel. J.M. Vogelgesang focuses on the Ezekiel-material in Revelation chs. 1; 4; 5; 10; 21 and 22. His thesis is that Revelation is an anti-apocalypse: "it is written in the genre of an apocalypse, but (...) John transformed the forms and protocols of this genre to arrive at a message contrary to that of contemporary apocalyptic literature". 35 John universalizes and democratizes the prophecies of Ezekiel in his own, Christian interests. Vogelgesang uses here the term "reinterpretation". 36 One crucial observation in this respect is the absence of a temple in New Jerusalem, Rev 21,22, whilst this is the core of Ezekiel 40-48, which is the primary pre-text to Rev 21,122,5. 37 Vogelgesang also confirms Vanhoye's thesis that John used Ezekiel directly, not mediated by apocalyptic or other traditions, and "that John modelled his book and message on that of Ezekiel". 38 Thus Vogelgesang makes similar claims for Ezekiel as Beale did for Daniel concerning the structure and composition of Revelation. Vogelgesang holds that John used Ezekiel directly, and "despite the skill that he uses to hide this, the fact that he did not enslave himself to the texts that inspired him makes it possible to speak of the interpretation of Ezekiel by John" [underlining original]. 39 J.P. Ruiz questions many of these results. His study focuses on the Ezekiel-material in Rev 16,17-19,10. Methodologically he finds much help in some "hermeneutical imperatives" in the text of Revelation, i.e. short passages where either Christ, an angel or John addresses the readers/listeners 31

From Moyise 1995: 120. Collins, A.Y. 1986: 734-35. 33 Vogelgesang 1985. 34 Ruiz 1989: 122-28. 35 Vogelgesang 1985: 2. 36 Vogelgesang 1985: 296. 37 Vogelgesang 1985: 6. 38 Vogelgesang 1985: 11. 39 Vogelgesang 1985: 14. J.A. Fitzmyer describes Revelation's use of the OT as involving "an implicit exegesis", and "due to thorough acquaintance with and reverent meditation upon the Old Testament", Fitzmyer 1971 a: 5. 32

10

I:

Introduction

directly, either by hortatory or other messages. The result of his dissertation is indicated in the subtitle: "The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16,17-19,10"; not 'fulfilment', nor 'reinterpretation', but 'transformation'. 40 Another characteristic of Ruiz's study is the direct comparison of Ezekiel and Revelation; both Beale and Vogelgesang invested much effort in the other use of the OT material in intertestamental literature. Another study, different from all these in its liturgical approach, goes a lot further in its claim of an Ezekielian priority on the structure of Revelation; M.D. Goulder 41 hypothesizes the origin and growth of Revelation along 52 weekly readings of Ezekiel, like in a synagogue. He sets out to show a correspondence between 52 portions of Ezekiel and 52 portions of Revelation. Within this Ezekielian frame he makes room for the festival-readings of other OT-books, quite like the order of these books' presence in Revelation. Though this bold thesis is highly speculative, and has received little support, it questions severely Beale's claim for an overall Danielic priority. It is also interesting to note that the works of Vogelgesang, Ruiz and Goulder, differing widely in method and approach, all testify to a strong Ezekielian influence on major parts of Revelation. Statistically Isaiah is the one OT-book to which Revelaton quantitatively alludes the most. 42 J. Fekkes has explored this carefully and without controversial claims of priority for Isaiah on the overall structure or theology of Revelation. "It is not the book or author which dictates his choice of passages, but the topic", he claims. 43 Methodologically he wishes to refine the categories and criterias used for 'quotations' and 'allusions'. Primary interest is on the thematic analogues, i.e. clusters of OT-texts belonging to one tradition or theme. Fekkes wants interpreters of Revelation not to treat the OT as "an overworked religious thesaurus". 44 Central to Fekkes is John's selfunderstanding as a prophet being "part of a revelatory continuum which stretches from God's OT messengers to the prophetic circle within which he is probably a leading figure". 45 Once or twice Fekkes uses the term "fulfilled" about John's use of OT-prophecies, 46 and this term refers to 40

A.T. Hanson also speaks of transformation of OT-language in Revelation, cf. Hanson, A.T. 1983: 83. 41 Goulder 1981. Goodacre 1996 discusses Goulder's positions extensively. 42 According to the graphs in Moyise 1995: 16. 43 Fekkes 1994: 103. 44 Fekkes 1994: 61. Fekkes directs this objection primarly against E.S. Fiorenza. We shall return to her concern in a moment. 45 Fekkes 1994: 288. 46 Fekkes 1994: 283 and 289.

1.2 History of research

11

"the very fact that John calls previous prophetic testimony a mystery." This "shows his awareness of his role as a prophetic interpreter". 47 Two other works explore the Exodus-motif in Revelation. 48 J.M. Casey explored what he called "exodus-typology" throughout Revelation, and found that it was used more as "a theological paradigm than as a phenomenon of literary influence". 49 J. Paulien focused on Rev 8,7-12 in his 1987-dissertation. 50 In that text the Exodus-motifs are dominant, as could be expected, but the prophets are alluded to frequently also. From this passage he showed the inadequate methods used by a number of commentaries on Revelation in their claim of OT-allusions. His own proposed methods have not received the attention they may have deserved, since his dissertation has not been published. We shall try to incorporate some of his insights in our investigation, cf. ch. 1.3. The impact of all these studies is that no single book or part of the OT employed John with his traditional material. He has drawn on many books, from the Pentateuch, the Prophets, Daniel, and also the Psalms. Care must be taken to distinguish between influence and dependence of individual books or motifs from the OT on Revelation. This overall picture is corroborated by a comparison to the lists of allusions and the reference notes in the various editions of Greek New Testaments. 51 Though these lists or charts measure quantity without discerning almost certain allusions from vague echoes, they prove how extensively John uses almost all parts of the OT. Moyise's comparative graphs on the distribution of the OT-allusions in four major NT-books show how different Revelation is also in this respect: whereas Genesis, Exodus, Psalms and Isaiah dominate the rest of the NT's allusions and 47

Fekkes 1994: 289. This certainly is an ancient motif in Christian teaching, cf. the following quote from Irenaeus: "For the whole exodus (...) out of Egypt (...) was a type and image of the exodus of the church (...) and if any one will devote a close attention to those things which are stated by the prophets with regard to the (time of the) end, and those which John (...) saw in the Apocalypse, he will find that the nations [are to] receive the same plagues universally, as Egypt then did particularly." Irenaeus: Adv. Haer. 4.30.4; here cited from Fekkes 1994: 81 note 44. 49 Casey 1981. The dissertation has not been accessible to me, the quote is from the Abstract. 50 Paulien 1987. G.S. Adamsen's Danish monograph (Adamsen 1992) on the Exodusmotifs in Revelation explores most of all the ecclesiological implications, i.e. the selfunder-standing of the Christian church as analogous to Israel on its way out of bondage, through the wilderness and to the promised land. These two monographs differ from the works of Ruiz, Vogelgesang and Beale in not restricting themselves to one single text in Revelation or to any particular book from the OT. 51 For example UBSGNT: 897-911. 48

12

I:

Introduction

quotations, Revelation shows a great preponderance on the prophets and Daniel. 52 Critical

objections

Most of the works referred to above find that Revelation utilizes the OT extensively with a high regard for the contexts. This view, however, is not shared by all Revelation scholars. The most influential critic of this perspective in today's debate is probably E.S. Fiorenza. She claims: (...) its [i.e. Revelation's] main objective is not the «interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the calculation of the end time events, but the prophetic communication of the Revelation to the seven communities in Asia Minor. 5 3 John uses OT texts as he uses Jewish apocalyptic, pagan mythological or early christian materials in an allusive 'anthologicaP way. He does not interpret the OT but uses its words, images, phrases and patterns as a language arsenal in order to make his own theological statement or express his own prophetic v i s i o n . 5 4 The main concern of Revelation is not salvation history, but eschatology . 5 5

In some respects this view resembles that of Swete's classical position that John's use of the OT is less intentional and more the result of a memory so saturated with OT language and ideas that they are unconsciously organized in the author's visions "like the changing patterns of a caleidoscope". 56 Such views, if correct, will highly affect our discussions of the two Gog-related passages in Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10. Indirectly it also suggests that the inter-textual relationship between the OT and the readers/ listeners as well as that between John and the OT are less conscious and less important. The new context (that of Revelation) speaks so loudly that it silences that of the old context (OT), like Moyise has commented. 5 7 This is not the place to challenge Fiorenza's thesis, but our study will in one respect be an investigation of the possible helpfulness of paying due regard to both the oldest known setting and the various uses of the Gog-prophecies prior to their use (or uses) in Revelation, as well as to the way this material is used in the texts and contexts of Rev 19,11-21,8.

Moyise's graphs refer to the UBSGNT, and have the following numbers: Pentateuch 82; Psalms 97; Isaiah 122; Jeremiah 48; Ezekiel 83; Daniel 74; Minor prophets 73. Cf. Moyise 1995: 1 4 - 1 7 . A useful collection of the OT allusions in Rev 1 , 1 - 8 , 5 , as these have been noted by various scholars and NT-editions, has been made by Mathews 1987. She also offers a short discussion of each reference. 53 Fiorenza 1985: 140. 54 Fiorenza 1985: 135. 55 Fiorenza 1985: 137 56 Swete 1911: p. cliv; and cf. Beale 1988: 319. 57 Moyise 1995: 115.

1.2 History of research

13

Fiorenza indirectly also suggests that John's respect for the original context of the material he uses is low. L.A. Vos similarly claimed that "it is an almost complete disregard for the context". 5 8 This view has not been confirmed, however, by any of the dissertations that have explored in detail the use of various OT books or motifs in Revelation, such as Beale, Paulien, Vogelgesang, Casey, Ruiz, Fekkes or Moyise. Fekkes finds that the correspondence between an O T text and its application in Revelation "goes beyond similarities in language and imagery, and extends also to the setting and purpose of the original biblical passage." 5 9 Fekkes suggests the term "prophetic continuum"; Grogan speaks of a "continuity of principle". 6 0 None of these, however, have focused particularly on the Gog and Magog material. R. Bauckham has advocated the view that the use of the OT in Revelation is not "a haphazard use of the OT language by a writer so soaked in the OT that he naturally uses its language", but rather "a pattern of disciplined and deliberate allusion to specific OT texts" [italics original]. 61 B a u k h a m ' s approach cannot be misunderstood, when he states that "John was writing what he understood to be a work of prophetic scriptures and disclosed the way in which it was being and was to be fulfilled in the last days". 6 2 We shall scrutinize the Gog and Magog material in order to evaluate the probability of this approach on our material. To conclude this part of our survey of research we find that there is no consensus among scholars either on priorities or motivations for Revelation's use of the OT. It seems like those who have investigated specific sides of the OT material in Revelation have a higher view of John's consciousness for this material than those who comment on it while interpreting Revelation from other approaches. It is hard, however, to free oneself from the impression that there is a certain parallelomania in some of "the use of X in Y"-studies. Not all the scholars seem to differentiate clearly between influence and dependence.

58

Vos 1965: 37. He explains the presence of the OT material this way: "He is only interested in conveying his message in the familiar words and phrases of the OT", p. 37. Vos explains this by pointing to John's good knowledge of the OT, parts of which he probably had memorized. Hence "it was natural for him to express the thoughts of his vision in the OT phraseology", p. 37 note 60. Vos speaks of "the vast mental storehouse of OT terminology", and John's habit to "unconsciously take a phrase from here and another from there", p. 38. 59 Fekkes 1994: 102 60 Grogan 1966: 71 61 Bauckham 1993 a: x-xi. 62 Bauckham 1993 a: xi.

14

I:

Introduction

It also seems like the Ezekiel-parallels in Rev 19,11-21,8 have not yet been properly explored in detail in recent scholarship. Vogelgesang explored the use of Ezekiel in Revelation chs. 1; 4-5; 10; 21-22. Ruiz focused on Rev 16,17-19,10. This leaves Rev 19,17-20,10 as the only other major cluster of Ezekiel-material unexplored. 63 The broadest study of Rev 19,1121,8 in recent research - Mealy's study 64 - is careful not to argue from text-external sources, his scope is to build on text-internal evidence only. 1.2.2 The exegesis of Revelation

20,8

The book of Revelation has been commented upon at least since the days of Dionysios of Alexandria. Inspite of the present flow of literature on Revelation little attention has been given to the passage Rev 20,7-10, even in voluminous commentaries. Focus is generally drawn to the parousia of 19,11-21, the millennium of 20,1-6 and the final judgement, 20,11-15. Concerning the Gog-reference comments are made about the background in Ezekiel 38-39, but the discussion of this generally does not extend beyond a few lines. Though there is no broad scholarly research to survey at this point, there certainly is a tradition of popular and apocalyptic interpretation of the Gog-reference in Rev 20,8. 65 The present study will not cover this history; we shall restrict ourselves to scholarly investigations. The identity of Gog and Magog in Revelation

20,8

We might expect that those scholars who follow a consequent zeithistorische approach would seek for contemporary figures or powers behind the names Gog and Magog here. But hardly any scholars find reference to either Rome or the Parthians here, due to other exegetical factors. Some scholars, most notably K.G. Kuhn 66 and M. Rissi, 67 understand Gog's army as demons, spirits of the dead or in some other way as mythical entities. They point to the prehistory of the Gog-motif, where both Gog and Magog seem to be referred to quite without any geographical or historical identifications. 68 They also refer to the context where Rev 19,17-21 tells of the final battle against the beast, which seems to leave no 63 One other text in Revelation attracts the present writer concerning its use of Ezekiel-material: the sealing of the 144 000 in Rev 7,1-8. My project first focused on this text, but shifted to the Gog and Magog traditions in 19,11-21,8. 64 Mealy 1992. 65 Lind 1996: 3 2 0 - 2 1 points to a number of such books, e.g. Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth, who refers also to Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 . 66 Kuhn 1964. 67 Rissi 1972: 3 5 - 3 6 . 68 We shall later have opportunity to discuss Genesis 10 and Sib. Or. 3,319, both of which seem to locate Magog and Gog respectively quite in terms of geography.

1.2 History of

research

15

survivors, at least not among Christ's adversaries. The fact that 20,7 states that they come from "the four corners of the earth" confirms to Kuhn that "the whole conception is mythical". 69 Other such figures commonly referred to as mythical in Revelation are the armies of Abaddon in Rev 9,1-11 and the hordes of riding enemies from beyond the Euphrates in 9,13-21, besides of course the figures in chs. 12 and 13. We shall later return to the problem of definitions concerning 'mythical' figures in Revelation. J.W. Mealy opposes such views, claiming that an army of demons or spirits would be a novelty in Jewish as well as Christian writings of the day. 70 C. Briitsch accepts the presence of apocalyptic material; their reference, however, concerns "wirkliche Volker". 71 J. Sweet, likewise, sees them as "just 'the nations' who are always over and against the people of God", though he warns against making historical or geographical identifications. 72 Among endzeitlich-oriented writers, however, there is no want for historical identifications, though premillennial fundamentalists tend to seek the fulfilment of 20,7-10 in a remote future, beyond "a thousand years". 73 H. Bietenhard held a somewhat related position. Facing the peculiar and Israel-like sounding expressions in 20,9 - "the camp of the saints and the beloved city" - he felt compelled to see in the millennium a description of a redeemed Israel. Hence Gog and Magog would be Israel's enemies in Revelation 20, just like in Ezekiel's original use of the names, Ezekiel 38-39. Bietenhard apparently felt uneasy about this position being so akin to fundamentalistic "expositions of the biblical prophecies"; on the front page of his work he quotes the old saying: "abusus non tollit usum ".74 G.B. Caird sees this text as communicating primarily "a deep insight into the resilience of evil". Seeking historical references for Gog is overlooking its mythical character, "anyone whom Gog's cap fits may 69

Kuhn 1964: 791. Mealy 1992: 123. 71 Briitsch 1970 vol. 2: 361. 72 Sweet 1990: 291. 73 Some commentators have sought, as we have already seen, to identify Gog and Magog with contemporary enemies. Common identifications of the names of the Gogoracles in Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 have been: Rosh = Russia; Meschech = Moscow; Tubal = Tubolsk; Beth Togarma = Armenia; Put = Libya etc. The sum of this has often been to label the communist or Islamic world as anti-godly and inspired by Satan, as they are anti-Western and anti-Israel. Politically this functions as a call for a non-compromise attitude to these countries, cf. Russell 1994: 81. 70

74 Cf. Bietenhard 1955: 109-141. In my native Norwegian context a quite similar position is held by bishop E. Utnem. He also points primarily to these expressions in Rev 20,9 for his Israel-interpretation of the Millennium, cf. Utnem 1992: 7 9 - 9 1 .

16

I:

Introduction

wear it". 75 C. Briitsch speaks of the "Undankbarkeit dieser Volker" toward God who had given man a thousand years of peace. 76 The use of traditional material in Revelation

20,8

Scholars disagree about the reason why John included this whole section Rev 20,7-10 about another eschatological battle in addition to Rev 19,11— 21. Some view it as mere accomodation to tradition. C. Rowland explains it as "what John's Biblical sources dictated". 77 H. Kraft similarly claims that John had little interest in these post-millennial events; he simply included them in order to complete his use (verbrauchen) of traditions. 78 Caird, accepting the strong influence of the biblical tradition here,' finds this interpretation inadequate: "There has already been one fulfillment of this prophecy (i.e. Ezekiel 38-39) in the banquet of the birds, and there was no need to introduce another unless John had found in Ezekiel some truth of ultimate and abiding significance". 79 Then follows the classical interpretation presented above about John's "deep insights into the resilience of evil". We also record en passant Caird's use of the term "fulfilment" of OT prophecies, similar to what we have seen Bauckham suggested, cf. ch. 5.4.3 of this study. This is a common suggestion in less critical commentaries, but only few offer any discussion of it. We have seen the term used by Beale and Fekkes; J.G. Aalders 80 also operates within this category. These implicit views on Revelation's use of traditional material as recorded above differ widely, and in Chapter Five of this study we shall relate these overall approaches to the Gog and Magog material, and evaluate the positions. The double use of Ezekiel 38-39 in Revelation

19,17-20,10

Aspects of Ezekiel 38-39 appears twice in Revelation, as noted above, both in Rev 19,17-21 and in 20,7-10. This double use is recorded and mentioned briefly by a few scholars, but this has not yet been made a major concern by any of them. Vanhoye found three examples of "double utilisation" where John took up a second time an OT text which he used earlier:

75

Caird 1966: 256-57. Briitsch 1970 vol. 2: 361. 77 Rowland 1982: 417. 78 Kraft 1974: 258. Lohmeyer similarily claims that "durch den Mund des Sehers, spricht also Tradition, die gleichsam der Vollständigkeit halber aufgenommen ist." Lohmeyer 1953: 163. 79 Caird 1966: 256. 80 Aalders, J.G.: 1951. 76

1.2 History

of

research

17

1. Ezek 2,8-3,3 about the scroll (Rev 5,1 and 10,1-11) 2. Jer 51,7 about the image of the cup (Rev 17,4 and 18,6) 3. Ezekiel 4 0 - 4 8 about the measuring of the temple and the city 81 (Rev 11,1 and 21,10) It is hard to see why Vanhoye did not extend this perspective to the double use of Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10. Some of those who comment on this double use of the Gog-oracles take it as an argument for recapitualtion in the millennium-debate. 8 2 They claim that it suggests that the battle of 19,11-21 must be another account of the Gog-battle of 20,7-10; both of which resemble that of 16,12-16 located at Harmagedon. Some times this logic rests on the unsaid assumption that Revelation works within a scheme of prophecy and fulfilment, hence it is improbable that we have two fulfilments of the same prophecy. It also presupposes the active intertextual involvement of Revelation's readers, i.e. their ability and readiness to see the same OT prophecy behind both allusions, and to see that these are supplementary accounts of the same battle. But not many would claim that every allusion to the OT within Revelation is meant as an hermeneutic guide to Revelation's readers of the eschatological fulfillment of the OT text to which it is alluded. A similar high view of John's consciousness about the OT pre-texts is held by R.H. Alexander, but with the opposite result concerning recapitulation. 83 He speaks of "the hermeneutical principle of 'multiple fulfillment'", 8 4 which means that the same OT prophecy can be used twice by the same author referring to two different events. In this case it means that the Gog prophecy of Ezekiel will be fulfilled twice: once in the battle against the beast at the parousia, and once again in the battle after the millennium and before the final judgement. Alexander does not refer to any other biblical references of "the hermeneutical principle of multiple fulfilments". B.F. Batto has recently suggested an entirely new explanation to this. 85 His investigation concerns primarly Ezekiel's oracles against Egypt and the nations (Ezekiel 25-32) and the Gog-oracles (Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 ) . The former represents the destruction of the hostile earthly (or historical) powers ... the latter represents the metahistorical power of evil ... This two-stage destruction of evil corresponds to the program in the book of Revelation where first the beast, which is Babylon-Rome, the eartly manifestation of evil, is overcome (chs. 1 7 - 1 9 ) ; then the Dragon, Satan himself, is overcome and eliminated (ch. 20). Only after both powers 81 82 83 84 85

Vanhoye 1962: 4 6 2 - 6 3 . Cf. White 1987: 1 4 6 - 5 1 and Giblin 1994: 82. Alexander, R.H. 1974. Alexander, R.H. 1974: 168. Batto 1992.

18

I:

Introduction

are disposed o f can the new creation be unveiled ( 2 1 , 1 - 2 2 , 5 ) . Quite obviously the author of Revelation is dependent upon Ezekiel ... I maintain, further, that this apocalyptic author also derived from Ezekiel his program o f subduing evil in both a historical and a metahistorical form ... and that the author of Revelation has correctly H6 understood Ezekiel's meaning.

A number of issues are here touched: -

the interpretation of Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in terms of mythical, metahistorical figures. the canonical ordering of the chapters in the book of Ezekiel according to a deliberate program. Revelation's dependence on Ezekiel for its outline of this feature of Rev 17,1-22,5. the mythical interpretation of Gog and Magog in Revelation.

To transform Batto's thesis into other terms we may say that Ezekiel 3 8 39 does not, according to Batto, historize the myth. Rather the myth is 'theologized' and has found its appropriate place in the structure of the book of Ezekiel, in the order as we know it. The same "theologizing of the myth" without historizing it is then furthered by Revelation. J . Lust offers still another explanation to this. 87 He points to the somehow unsure manuscript situation concerning Ezekiel 3 6 - 4 0 . Both the Greek Papyrus 967 from the second or early third century A.D. and Codex Wirceburgensis to Vetus Latina (sixth century A.D.) have a different text order; Ezekiel 37 follows upon the Gog-oracles in Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 ; Ezek 3 6 , 2 3 c - 3 8 is absent in both. 8 8 This gives the following order: 36,23 b: (traditional order) 3 8 - 3 9 : Gog from Magog 3 7 : Vision of the dry bones receiving life 4 0 - 4 8 : Visions of the New Temple Lust suggests that this order is probably older than that known to us in M T . 8 9 At some place and at a time prior to Revelation another edition was made, placing the vision of the dry bones before the Gog-oracles. They also formed a new oracle, that which is known to us as Ezek 3 6 , 2 3 c - 3 8 , nearly resembling that of Ezek 11,19 about an inward renewal, and inserted it before the vision of the dry bones. 9 0 This left them with the order that we know: 86

Batto 1 9 9 2 : 1 5 8 - 5 9 .

87

His view is elaborated in Lust 1 9 8 1 .

88

Lust 1 9 8 1 : 5 1 7 - 5 1 9 .

89

Lust 1 9 8 0 : 183

90

Lust 1 9 8 1 : 5 1 9

1.2 History of research

19

—36,23 b: (traditional order) 36,23c-38: New hearts, new spirit 37: Vision of the dry bones receiving life 38-39: Gog from Magog 40-48: Visions of the New Temple Lust supposes that John knew both of these editions, and that he combined them in his visions of the last events. 91 This explains the peculiar order of the events, in his opinion. Vogelgesang is the only writer known to me who has commented positively on Lust's thesis. 92 Wevers explained the omission of Ezek 36,23c-38 as a parablepsis caused by a homoioteleuton,93 Lust replies that the number of letters omitted here is 1451 letters. 94 The longest other parablepsis in this manuscript is 266 letters. In addition this does not explain the transposition of ch. 37, he claims. 1.2.3 The Gog and Magog

traditions

As noted already (page 2) there is a regrettable lack of monographs of the Gog/Magog traditions. The Gog/Magog references in other texts than Ezekiel 38-39 have hardly attracted any attention. Concerning Ezekiel 3 8 39 the following features have received most consideration in the literature: 95 -

the possible matrix of the Gog-name and idea in Canaanite or other Near Eastern mythology the possibility that some of the material in Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 goes back to Ezekiel himself, not only to some of his disciples the growth of the material into the complex text as we have it today in Ezekiel 38-39 the relation to older prophecies concerning "the enemy from the north" the expression "on that day" compared to the motif of "the day of Yahweh"

91

Lust 1980: 183. Vogelgesang refers to Lust's points, and regrets the lack of further study on this topic. He also finds, however, that Revelation's use of traditional material generally is so free that he did not need to have traditional support for his order of the final events, cf. Vogelgesang 1985: 6 5 - 6 6 . Cf. also Ruiz 1989: 133 note 11. 93 According to Lust 1981: 519. 94 Lust 1981: 520. 95 These are the monographs that I know of which take their texts from Ezekiel 3 8 39: Aalders, J.G. 1951; Ahroni 1973 (cf. also his article Ahroni 1977); MacLean 1937, and Mills 1989. MacLean's and Ahroni's dissertations have not been available to me. 92

20 -

I:

Introduction

the Gog-figure and the other names in relation to the history of the timeof Ezekiel and thereafter Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 from a form-critical approach Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 and the beginning of apocalypticism in Israel

Among the many commentaries W . Zimmerli's two volume work is monumental, and still is the standard work with which other scholars discuss. 96 His primary concern is diachronic, - he seeks the origin and growth of the material now assembled in these two chapters. This certainly was not John's perspective on the OT, and the complex results of the research on Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 will be presented only briefly in chs. 3.1 and 3.2 of this monograph. Concerning the other texts and versions that mention Gog and/or Magog, such as Genesis 10, the LXX version of Num 24,7 or Amos 7,1, the intertestamental literature like the Sibylline Oracles, Jubilees and various writings found in Qumran, only scattered comments have been found concerning their mention of Gog or Magog. At this point there is hardly any research to survey at all, and a major part of my work has been to collect these texts and the scarce comments found in the literature, besides evaluating this material independently. Those comments that have been found will naturally be discussed in my treatment of the texts. Christian literature from the second, third and fourth centuries C.E. is not very focused on Gog and Magog. Those comments that have been found is discussed in Excursus 3. The Gog and Magog-motif is found in another surprising context in the next centuries, however. Medieval legends tell that Alexander the Great built enormous walls along the border of his empire, in order to withstand the pressure from attacking, barbaric peoples, especially at crucial places like valleys etc. These peoples came to be called Gog and Magog. At some date these peoples even came to be identified with the ten lost tribes of Israel. Such references to Gog and Magog, often with quite corrupted forms of the names, can found both in Jewish, Christian and Islam writings from the Middle Ages. These legends have been explored by Bousset, 97 Kampers, 9 8 Anderson 9 9 and others, and we shall return to an excursus on these references in Excursus 4 later in this book.

96 Zimmerli 1979, and Zimmerli 1983. His German version appeared in 1969 in the B K A T series. 97 Bousset 1900. 98 Kampers 1901. 99 Anderson 1932.

1.3 Methodological

considerations

21

1.3 Methodological considerations In this chapter we shall discuss two intertwined questions which both relate to methodology: partly the general questions of tracing allusions and seeking other correspondences between different texts, and partly the specific question of how this should be applied to the Gog and Magog traditions. 1.3.1 Author- and reader-oriented

exegesis

A basic question in this monograph is: To what extent and in what form were the two names Gog and Magog in Rev 20,8 known to the author and the recipients of the book of Revelation? We need to clarify as closely as possible the ideas attached to these two names in the minds both of John, the author and the recipients in the seven congregations by studying all the texts up to that date which refer to Gog and/or Magog. We do not have any historical information about how the seven congregations responded to Revelation. We do not even know whether they all actually received the book, or if it ever reached all of them. The text of Revelation itself is our only information about the communication taking place between John and the seven congregations, except for the obvious fact that copies of the book survived and came to be spread among the Christian churches. We are thus speaking of Revelation's intended readers. Further information about the seven cities and the congregations in Asia Minor is presented in ch. 1.4 of this book. We shall refer to the original recipients of the book of Revelation as both readers and listeners. The book of Revelation probably was meant to be read aloud in the gatherings of the congregations. We cannot know the number of copies made of the original handwriting, nor the number of repeated readings. It is natural to assume that repeated readings increased the probability that the readers/listeners would reflect on the origin of OT allusions and possibly get involved in the original contexts. By 'ideas' we mean both the conscious knowledge of references to these names (if any), and the further set of possible associations gathered from their Christian or other background. Next there is a need to relate these ideas to the text and context of Rev 20,8. Is John confirming, enhancing or changing their previous ideas of Gog and Magog? Are there any conflicting ideas connected to these names? If so, what ideas are furthered, and what ideas are silenced or possibly refuted? What was John's rhetoric strategy concerning the ideas connected to these names?

22

I:

Introduction

As shown earlier there are a number of texts which mention Gog or Magog or both, and some of these texts may well have been known to John and to his congregations. We shall scrutinize the possibility that the further context of Rev 20,8 suggests Ezekiel 38-39 as the closest and most probable background of this reference, by showing the further relationship between the last chapters of the book of Ezekiel and the book of Revelation. The possibility of a primary background from Ezekiel shall not, however, restrict the exploration of other possible influences on the Gog and Magog-ideas. The set of ideas connected to these names in the minds of the author and the readers/listeners may not have been quite identical; their orientation and degree of Schriftgelehrtheit may have differed. Not only the degree of Schriftgelehrtheit may have differed, there may also have been different and contradicting ideas about Gog and Magog within the seven churches. Our knowledge of this is naturally extremely limited, but the very possibility of such a mulitiplicity of ideas warns us not to harmonize or simplify this side of the issue. The broader discussion about the possibility and desirability of focusing on authorial intention cannot here be dwelt with in depth. 100 We have no other access to the author's mind than through his writing, i.e. Revelation. Uncertainty about the further identity of the 'John' who wrote Revelation means that caution must be taken not to infer a too strong focus on his training and orientation, apart from what can be deduced from Revelation itself. 1.3.2 Synchronic and diachronic

exegesis

The Gog-Magog reference in Rev 20,8 necessitates a thorough exegesis of this verse as well as its immediate context, vv. 7-10. Since Rev 19,17-21 alludes so strongly to Ezekiel 39 a special exegetical focus centers on Rev 19,17-21 as well. The broader context for these two passages is Rev 19,11-21,8 or 19,11-22,5, as we shall later argue (at the beginning of ch. 5.1). The history of the Gog and Magog-traditions obviously consists of much more than Ezekiel 38-39, and this necessitates exegesis of a number of other texts as well, as was indicated earlier. The further criteria for what texts that will be treated extensively in this study will be given in ch. 1.3.6 of this study. Seeking the history of the Gog and Magog-traditions behind the reference in Rev 20,8 means that our study has an element of diachronic investigation; we will seek to find what ideas the author and the readers/listeners of Revelation held concerning these names prior to their inclusion in 100

Cf. Moyise 1995: 132.

1.3 Methodological

considerations

23

Revelation. Our exegesis is not diachronic, however, in terms of having ambitions about finding oral traditions, literary strata or earlier versions of the text of Revelation. Concerning the intertextual relationship between Ezekiel 38-39 and Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10 we shall analyze these texts synoptically, and this involves a synchronic perspective on both texts. The same holds true for the investigation of possible parallels between Ezek 36,25-48,35 on the one hand and Rev 19,11-22,5 on the other. The many other texts that mention Gog and Magog will also be discussed from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives. On the one hand our interest concerns the form in which John and his readers/listeners may have known these texts; this involves a synchronic perspective. 101 On the other hand, however, we shall have to trace the broad lines of history of the Gog and Magog traditions ourselves, since no one has done that earlier; this involves some diachronic observations and discussions concerning the mutual dependency between the texts. It is not, however, the ambition of the present monograph to give an exhaustive discussion of all texts mentioning Gog and/or Magog. Such a survey extends far beyond the limits of this survey, although we shall address every text known to us referring to Gog and/or Magog up to the days of Revelation. The prehistory of the Gog and Magog names and the related ideas prior to their inclusion in Ezekiel 38-39 will not be discussed, even though this is a highly interesting question. Neither will we enter into a diachronic investigation of the possible growth and alleged disintegrity of Ezekiel 38-39; the suggestions and theories raised by other scholars on that point will only be briefly presented. 1.3.3 Apocalyptic

literature as a methodological

challenge

Interpreting a book like Revelation differs somehow from that of other NT books, due to Revelation's affinity with apocalyptic literature. Though we shall return in ch. 1.4 to the question of Revelation's genre, there is a need to discuss briefly here the methodological implications of Revelation's affinity with apocalyptic literature. Apocalyptic language is "expressive rather than referential, symbolic rather than factual", J.J. Collins comments. 102 Apocalyptic literature in general "was not governed by the principles of Aristotelian logic but was closer to the poetic nature of myth", he claims. 103 Terms like "myths",

101 There is also a possibility that John or his readers/listeners may have known these texts in a different form than that which w e possess today. 102 Collins, J.J. 1989: 14. Cf. also Jeter 1992: 12. 103 Collins, J.J. 1989: 13, presenting Gunkel's viewpoints.

24

I:

Introduction

"mythopoetic language" 104 and "mythopoeism" 105 are used by various authors to refer to aspects of this perspective. Evocative metaphors and highly symbolic images challenge the exegete not to miss their associative and polyvalent overtones, and at the same time not to misinterpret other features, as if Revelation was a dogmatical treatise. It is not possible simply to decode Revelation's language into a "one-to-one meaning". 106 This is certainly true regarding the names Gog and Magog, and our study needs to be conscious not to overlook possible polyvalent and evocative associations, both when the names occur in Revelation and in other texts. J. Roloff comments on this in his discussion of Rev 20,7: 107 "John makes use here of a mythical metaphorical language that in the end resists translation into categories of logical, causal thought." The awareness of these aspects should not, however, lead us into subjectivism in a disintegrated universe, where words and sentences carry little meaning except for the associations they create in the minds of various readers/listeners. The work with this monograph has convinced the present writer that John is making a very skilful and disciplined use of e.g. the names Gog and Magog, and also of the other words and names which allAude to the OT. Another major and controversial question is the proper understanding of terms like 'myth', 'mythic' and 'mythological'. Similarly we shall meet several suggestions about Gog and Magog being 'demons', 'spirits', 'mythological figures' etc. It obviously extends way beyond the ambitions of the present study to bring to an end the discussions of adequate definitions of these terms, but we shall try to be alert every time we meet these terms in the literature, not to confuse one understanding of the terms with another. 1.3.4 Tracing allusions

in

Revelation

Criteria for tracing allusions in Revelation should in principle be the same as for the rest of the NT, or even for literature in general. Still, scholars working with Revelation have struggled hard to find the appropriate terms and criteria for the task. This is partly due to the lack of any introductory or concluding formulae in Revelation, setting quotations apart from the surrounding text. It is also due to the very few (if any) exact quotations in

104

Cf. Fiorenza 1991: 19. Batto 1992: 12. 106 This helpful admonition is often repeated by Fiorenza 1991: 16. We should not, however, overlook the small remarks inserted by John at crucial points in the text, guiding the readers in their apprehension of the images; e.g. 4,5 b: "which are the seven spirits of God"; 5,8 b: "which are the prayers of the saints". 105

107

Roloff 1 9 9 3 : 2 2 8 .

1.3 Methodological

considerations

25

Revelation, combined with the fact that the number of allusions to the OT is very high. J. Hollander's characterization of allusive references in general as being "maddeningly elusive" is true for allusions in Revelation as well . 108 In addition to all of this we have the difficulties that arise from Revelation's affinity with apocalyptic literature, as we just noted. R. Bauckham comments: 109 "Revelation demands literary appreciation in its own terms". The status of the OT also calls for special attention; its position as a holy writing along with the familiarity with its text obviously makes our task different from that of tracing allusions in literature in general. A closer look at some recent studies shows that no consensus has been reached among the scholars. Vanhoye classified in four columns the different OT allusions; 110 Kraft sought for one, single OT pre-text to each passage in Revelation; 111 Vogelgesang stressed the overall resemblance of perspectives between the pre-text and the new context; 112 Paulien devoted no less than 150 pages of his dissertation to the refinement of this methodology; 113 Ruiz appealed to "hermeneutical imperatives"; 114 lately Moyise has contributed a monograph on OT allusions and intertextuality in Revelation. 115 The variety of meanings even of the more technical terms in modern scholarship calls for further considerations. The present investigation does not make claims for originality methodologically. An account will now be given of the definitions of terms employed in this work related to the works of other scholars in this field. Definition of terms The first observation of some similarity between parts of two texts is often called a correspondence,116 This term will be used both for individual words or names, combinations of terms, themes and even structures and orders of texts or events. The term 'correspondence' is meant to be neutral as to whether or not the author may be conscious about the similarity. As for the strategy of the present study the observation of a 'correspondence' will be the starting point of discussions of similarités between two or more 108

Here cited from Paulien 1987: 167. Bauckham 1993 a: p. x. 110 Vanhoye 1962. 111 Kraft 1974. 112 Vogelgesang 1985: 1 5 - 1 6 . 113 Paulien 1987: 1 5 5 - 3 0 7 . 114 Ruiz 1989: 1 9 0 - 2 1 5 . These "hermeneutical imperatives" are not limited to the tracing of OT allusions, but are helpful also for the further interpretation of Revelation. 115 Moyise 1995. 116 Helpful attempts to define some of the following terms from an intertextual point of view have been made by T.K. Beal 1992: 2 1 - 2 4 and Porter 1997. 109

26

I:

Introduction

given texts. The further discussion will then seek to clarify whether this is an allusion, a citation/quotation, an isolated echo, or no real correspondence at all. Allusion is another common and general term for the presence in Revelation of material from the OT or other texts. This designation points to something less verbatim than a quotation or citation - two expressions which here will be used interchangably. Allusions are generally not introduced with reference to an older text or tradition from where it is taken, like quotations or citations often are. Some speak of "OT reminiscences", 117 but this expression can easily be misunderstood in an atomistic way, as if Revelation picked up and utilized material without incorporating it into its own context. There is consensus about John's creative and active skill in incorporating allusions into his own writing. 118 By quotation or citation we understand a sequence of words that is taken from an older text, which can be delimited from the new context, and which normally is introduced, either by a formula, or at least by a particle, like yap. There are no such quotations in Revelation. Verbatim repetitions or verbal parallels can come close to a quotation. There are plenty of these in Revelation, but the absence of formal introductions and the brevity of such parallels suggests the use of other terms. 119 117

Beale 1988: 319 and Vos 1965: 18-19. Beale 1984: 306 uses the term "conscious allusion" to indicate the deliberate character of allusions in Revelation. Paulien 1987: 175 prefers "direct allusion", indicating both that John deliberatly used a particular OT text, and that he expected his readers to follow the reference back to its place in the OT. Given the lack of formal introductions to allusions or quotations in Revelation it is problematic to establish as a category something that can only be supposed with more or less certainty. One of the important focuses of our study is to consider the possibility that the author and the readers/listeners of Revelation may have recognized Ezekiel as pretext in Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10 respectively; it is therefore not correct to use terms at the outset which may imply an answer to that which shall be considered. 119 Paulien 1987: 179-180 has suggested the expression "verbal parallels" when "at least two words of more than minor significance (articles and minor conjunctions are excluded) are parallel between a passage in Revelation and a passage in the LXX or other first century version". Similarly "thematic parallels" are less exact than verbal parallels on the level of identity of words and terms, but yet have "direct contextual moorings in particular texts" from older literature, Beale 1984: 121. Thematic parallels may use different Greek words than the LXX or the other early Greek versions, and may amount to one single word only. The parallel to the older text may be similar or contradictory to that text concerning its meaning or evaluation in the book of Revelation. Given the small amount of texts studied in this monograph we do not find it necessary to make use of these classifications, but for surveys of major sections of Revelation these distinctions may be useful. Moyise 1995: 110 speaks of attempts to classify allusions according to their "volume". This certainly would be a great advantage if we were in the position to measure it, 118

1.3 Methodological

considerations

27

T h e p r e s e n c e o f several a l l u s i o n s f r o m o n e c o n t e x t o f a s o u r c e - t e x t is o f t e n referred to as a cluster, or "large s c a l e reference". 1 2 0 V a n h o y e labelled it "utilisation d ' e n s e m b l e " . 1 2 1 W e shall u s e the term cluster of allusions; the o p p o s i t e can s i m p l y be called isolated a l l u s i o n s . 1 2 2 S u c h isolated allusions are s o m e t i m e s called ' e c h o e s ' , and this w i l l then i m p l y a l o w e r d e g r e e o f certainty about the p r e s e n c e of a real allusion. T h e text f r o m w h e r e allusions or quotations/citations are taken is s o m e t i m e s referred to as pre-text, sub-text, Vorlage, source-text or prototype. B y Vorlage w e m e a n the shape o f a text or tradition as it w a s k n o w n b y the author or translator at the t i m e . O f t e n the term Vorlage s u g g e s t s a point o f tradition that has not yet b e e n f i x e d , or w h i c h d i f f e r s f r o m another current text of the s a m e b o o k or tradition. W e shall refer to a Vorlage in terms o f written texts e x c l u s i v e l y , e . g . w h e n w e speak of the H e b r e w text w h i c h the translators o f the L X X u s e d , w h i c h m a y or m a y not h a v e b e e n identical w i t h that o f the H e b r e w text preserved to us in v a r i o u s m a n u s c r i p t s . Pre-text will here be used to indicate the o l d c o n t e x t f r o m w h i c h a l l u s i o n s are taken, e . g . in E z e k i e l , w i t h the s a m e m e a n i n g as the term 'sub-text' or ' s o u r c e - t e x t ' . W h e n R e v e l a t i o n draws h e a v i l y o n o n e larger

but apart from counting the number of words held in common between the text of Revelation and that of a given pre-text, we have no means to measure such "volume". Beale 1986: 539-43 proposes a distinction between three groups of allusions: 1. We have clear allusions when the words employed are almost the same as those in the source-text, when they have the same general meaning, and when they could not reasonably have come from anywhere else. 2. Probable allusions are less precise, but contain ideas which are uniquely tracable to that text. 3. Possible allusions are better referred to as echoes; these are of much more general sense. Moyise 1995: 16 note 19 does not accept these categories; still he sees a need to distinguish between "allusions that are virtually certain" and "countless echoes or literary parallels", p. 17 note 25. On the other hand, dismissing minor nuances can mean missing the subtle nuances, Moyise continues, drawing a parallel to a music critic, who certainly cannot limit his comments to the loudest instruments in the orchestra, p. 18. Fekkes comments: "That one NT writer presents a three line word-for-word citation is of itself no more or no less important or illuminating than an author who retains only a few key words of an OT topos, which are embedded in the passage;" Fekkes 1994: 60. Again such measuring can be helpful, especially if dealing with a large material, though a false impression must be avoided, as if allusions were measurable like in science. One important aspect of allusions is their evocative and suggestive character, aspects that by necessity cannot be measured accurately. 120 Ruiz 1989: 65. 121 Vanhoye 1962: 439-40. 122 Vanhoye claimed that it is not typical for John to use OT allusions in isolation, but to fuse them together on the basis of their affinity with one another. Cf. Vanhoye 1962: 467 and Beale 1988: 320.

28

I:

Introduction

portion of an OT text, Fekkes speaks of "a biblical substructure". 123 This expression can possibly be adequate to describe the correspondences between Ezek 36,23-48,35 on the one hand, and Rev 19,11-22,5 on the other. 124 The presence of allusions to several OT-texts forming a new image or at least occuring side by side in the same context of Revelation is sometimes called 'amalgamations' 125 , - Vos called it "unconscious clustering", due to his negative view of John's contextual consciousness. 126 Fekkes speaks of "a conflation of two or more texts into one integral whole". 127 A more neutral and also less ambitious term for this phenomenon is combination of allusions from different OT pre-texts; given the short texts we are studying this will suffice for our tasks. Context is here used as a literary, not historical or social term, simply referring to the surrounding text, the passage where an allusion or a cluster of allusions occur. By "new context" we refer to the text where an allusion is employed (e.g. the book of Revelation), and "old context" refers to the passage in the pre-text from where an allusion is taken. The further theological implications of John's use of allusions will be discussed at length at the end of this monograph (ch. 5.4). Labels such as 'typology', 'promise', 'predictment', 'fulfilment' and 'salvation history' will be discussed and explained in that chapter. The term prophecy can be used interchangeable with oracle referring to e.g. Ezekiel 38-39, denoting a message or communication found in the books of the OT prophets or other revelatory literature. As such it does not necessarily imply either predic-tion or fulfilment, unless explicitly stated. But in ch. 5.4 we shall return to the suggestion that John considered Ezekiel 38-39 to be a 'prophecy' which he sees as 'fulfilled' in his vision in Rev 20,7-10. 128

123

Fekkes 1994: 226. Beale's terms Vorbild or midrashic Vorbild involves his particular understanding of Revelation as dependent upon Daniel. "Prototype" suggests a specific design modelled by a literary dependence, and will not be used in this monograph. Cf. Beale 1988: 3 2 4 25. The other opposite is indicated by the less formal designation of "raw-material", cf. Paulien 1987: 427. This term suggests the presence of a store-house or thesaurus, which is alien to literary material with their specific contexts, and should be avoided. 125 Fiorenza 1985: 135; Beale 1988: 320, and Vogelgesang 1985: 14. 126 Vos here referred to by Beale 1988: 320. 127 Fekkes 1994: 284. 128 John's claim of divine inspiration might a priori be imagined to be an obstacle to finding exegetical rules in Revelation, but similar claims were made for a number of writings of the day without leaving their exegesis a wasteland. Cf. Fekkes 1994: 6 5 - 6 9 for a discussion of this. 124

1.3 Methodological

considerations

29

Vanhoye claims that 'universalization' is a formal category found in many OT allusions in Revelation. 129 In my view the universalizations in Revelation belong more to the theological categories than to the formal. 130 The term universalization may be highly relevant for the Gog-related texts. One concern of this monograph is to see whether Gog is meant as Israel's enemy in Revelation as it is in Ezekiel 38-39, or if it is universalized like some other OT-features in Revelation. Vos pointed to a striking aspect of Revelation's allusions: It seems like many allusions "take the form of symbolizing or spiritualizing that which was a historical reality in the OT, e.g. Egypt and Sodom, Rev 11,8; Zion, 14,1; Harmagedon, 16,16; Babylon, ch. 17 and Jerusalem, 2 1 , 2 . " m The same perspective may well be extended to the reference to Gog and Magog in Rev 20,8. Hence some of these names come close to metaphors. We shall return to this in ch. 5.4 at the end of our monograph. We have already referred to what we have called "the history of the Gog and Magog traditions". By this expression we indicate the sets of ideas that came to be associated with these two names. Obviously these ideas came to change through the centuries, and they may well have differed from place to place and person to person even at the same time. For these reasons we shall use the plural form "history of traditions" rather than the singular form. We shall also use the terms theme /thematic and motif to refer to certain aspects of the Gog and Magog traditions, e.g. the birds' banquet. Seeking

parallels

Concerning the search for OT allusions the procedure sometimes can start with synoptical comparisons in two or more columns, paying equal attention to similarities and differences. Text-critical alternatives must be handled with careful attention. 132 Even minor alterations may betray genuine theological alterations.

129

Vanhoye 1962: 446-47. Beale's defence of Vanhoye on this point shows how difficult it is to uphold formal categories so loaded with theological implications, cf. Beale 1988: 328. 131 Vos 1965: 47. 132 This simple method of comparison is very useful in a number of cases, and will be employed in this study as well. On the other hand it is open for exaggerations and overinterpretations, as is shown convincingly in Ruiz's critique of Beale, (Ruiz 1989: 126). Here Ruiz offers a comparison between Isaiah 6 and Revelation 4 - 5 which is just as convincing as Beale's comparison of Daniel 7 and Revelation 4—5. (Cf. Beale 1984: 181-82.) The weakness of such synopses increases if the scholars extract the similarities or common features from one text and set it up synoptically with similar extracts from the other. 130

30

I:

Introduction

Synoptical listings of biblical texts involve problems concerning the translation of an original Hebrew text (as for Ezekiel) into Greek. 133 No absolute consensus has been reached concerning the OT text which John used, e.g. to Ezekiel, though a majority of scholars favour his use of a Hebrew text close to our MT. All available editions of this should be consulted, as well as the various accessible Greek versions. Due both to this fact and to John's freedom in alluding to older texts one cannot be sure "of finding phrases and clauses that translate exactly the text, or reproduce precisely the version of which John was familiar", as A.Y. Collins concludes. 134 Besides this philological work, it is highly important to investigate the exegetical and theological side of the relationship between the possible pre-text and the new context. We have earlier referred to the discussion concerning John's respect for original contexts, and we agree with Vogelgesang that it strengthens the probability of an OT allusion if John can be said to have "entered into the perspective" of the pre-text. 135 This is close to what Beale called "thematic" or "analogical" use. 136 Negatively, however, we should not exclude possible OT allusions from the lack of such common persepectives, but rather accept the presence of isolated allusions. Echoes, allusions and quotations undergo a certain transition from the old to the new context, even where they are repeated verbatim. By necessity the transition to a new context means that a citation is taken out of its original context; literally speaking it is "out of context" even where the writer struggles to imitate the original context, simply because he is making a new text. The study of the intertextual relationship between old and new context has been explored in detail by G.L. Linton 137 and S. Moyise concerning Revelation's use of OT allusions: "Whilst much of the book sounds familiar, the reader is consistently being challenged to think

133 Some of the Qumran texts and the Targumim are in Aramaic, the Septuagint as well as Revelation is in Greek, and some of the intertestamental writings are preserved mainly in translations into non-biblical languages like Latin or Ethiopic. The present writer is regrettably not able to read Ethiopic. These considerations imply that our investigations need to focus on the texts from both Greek translations and original languages, where this is accessible. This is particularly important in a synoptic study of Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 and Rev 1 9 , 1 7 - 2 1 and 2 0 , 7 - 1 0 , where three parallel columns will be needed for a proper analysis (MT, L X X and the Greek text of NT). 134 Collins, A . Y . 1984: 48. 135 Vogelgesang 1985: 15. 136 Beale 1988: 3 2 5 - 2 6 . 137 Linton 1993.

1.3 Methodological

considerations

31

again", 138 cf. e.g. the absence of the temple in New Jerusalem, Rev 21,27, a text to which we shall return in ch. 5.4. Ruiz similarly points to the process where an active reader of Revelation "engages in a dialogue with the text and with the texts within the text". 139 Moyise stresses this aspect even stronger when he claims that "by incorporating the words and images of the OT into his own composition, the reader is unsure whether he or she is reading John's words or words from another context". 140 These statements presuppose the active involvement of the reader/ listener in the old context of allusions in Revelation. We dare not presuppose such involvement on behalf of the intended readers at every allusion; we do not know much about their skills in following an allusion back to the pre-text(s). The possibility of such involvement shall be explored through our study of the Gog-related allusions in Revelation. Although we shall use some terms and insights from inter-textual criticism, we do not share the entire set of ideas associated with this approach. Relevant questions for our investigation will be how the OT material has been transformed into its new context: -

is it condensed or enhanced? is it used independently or is it fused with our images? is the original idea confirmed, transformed or refuted? what features are furthered, what features are silenced?

Throughout perspectives relationship respectively

the investigation care must be taken to allow for different and different degrees of consciousness on the intertextual between Revelation's author and the readers/listeners, different groups of these.

1.3.5 Criteria for the choice of relevant texts We have indicated a double task for the present study: first the history of the Gog and Magog traditions, then the proper exegesis of the Gog and Magog reference in Rev 20,8. In short we could say that the study of the Gog and Magog traditions indicates exegesis of any text mentioning either Gog or Magog or somehow indicating an obvious relationship to these texts. Our second task limits, however, this scope to those texts that may have been known to either the author or the recipients of Revelation, and also to the form in which they may have known these texts.

138 139 140

Moyise 1995: 115. Ruiz 1989: 520. Moyise 1995: 137.

32

I:

Introduction

The very sound of the names Gog and Magog suggests that this is a pair of names, maybe rhyme-words. One might suspect that the two names originally appeared together. This is not necessarily the case. Also those texts that mention only one of the names Gog and Magog are relevant to our study. Actually only very few texts mention both names together, among these is Rev 20,8. Even Ezekiel 38-39 does not mention Gog and Magog in a pair without intervening words, as we shall see. When, however, the one name is mentioned without the other we must take care to evaluate carefully whether there is a relationship between this use of the one name and the broader corpus of Gog and Magog texts. This possible relationship does not primarly interest us from their possible genetic dependence one way or an other, for John and his readers/listeners may have combined these texts in their associations without critical, diachronic reasoning. This means that our investigation may differ at some points from a strict historical exegesis, as John or his readers/listeners may have interpreted an old text anachronistically in the light of a later text. This is especially true concerning sacred texts, which to these people held a position as divine revelation independent of historical circumstances and presuppositions. Our survey should also include at the outset texts that spell the names somewhat differently than do Ezekiel 38-39 and Rev 20,8. This is obvious when it comes to different languages, such as Aramaic, Latin and Arabic. But even in Greek and Hebrew the spelling differs somewhat concerning the vowels of the names Gog and Magog. Again care must be taken to evaluate these issues from the same criteria - if possible - as those working in the minds of John and his readers/listeners. Deviant spellings of the names also raise the fundamental question whether the same figure is intended. This question is crucial e.g. in the case of 1 Chr 5,4, which lists a Reubenite descendant called Gog or Goug; in MT it is spelled like in Ezekiel 38-39, but in the LXX it has different vowels (cf. ch. 2.1.2). Another important point concerns the broad corpus of text-variants to the OT; even an obvious misspelling mentioning Gog or Magog is highly interesting, as it tells us that someone associated a given text with Gog and Magog, even if their Vorlage had a different or only similarly sounding name. At other places the text-critical decision is more complicated. The very idea of free research demands an openness also in the text-critical work. Besides the text-critical aim of establishing the original text, we are also interested in those later developments that led someone to write Gog or Magog in that particular context, or to write something else where these names may have been there originally, as some would claim concerning

1.3 Methodological

considerations

33

Gog or Agag in Num 24,7. 141 It is also of interest to find out whether particular areas, such as e.g. Alexandria, have produced more manuscripts with deviant Gog or Magog references than have other areas; the same holds true for specific ages. In such cases we should seek for explanations of the particular interest in Gog and Magog. There are also a few passages without any specific reference to Gog or Magog, but which still share so many of the features known from e.g. Ezekiel 38-39 that it is commonly assumed to be part of the Wirkungsgeschichte of that passage, e.g. 1 Enoch 56,5-8. 1 4 2 In such cases we lack the certainty that follows the explicit references in those other cases, and we are working on hypothetical ground. If the overall eschatological setting of such passages comes close to those of Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 or Rev 20,8 these texts may have additional information about the understanding of earlier Gog and Magog traditions. Methodologically such explorations come close to what we have earlier said about OT allusions in Revelation. One major difficulty concerns the exact date of various texts. We are obviously most interested in texts that are older than Revelation, but the problem is that texts which were completed after the days of Revelation may contain traditions that were current in the days of John. This may well be the case with several references to Gog and Magog in the Targumim, and in the (other) rabbinic writings from the following centuries. Given the immense problems involved in the exact dating of these references we shall briefly present many of these texts, but without ambitions of knowing their exact dates. We dare not include such texts in our search for the background of Rev 20,8. Still another category of texts concerns some geographical names e.g. in Caucasus which sound quite like the biblical Gog. Some scholars have suggested a possible relationship between such geographical names and Ezekiel's use of this name. We shall also bear in mind that John and his seven congregations belonged to the same continent, and possible associations may have come to their minds. A scholarly treatment of this material demands the skills of orientalists, trained both in the relevant languages, the literature and ancient history. It is to hope that this task will be taken up by some competent scholar, but as for me I will have to restrict my treatment of this to a simple presentation of the material as far as I have been able to comprehend it. 143 Though there may be some interesting perspectives arising from such an investigation,

141 142 143

Cf. ch. 2.2.1 of this monograph. Cf. ch. 4.4 of this monograph. Cf. ch. 4.8 of this monograph.

34

I:

Introduction

the possible implications will probably primarly affect the study of Ezekiel 38-39, and only to a lesser degree Rev 20,8. We have already referred to the reappearance of Gog and Magog in Medieval literature about Alexander's wall. These texts are by far too young to be relevant to an exegesis of Revelation, but since one cannot exclude the possibilty that later texts reflect old traditions these texts will also be presented briefly, cf. Excursus 4. The texts which we have today referring to Gog and Magog may not be identical to those that they knew. Some texts may have been lost, others may have been slightly changed in the process of transmission, and texts that are known to us may not have been known to them. We must also imagine that there can have been oral traditions which have not been preserved, and early Christian teachings about the eschatology may have extended far beyond that which has been preserved in texts. If indeed John was a native Palestinian Jew (cf. the following ch. 1.4.1), his religious training and overall aquaintance with the various Jewish parties may have been broad. Even some of the writings known to us from Qumran may possibly have been known to him, as may also be the case with other intertestamental literature, such as the Pseud-epigrapha. If - and we cannot know this for certain - he was a Jew by birth, he probably also attended the Synagogue-services, at least up to the time when he converted to Christianity, and this means that his knowledge of the OT must have been great, as actually his use of the OT in Revelation suggests. A fairly broad chapter of this study should therefore be devoted to the possible parallels between Revelation and both the Targumim and (other) rabbinic material, cf. ch. 4.7 and Excursus 1. At the same time John's use of Greek and Oriental material other places in Revelation is now generally assumed among the scholars, and this implies that he had a certain knowledge of Greek and Oriental mythology. John's readers/listeners probably formed a disparate group in terms of their Schriftgelehrtheit. Some may have been Jews, having received good training in the Synagogues, others may have been raised and trained in Greek or Oriental circles without the basic teachings of the OT. Others again may have been ignorant of religious writings prior to their Christian conversion; some may have been illiterate. This suggests that we ought to be very careful either to suppose or to reject the possible associations of the readers/listeners to any corpus of literature and traditions from either Greek, Oriental, Jewish or Christian circles at the end of the first century C.E. This approach of including all possible references obviously faces the danger of both tiring the reader and missing the main lines in the argumentation. On the other hand it is an invitation to the reader to judge

1.4 Introductory

comments on the book of

Revelation

35

for himself whether or not my evaluations and conclusions are valid. Hopefully it also contributes to the study of the Gog and Magog traditions as such, not only related to John's use of these in Revelation. The choice of texts in this monograph can be seen from the outline of this study. The shift between seperat chapters and excurses comes mainly from the age of the various texts which are discussed. Those texts that are supposed to be old enough to have been known by John and his readers/listeners are discussed in ordinary chapters, while younger texts are discussed in excurses. The dates of many texts are very difficult, however, and a particularly difficult choice concerns the Targumim and the (other) rabbinic writings. Under great doubt I have distinguished between the Targumim as slightly older than the (other) rabbinic material, though I am well aware that the Targumim as we have them today cannot be dated to the first century C.E. I have tried to explain this in ch. 4.7.1 and at the beginning of Excursus 1.

1.4 Introductory comments on the book of Revelation The book of Revelation is central to all parts of this study. All the discussions of various texts relate somehow to Revelation, either through a direct, synchronic comparison with its text, or through their possible familiarity with its author or readers/listeners. This necessitates a short chapter on some crucial introductory issues, such as Revelation's author, adressee, time, historical situation, genre and outline, focusing on those issues that make real difference to our project. 1.4.1 The author The author of Revelation presents himself as John, "his [i.e. Christ's] servant" (6ODA.Ox

319, witnessed also by Theodoretus Cyrensis: Quaestiones 44 and 107 127 (videtur) Complutensis

in

Numeros.30

In a d d i t i o n to t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s , m s . 8 2 h a s an e m p t y s p a c e b i g e n o u g h f o r 15 letters. S o m e late m a n u s c r i p t s o m i t the m e n t i o n o f G o g a n d h i s k i n g -

25 I have not found any discussion of this LXX-reading extending over more than a few lines. Cf. Wevers 1998: 405-406. J.T. Greene's interesting study Balaam and His Interpreters. A Hermeneutical History of the Balaam Traditions from 1992 does not even mention the Gog-reading in the versions of Num 24,7, as far as I can see. 26 Such is the common translation; cf. Lust 1995 c: 238, however: "The expression 'T| Tooy', without the diacritical signs of the modern editions, is rather ambiguous. The T| is not necessarily a conjunction, it can also be a definite article." That would imply the meaning "and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted". Lust continues: "Whichever reading one prefers, the only major difference with the MT is the replacement of Agag by Gog." 27 Text taken from Rouillard 1985: 370. 28 Wevers 1982: 289 first presents a Latin text of Aquila and Symmachus with Agag, and then lists the following manuscripts with a Gog-reading: M ' ; 85; 321; 344; 346, along with Lagarde's edition of the Syric-hexaplaric translation. Cf. also Lust 1995 c: 253 note 9: "The Septuagint, as well as the Vetus Latina and several witnesses to Theodotion and Symmachus, also read Gog. According to other mss (Syh), Aquila, and Symmachus read Agag." On this basis it is not accurate to state that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion all read Gog, as Holzinger 1903: 120; Vermes 1961: 161, and Rouillard 1985:370 do. 29 Here cited from Vivian 1977: 395. 30 We shall return to the confusion between Gog and Og in our next chapter, 2.2.2.

52

II: Gog and Magog in the OT outside of

Ezekiel

dom, as well as the first of the two verbs, leaving the text with "and higher shall his (i.e. Gods) kingdom be". It is also interesting to see that some texts from Medieval times write Agag where most other texts have Gog, thus reversing the difference between MT to LXX. 3 1 Cf. Excursus 4 of this monograph. The Samaritan

Pentateuch

Even the Samaritan Pentateuch has Gog in stead surprising since Gog elsewhere is not witnessed rather in the latter prophets. These writings did canonical position for the Samaritan society. The following w o r d s : 3 2 •D1?!} JIM DTI imD^Q KO:m

of Agag here. This is in the Pentateuch, but not come to hold any Samaritan text has the

His king shall be higher than Gog, and his kingdom shall be exalted. 3 3

This passage later came to be read in the Samaritan liturgy for the great Day of Atonement. 3 4 Gog continued to be part of Samaritan eschatology. The Asatir XII, 11.16 mentions Gog in connection with the prophecies of Balaam, which are interpreted messianically. 3 5 Text-critically the weight of the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch together against the MT text is considerable, and G. Gerleman makes high claims for this reading, stating that there is no doubt that Gog, not Agag, was the common reading in pre-Christian times. 36 In his view the Samaritan Pentateuch is the most important pre-Christian popular ('vulgär') text-form, far more imporant than the MT. 3 7 Other versions and texts The Vulgate 3 8 and the Targumim follow the MT, and speak of Agag, not Gog. The further history of interpretation 39 does not concern our present

31

Cf. Heller 1935: 357. Here taken from von Gall 1918: 327. 33 Cf. Dürr 1924: 99. 34 Cf. Dürr 1924: 99. 35 Gaster 1927; texts pp. 3 1 4 - 1 6 , discussion pp. 9 0 - 9 2 . Cf. also Dexinger 1993: 87. 36 Gerleman 1947: 161: "Pa samma tid kan det knappast räda nägot tvivel om, att Gog i Num 24,7, betygat av Samaritanus och Septuaginta, är den i förkristen tid gängse Varianten och inte massoreternas Agag." 37 Gerleman 147: 160: "Den Pentateuktext som i förkristen tid var känd och gängse och betydde nägot i praktiskt bruk, är inte textus receptus. Den viktigaste exponenten för den förkristna vulgära textformen ha vi i stället i den samaritanska Pentateuken." 38 Fluet aqua de situla eius, - et semen illius erit in aquas multas, - tolletur propter Agag rex eius, - et auferetur regnum eius, cf. V e n n e s 1961: 160. 32

2.2 Gog and Magog in the Septuagint

and other

versions

53

chapter, but it is highly interesting to see that even Philo interpreted Numbers 24 messianically, to use a traditional term. 40 He does not, however, refer to Gog. 41 It is a great regret that the fragments of the Hebrew text of Num. 24 found at Qumran have a lacuna exactly where we expect either 'Gog' or 'Agag', cf. 4QNum b Col. XVII, Fragm. 24,ii,27-30 line 19: 42 [0-Hsnn inn: SK irns^n «mini -D^ni ai:o o m

¡ran

o ^ p unn v^naj

This reconstruction, made by Jastram, holds Gog as more probable than Agag, but this is purely a conjecture, since there is nothing left of the lacuna in the manuscript (cf. plate XLII). The Balaam text from Deir 'Alia The plaster inscriptions found in 1967 on a wall of a building destroyed by an earthquake at Deir 'Alia in Jordan has brought a renewed interest to the whole Balaam-figure and the oracles in Numbers 2 2 - 2 4 4 3 It tells of Balaam, the son of Beor, who warned his own people by means of a prophecy of doom. The date of this inscription is normally set at ca. 800-760 B.C.E. or earlier. This is the geographical area of Elijah, the prophet. A somewhat later date would bring the text even closer to Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 . There is no reference to either Agag, Gog or any other similar figure in this text; there is no literary dependence between Numbers 22-24 and the inscriptions at Deir 'Alia. Ideologically the text presupposes a Canaanite pantheon, 4 4 cf. also the references to curses (line 36) and sorcery (line 34). M. Dijkstra has drawn attention to the many parallels with the prophet Ezekiel and his book, many of which, however, are very g e n e r a l 4 5 None of these relate directly to the Gog-oracles. One possible parallel, however, is the many references to various birds in lines 7 - 9 in a context of doom: Truly, the swallow is challenging the eagle, the nestlings of the vulture the ostrich; terro[r is seizing] the young of the falcon (?), and distress the fledglings of the heron, the mother dove preys on the father dove, and...[....] the Egyptian plover. The lack of other positive evidence, however, makes further speculations about a possible relationship to the birds in Ezek 39,17-20 fruitless.

39 A recent discussion of this text and some other messianic texts can be found in Collins, J.J. 1 9 9 5 : 6 4 - 6 8 . 40 Cf. Borgen 1992 b: and Lust 1995 c: 245-47. 41 Cf. Hayward 1999: 33. 42 Jastram 1994: 235-36. 43 The text transcribed with translation and some comments is found in Dijkstra 1995 b. Cf. also Dijkstra 1995 a; and Hoftijzer & van der Kooij 1991. 44 Cf. Dijkstra 1995 b: 52. 45 Dijkstra 1995 b: 62-64.

54

II: Gog and Magog

in the OT outside

of

Ezekiel

The translation of Numbers into Greek The exact date of the L X X to the Pentateuch is not k n o w n . 4 6 Most scholars hold that the matrix of the L X X to the Pentateuch is to be found in Egypt in the first part or the middle of the third century B.C.E. in the Greek-speaking Jewish community in Alexandria. 4 7 It s e e m s improbable that the Gog-reading has been introduced to the L X X at a later point, since the attestation in the manuscripts is so strong. It is also improbable that Gog found its w a y into the Samaritan Pentateuch after the schisma with Judaism. If the Samaritans had sensed that Gog w a s a novelty originating from the latter prophets they would not have accepted it, at least not at a time when their 'canon' w a s fairly f i x e d .

So we find that the Gog-reading was dominant or even the only known option in Num 24,7 both among the Jews in Alexandria around 300-250 B.C.E. and among the Samaritans before the schisma, whether this took place in the fourth or second pre-christian century and in the following years, when "the three" gave their translations. 48 It remains an open question how well this reading may have been known among Palestinian Jews in the first Christian century. The claim of a common Vorlage reading Gog, not Agag, which was old, widespread, and possibly dominant, is at hand, but must be evaluated against other possible explanations. Our main concern in this study is not to find the original reading. It is possible that a Gog-reading in Num 24,7 may have been known to John and his readers/ listeners, though it may not have attracted their attention specifically. Possible explanations of the Gog-reading The following explanations may be considered: 1. E. Sellin held that the original text of Num 24,7 read Gog. This was later changed to Agag. 49 His main argument was the picture that the context of Numbers 24 draws of the good king: since he is not earthly, but rather God himself, the opponent must also be more than king Agag of the Amalekites, but rather an eschatological figure like Gog. 2. G. Gerleman suggested that two different texts actually were in use side by side in the fourth, third and second century B.C.E.: one text speaking of Gog in popular use and one 'correct' and original text speaking of Agag. 50 46

Cf. the discussion in Borgen 1 9 9 2 a: 1064. Cf. Würthwein 1973: 5 2 - 5 5 . Dorival 1995 discusses the origin of the L X X to Numbers. 48 Würthwein estimates the number of places where Samaritanus and the L X X have a c o m m o n text different from the M T to some 1 9 0 0 , Würthwein 1973: 48. 49 Sellin 1912: 1 5 4 . 50 Gerleman 1947: 161 claimed that the Gog-reading in N u m 2 4 , 7 "är den i förkristen tid gängse Varianten och inte massorernas A g a g , som är den pä textkritisk väg framdeducerade, ursprungliga men tidigt ur bruk komna och därför i praktiken okända formen. Gog mä vära en aldrig sä sekundär läsart, mähända uppkommen g e n o m ett rent mis47

2 . 2 Gog and Magog

in the Septuagint

and other

versions

The Samaritan Pentateuch and LXX shared a common Vorlage speaking of Gog.

55 when

3. F.F. Bruce supposed that the Greek translators were so strongly influenced by the figure of Gog that they introduced his name in spite of his absence from the Hebrew text. 51 He did not offer any explanation why also Sam. and the other Greek versions have Gog here. Normally it is a strong indication of a different Vorlage when LXX and Sam. agree against the MT. 4. We have earlier considered the theory of an old Canaanite myth concerning an eschatological adversary called Gog, later adopted both by Ezekiel and the versions. 52 This myth may then have materialized both in Ezekiel 38-39 and in the LXX renderings of Num 24,7 and Amos 7,1. If this is the case LXX to Num 24,7 and Amos 7,1 may or may not have been dependent upon Ezekiel 38-39. 5. A. Munk has recently suggested that Gog belonged to an ancient heritage of the Samaritans, possibly related to the Lydian king Gyges. 53 6. M. Dijkstra suggests that Agag in Num 24,7 and Amalek in v. 20 "gradually assumed apocalyptic features. He was either identified with Gog of Magog (Ezekiel 38-39) or associated with Haman, the Agagite from the book of Esther (Esth 3,1.10 etc)." 54 7. J. Lust has recently suggested that the original Hebrew text "may have read ::no instead of announcing that the expected king was to be exalted 'on high', literally 'higher than the roof'." 5 5 8. G.B. Gray suggested that the whole poem in Numbers 24 may be a late messianic composition speaking of Gog. 56 Agag then must be an anachronism that brings the oracle into contact with earlier times.

stag. Under formassoretisk tid har den likval med all sannolikhet varit den enda brukliga och gangse." 51

Bruce 1972: 40. Kuhn 1964: 7 9 1 note 14 holds that this passage "is the oldest instance of the incorporation of the prophecy of Ezekiel into the schema of later Jewish eschatology". 52

Cf. what w e said about the origin of the Gog-material in ch. 2.1. Munk 1996: 166: "(...) at G o g h0rte til samaritanernes f0risraelitiske arv, hvad fortrasgningen af A g a g i den mosaiske traditions Bileamfortaellinger o g med G o g s g e o grafiske ommoblering fra Nord til 0 s t ogsa baerer ved til." 54 Dijkstra 1995 a: 92. 55 Lust 1995 c: 2 3 5 . He points to 1 Chr 14,2 as a close parallel, where it is said about David that "his kingdom w a s highly exalted". 56 Gray, G.B.: 1 9 0 3 : 3 6 6 . 53

56

II: Gog and Magog in the OT outside

ofEzekiel

The first and the last of these theories have not been accepted by other scholars, as far as I know. For our use the question of the origin of the material is less relevant; but it is interesting to observe the attestation of the Gog-idea in the Pentateuch both in the environments of the Jews at Alexandria and among the Samaritans at the times of these writings. Possible relationships to the oracles of Ezekiel cannot be traced with any certainty, especially since the Samaritans did not come to accept the writings of the prophets as canonic. It remains a desideratum to investigate the rest of the Samaritan Pentateuch in search for other possible correspondences to the prophets. Still there is a need to explain why the texts have two different names. How could anyone alter the text from Agag to Gog or the other way around? Many OT-scholars have puzzled over the mention of Agag, king of the Amalekites here. Elsewhere in the biblical accounts he figures predominantly in the times of king Saul. This is enough reason for a critical scholar like M. Noth to date the whole Balaam-prophecy to the days of king Saul, 57 although he is surprised not to find other references to the days of Saul in Numbers. Even if the original text had Agag, we can suggest some reasons why someone may have changed it to Gog, consciously or unconsciously: 1. Since Agag is associated with the days of king Saul they may have felt it strange that Moses, some four centuries earlier, referred to him. 2. Agag and the Amalekites did not represent any lasting threat to Israel/ Judah, they belonged to ancient times. To find relevance for the text, Gog was a figure ready at hand since his name was so similar in sound and spelling to Agag. Isa 9,12 illustrates how the LXX's translators felt free to reactualize old prophecies to refer to their contemporary situations: The LXX substitutes "Arameans ... and Philistines" with "Syrians ... and the Greeks". Similarly "Ararat" has been replaced by "Armenia" in Isa 37,38. 58 We have to bear in mind that the LXX of Isaiah probably was made by different translators from the LXX of Numbers, and probably also at a later time. Still the general attitude to prophecies like these must have included the freedom to reactualize them. If this is the most probable explanation of the Gog-reference, it proves that the Gog-prophecy was known to those who formed the textual Vorlage to Numbers later used by both the LXX and Sam. 57 58

Noth 1968: 191. Cf. Olofsson 1993: 23-24.

2.2 Gog and Magog in the Septuagint and other

versions

57

If indeed the original text of Num 24,7 referred to Gog we may consider how this later changed to Agag. One suggestion might be that they felt uneasy by comparing and relating their leader to a figure like Gog. Another suggestion might be the desire to bring the oracle into relation to actual historical enemies; this does not necessarily imply that the oracle is as old as the conflicts with the Amalekites. Possible interpretations

of the Gog-reading in Numbers

24,7

A number of observations arise from the Gog-reading. The first concerns the nature of him who is "higher" than Gog. He is explicitly said to be a man - av0pa)iroa. Koch 1984: 117.

232

IV: Gog and Magog in other

literature

one hand, and those which depend more on Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 on the other. Though it has not always been possible to conclude with certainty on this distinction, we have found the following three categories in the texts: -

-

some texts rely clearly on the Table of the Nations in Genesis 10 for their references to Magog (the Genesis Apocryphon; Josephus) other texts rely mainly on Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 for their references to Gog and/or Magog (Sib. Or. 3 , 3 1 9 - 3 2 2 . 5 1 2 - 1 3 ; 1QM XI,16; and most of the references in the Targumim and the (other) rabbinic writings) some texts seem to have combined the Gog and Magog oracles in Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 with the reference to Magog in the Genesis 10 (Jubilees, some of the references in the Targumim and the (other) rabbinic writings). The texts telling of Alexander's Wall clearly combine Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 and Genesis 10

We can conclude that the references to Gog and/or Magog attest to a living interest both in the reference to Magog in the Table of the Nations in Genesis 10 and in the Gog and Magog oracles in Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 . 3 9 8 The combination of these two traditions is found in some writings. 3. Gog and Magog are generally considered to be eschatological enemies. Some of the texts we have studied combine the eschatological battle against Gog and Magog with various messianic expectations, the clearest of these being the Pesher on Isa 11,5 from Qumran. It is impossible to find, however, any uniform pattern in this respect, as also the eschatological expectations in general vary within Judaism. Even the references to Gog and Magog in the Targumim and the (other) rabbinic writings vary a lot, and we have seen how Strack and Billerbeck distinguished between five different understandings concerning the time when Gog and Magog are expected to come. 4. Gog and Magog are Israel's eschatological enemies. None of the texts (except for the Christian and Muslim writings) question this national understanding; to the contrary: all take Gog and/from Magog to be Israel's enemies. 5. Gog and Magog do not appear to have been considered as 'mythological" figures if this means that they are considered as demons or ghosts rather than as ordinary people. This can be seen from two features: -

since Magog is understood as one of Japheth's descendants in Genesis 10, the combination of this text with the Gog oracles in Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9

3 9 8 Contra i.a. Merkel 1998: 1 0 9 2 note 3 1 9 a, who claims that "in der hell.-jüd. Literatur spielt Ezechiel 3 8 sonst [i.e. outside of Sib. Or. 3] keine Rolle."

Conclusions

to Chapter Four

233

places this enemy into the ordinary Table of Nations inhabiting the various parts of the world - a few texts, especially the Targum to Ezekiel 38-39, and possibly also some of the texts from Qumran, tend to relate the Roman empire to the biblical Gog, and the Romans were known as one of several successive empires This does not mean that these texts ascribed to Gog and Magog no special power or eschatological role; rather to the contrary we may assume that Ezekiel 38-39 suggested a very significant and specific position for Gog and Magog. Their attack is not just one of any attacking enemy, but an eschatological event foretold by the prophets. This attack is expected to take place in the land of Israel, in the culmination of historical and political processes, and as a real battle to be fought. 6. Gog and Magog appear together as a pair of names only in the Sibylline Oracles, in 4Q523 and some places in the Targumim and (other) rabbinic writings. This shows a certain development away from the way Ezekiel 38-39 speaks of Gog coming from Magog towards the pair "Gog and Magog" which we know from Rev 20,8. Several other texts mention only one of the two names, often such that "Magog" can be associated with the nation or the person in Genesis 10, while "Gog" refers to Ezekiel 38-39. In Jubilees and in the Pesher on Isa 11,5 from Qumran it seems like either one of the two names can be used interchangably with the other. If this is correct it attests to an attitude of combining Ezekiel 38-39 with the reference to Magog in Genesis 10. 7. The only text we have found which takes up the motif of the birds and the beasts eating the corpses of the slain soldiers (Ezek 39,4.17-20) is Sib. Or. 3,644-645 and 697. This text does not, however, refer directly to Gog and Magog by name, but an accumulation of features held in common with Ezekiel 38-39 makes it probable that this is an allusion to Ezekiel 39. The eating is not focused nearly as much in Sibylline Oracles 3 as it is in Ezekiel 39, and it is not presented as a sacrifice. 8. A few geographical names have been considered as possible candidates for the very names Gog and Magog. Neither "Gogarené", an Armenian province, or "Gogana", a port in the Persian Gulf, are, however, very probable candidates, and it is improbable that these names have been confused or associated with the biblical Gog in biblical times. 9. The many texts speaking of a wall erected by Alexander the Great in order to shut out invading peoples witness to a continuing development of traditions about Gog and Magog. The adaption of this biblical figure to the

234

IV: Gog and Magog in other

literature

different political and religious situations in later times also witness to the fascination these figures created in various circles. It is improbable, however, that these ideas can be traced back to the first century C.E.

V: John's use of the Gog and Magog traditions The previous chapters Two, Three and Four have discussed the various Gog and Magog traditions from a long period of time. My aim has been to lay a basis for a traditio-historic survey of Revelation's uses of these traditions, by observing the correspondences and differences in these texts, and to evaluate the possible influences between the various texts. All these chapters are, however, from one point of view only preparatory to this chapter, where we shall try to relate these texts to Revelation, in order to appreciate John's own possible use of this material in his composition. This final chapter will therefore analyze both texts in Revelation where Gog and Magog related material is found, i.e. Rev 19,17-19.21 and 20,710. This again necessitates an analysis of the whole section 19,11-21,8, both from literary and theological points of view. We have already (in ch. 1.4) discussed briefly the questions of authorship, adressee, time, historical situation, genre and outline of the entire book of Revelation. We now proceed to a more detailed literary analysis (ch. 5.1) of Rev 19,11-21,8, where both our texts are found; later (ch. 5.2) we shall proceed to an analysis of the theology of this section. Revelation 19 and 20 contains, of course, a number of highly controversial verses. Our aim is obviously not to discuss all these controversies, but to present some main positions, and then give an account of the possible implications of these for our study. Ch. 5.3 will then be the central part of this book, as it attempts to compare Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10 to the other texts studied in this monograph, particularly Ezekiel 38-39. Finally ch. 5.4 will attempt to evaluate and categorize these possible correspondences and to relate our observations to those of other scholars.

5.1 Literary analysis of Revelation 19,11-21,8 A survey of Revelation's outline was given in ch. 1.4 and shall not be repeated here. Rev 19,11-21,8 comes between the announcement of Babyon's downfall with the heavenly celebration there of leading up to 19,10 on the one side, and the further elaborations about the new Jerusalem from 21,9 on the other side. This can be seen i.a. from the following features: The dialogue between John and the angelus interpres is completed in 19,1c. 1 This dialogue is taken up again in 21,9. 21,9 refers to "one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues", who enters 1

Cf. Bauckham 1993 a: 3 - 5 ; and also 1989: 5 3 - 5 5 .

236

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

into dialogue with John. 2 This picks up the line from 16,17-21 and 17,1. The two sections 17,1-3 and 21,9-11 are parallel, as especially A.Y. Collins, referring to A. Farrer, has pointed out: 3 In each case one of the angels who had the seven bowls comes saying to John: Aeupo, Sei^o ooi... In both cases John is taken to his vantage point by the Spirit. This parallell contrasts two female figures, the harlot and the bride, and two cities, Babylon and New Jerusalem, in an antithetical parallelism. This parallellism even leads Farrer to label 17,1-19,10 as the Babylon Appendix and 19,11-22,5 as the Jerusalem Appendix. 4 The term "appendix" may not, however, be a good choice, since these sections certainly function as necessary and integrated parts of the entire composition of Revelation. The section 19,11-21,8 is held together by the repeated introductory formula KOCL eiSov, which clearly introduces vision-reports. This is obviously the most distinctive feature of this section from a formal point of view, and we shall return in a moment (ch. 5.1.3) to the discussions about the exact number of these visions and of their significance for the structure of the section. 5.1.1 Objections to the integrity of Revelation

19,11-22,21

Some scholars have questioned the integrity of the final chapters of Revelation. 5 R.H. Charles, who with very few exceptions, found Revelation to be a structural unity with a steady development of thought, regarded the final chapters to be "full of confusion and contradiction". 6 He found that "a faithful but unintelligent disciple" completed the book of Revelation after his master's sudden death. This shift of author took place at 20,3. The text from 20,3 and on "is disarranged in an astonishing degree", and "a greater contradiction in thought and statement is hardly conceivable" 7 . Boismard proposed two independent apocalypses that later were combined into our book of Revelation. 8 In recent times P. Gaechter 9 and J.M. Ford 10 similarly have renewed Charles' criticisms and literary critical rearrangements, though with some changes. Lately D. Aune has offered a 2

Elements of direct speech is indeed also found within the section 19,11-21,8; 2 1 , 5 8 is God's direct speech to John. It cannot, however, be called a dialogue, since no response is given by John. 3 Collins, A.Y. 1976: 15. Cf. also Bauckham 1993 a: 4 - 5 . 4 As referred by Collins, A.Y. 1976: 15. 5 Most critical commentaries survey the various positions. Linton 1993: 1 6 5 - 2 1 2 gives a broad account of these discussions. Cf. also Ulrichsen 1988: 1 3 4 - 3 5 . 6 Charles 1920 v o l . 2 : 144. 7 Charles 1920 vol. 2: 147 and 146. 8 Boismard 1949. 9 Gaechter 1949. 10 Ford 1975: 3 8 - 3 9 .

5.1 Literary analysis of Revelation

19,11-21,8

237

theory of a three stage growth of composition. 11 It remains to see if this proposal receives more support than the others, but concerning our texts it is important to note that Aune holds Rev 4,1 - 22,5 to belong to one integrated body which he calls "the First Edition". 12 Otherwise the great majority of scholars today accept the book of Revelation as an integrated unity, and the tensions and difficulties, which indeed are found, are ascribed rather to Revelation's affinity with apocalyptic than to literary critical theories of written sources being combined by a redactor. But since the discussions concern exactly our section we shall refer the crucial points briefly: 1. Parts of Revelation 21-22 seem to fit much better in Revelation 20, since some of the features of the New Jerusalem appear to co-exist with the present world; cf. e.g. the leaves of the tree which can heal the nations, 22,2; the nations' pilgrimage to Jerusalem, 21,24-27; the kings bringing their tribute to the new Jerusalem, 21,24 etc. 13 2. 21,27 speaks of the exclusion from the city of various evildoers; 20,15, however, speaks of a judgement in the lake of fire in relation to the great judgement, which appears to take place before the presentation of the new Jerusalem. 3. In 20,12 "books were opened", but in v. 12 b suddenly "another book was opened, which is of life". Previous references in Revelation were only to the book of life, 13,8; 17,8. 14 4. 20,13 states that Death and Hades gave back the dead that were in them; but according to v. 12 the dead were already standing in front of the throne, waiting for the judgement. If both verses refer to the same people, then the order is confusing. For these reasons Charles suggested the following order of the last chapters: 15 20,1-3; 21,9-22,2; 22,14-15; 22,17; 20,4-6; 20,7-10; 20,11-15; 21,5a; 21,5b; 2 1 , l - 4 c ; 22,3-5; 21,5c; 21,6b-8; 22,6-7; 22,18a; 22,16; 22,13; 22,10; 22,8-9; 22,20; 22,21.

21,4d; 22,12;

Most modern scholars, however, explain these tensions without the use of literary criticism. They rather point to the fact that Revelation obviously was not written as a theological treatise aiming at giving a coherent system of eschatological theologoumena, but rather as "the words of the prophecy 11

Aune 1997: cv-cxxxiv. Aune 1997: cxx-cxii. 13 Cf. Charles 1920 vol. 1 pp. 1 - lv and vol. 2: 144-54; Gaechter 1949; and Ford 1975: 3 8 - 3 9 . 14 Cf. Ford 1 9 7 5 : 3 8 . 15 Charles 1920 vol. 2: 153-54. 12

238

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

of this book" (22,7) spoken to specific communities under the pressure of dangers both from within and outside. Revelation's affinity with apocalyptic further explains the apparent tensions and contradictions, especially in the final chapters. Some of the positive evidence that makes most scholars argue for the integrity of the entire book of Revelation shall now be presented. This centers on the many features that combine the section 19,11-21,8 with the rest of the book. 5.1.2 Revelation 19,11-21,8

and the rest of the book16

The heavenly celebrations of 19,1-10 are not the conclusion of the book of Revelation. Babylon is judged, but the fate of the beast and his assisting propagandabeast has not yet been told, nor have we heard of the Dragon's final fate; "die Unheilsmachte [miissen] liquidiert [werden]", as Miiller remarks. 17 These are the beasts and their confederates (19,17-21), Satan, Gog and Magog (20,7-10), and finally death itself (20,14). On the other hand there are still promises of a time of salvation which were proclaimed earlier in Revelation (7,9-14; 14,1-5; 19,7-8) which are yet unfulfilled. 1 8 Rev 19,11-21,8 (-22,5) gives the answer and the final words to several of these aspects. The following ch. 5.2 shall analyze the main theological lines in Rev 19,11-21,8. The present paragraph, however, shall point to some basic literary relations between this section and the rest of Revelation. One way of doing this is simply to register the main figures as these are introduced into the book of Revelation and then to see how they are presented in our section. Several scholars have pointed to various chiastic patterns, where the judgement is told in the reverse order of the introduction of the various evil powers. "All leave the scene in the reverse order of their appearance", as Gourgues concludes. 19 Another diagram of "the evil hierarchy", including Babylon and the beast-worshipers, and a differentiation of the two beasts, is suggested by K. Strand, 20 while G.K. Beale offers still a different diagram, where he also includes Gog and Magog as separate figures. 21 Lee has recently reviewed several such suggestions of chiastic figures in the outline of Revelation, and he also proposes his own suggestion. 22 16 17 18 19

Cf. Giblin 1 9 7 4 , esp. pp. 5 0 0 - 0 1 . Müller, U . B . 1984: 3 2 5 . Cf. Müller, U . B . 1984: 3 2 1 .

Gourgues 1985: 6 8 1 . K.A. Strand's article "Chiastic Structure and S o m e Motifs in the B o o k of Revelation", AUSS 16 ( 1 9 7 8 ) p. 4 0 3 has not been available to me; the diagram is taken from Shea 1985: 5 4 , presented there as "Diagram 2". 21 Beale 1999: 9 8 3 . 22 Lee 1998: 1 6 4 - 7 4 . 20

5.1 Literary analysis of Revelation

19,11-21,8

239

These diagrams have different perspectives, as some focus on the figures involved, while others seek for thematic patterns. Some discuss the entire book, while others take portions of the book only. It can therefore be argued that they all can be seen as major arguments for a cohesive and integrated reading of the book of Revelation, since they all find sensible and intergrated patterns in overarching structures. It is interesting to find, however, that most of these diagrams do not mention Gog and Magog specifically. 2 3 One may well say that Gog and Magog in 20,7—10 just play the role of Satan's obedient army; they do not act as independent figures. That puts them in a somewhat similar position as that of the beast's army in 19,17-21. On the other hand we find that those following the beast are presented several times in chs. 13-18, the peoples called Gog and Magog, however, are not, at least not by these names. One other section stands out as closely related to our two Gog-related sections in 19,11-21,8. i.e. 16,12-21. These verses present the last two of the seven bowls, and they present the kings of the earth headed by "the unholy trinity" gathered for the battle at a place called Harmagedon (vv. 12-16). Verses 17-21 then bring an account of an earthquake, a hailstorm and what appears to be the end of the earth's history. A similar account is found in 6,12-16. Another interesting side of the text in Rev 16,12-21 is the allusions to Ezekiel 38-39 in Rev 16.17-21. 2 4 Vanhoye classified this allusion as "contacts littéraires moins probant". 2 5 We shall return to a closer analysis of this section at the beginning of ch. 5.3.1, where we discuss the other allusions to Ezekiel 38-39. We conclude that the objections against the integrity of Rev 19,11-21,8 are too weak to allow for any literary critical reorganizations, and we shall analyze the text according to its traditional order. We have also seen how the section 19,11-21,8 is deeply integrated into the rest of the book.

5.1.3

The number of visions in Revelation

19,11-21,8

The following chart, found in one of A.Y. Collins' books, is quite representative of many commentaries, structuring Rev 19,11-21,8 into a cycle of seven unnumbered visions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

The second coming of Christ Call to the 'Banquet' The final battle The binding of Satan The thousand year reign The last judgement The new creation and the new Jerusalem

23

19,11-16 19,17-18 19,19-21 20,1-3 20,4-10 20,11-15 21,l-826

One of the few scholars who has commented on this is Ford 1975: 38, to whom this is an indication of the literary critical unevenness of the text. 24 Cf. Ruiz 1989: 262-63. 25 Vanhoye 1962: 475. 26 Cf. Collins, A.Y. 1976: 15; and also pp. 39-42, referring to a work by Farrer.

240

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

It obviously is the many other heptiads of Revelation that has led the scholars to search for other heptiads even in the remaining sections of the book. This perspicuous outline extends this perspective even into this section. We shall now analyze this section to see if this outline does justice to the text. There is no doubt that the construction with «ai eiòov followed by an object of what is seen often is an introduction to a vision, we may well call it a vision-report formula. 27 This formula is found unevenly distributed throughout Revelation, e.g. several times in chs. 5.6.13.14 and 17. A closer look at the KCÙ elSov introductions in Revelation shows a certain pattern: - the section is introduced by KCÙ eiSov - sometimes an indication of time is given (e.g. 7,9; 15,5; 18,1) - an object is introduced, very often by an angel (e.g. 5,2; 7,1.2; 8,2; 10,1; 14,6; 18,1; 19,17; 20,1) - a location is often indicated (e.g. 5,1.6; 6,9; 7,1; 13,1; 14,1.6; 18,1; 19,17; 20,1) K C Ù 6L5OV is often followed by KOC! Ì 5 O U (e.g. 4,1; 5,6.8; 7,9; 14,1.14) The problem with the theory of a cycle of seven unnumbered visions in Rev. 19, 11-21,8 is that Kai eiSov is repeated not seven, but eight or nine times within the section 19,11-21,8: 19,11: 19,17: 19,19: 20,1: 20,4: 20,11: 20,12: 21,1: 21,2:

Kai Kai Kai Kai Kai Kai Kai Kai Kai

etSov xòv oùpavòv livecoynevov ... «L8OV 'èva ayysAov eo-ucixa kv rilii^ ... et6ov TO 9r|p£ov Kai ...Kai ... ouvriy^éva iroLrjoai. TÒV nóAe^oy ... eiSov ayyeÀoi' KataPaivovia ... elóov 8póvoué|3r|oat> -

«KikXeuoai' -

Kaiépri -

Kaxécjjayev -

êpXiiâri

-

We see that the first two verbs are in the future; then follows five verbs in the aorist, and the last verb is again in the future tense. W e have already noted that Rev 20,6 is a beatitude. Beatitudes are hymnic form-elements which can be traced throughout the book of Revelation. The fact that w e find exactly seven such beatitudes (1,3; 14,13; 16,15; 19,9; 20,6; 22,7 and 14.) all starting with ^aKapioç has attracted some comments from the scholars. 3 7 One peculiar feature concerning the beatitude here in 2 0 , 6 is the additional Km ayioç. The six other beatitudes in Revelation do not have any such addition. This is most probably a deliberate expansion explaining the reason w h y these particular people are sharing in the blessed first resurrection. W e also observe the shift from the aorist in the preceding verses via the present to the future. 33

Charles 1920 v o l . 2: 187. S w e t e is a little more careful: "The use of the future tense is carried on from v. 6 and into vv. 7 - 8 , with the result that this part of the vision assumes the form of a prophecy"; S w e t e 1911: 267. 34 35 36 37

Cf. Ford's note 1975: 38. Mussies 1971: 3 3 5 . Mussies 1971: 3 3 4 - 3 6 . Cf. Bieder 1954; and Prévost 1993: 6 0 - 6 1 .

5.1 Literary analysis of Revelation

19,11-21,8

243

The beatitude follows upon an explanation given in v. 5: "This is the first resurrection." Such brief explanatory comments can be found at various places throughout Revelation. These small insertions function almost the same way as the explanations or interpretations given by the angelus interpres, and can be found i.a. in: 4,5: "which are the seven spirits of God" 5,6: "which are the seven spirits of God, sent out into all the earth" 5,8: "which are the prayers of the saints" The brief comment in 20,14 is quite similar: "This is the second death, the lake of fire." 3 8 Fiorenza points to the function of this beatitude along with the entire section 2 0 , 4 - 6 ; 3 9 it has "a similar rhetorical function to that of the vision of the sealing of the 144 000 ( 7 , 1 8) and the injunction to measure the temple of the true worshipers (11,1-2). It aims to assure the audience of the protection and salvation of the elect." Following after the harsh account of the battle in 19,11-21 this is a very probable and understandable suggestion. That account functions on the other hand as something of a threat, an urgent warning not to side with the beasts, the kings of the earth, or "the rest" (19,21). 4 0

Much of the section 21,1-8 appears to be more like prophetic oracles than like visions. We have already pointed to the audience report-like introduction in 21,3. The citation of what the one sitting on the throne said extends over 50 words (vv. 3-4), and is followed by three other citations. The second of these (v. 5: "Write this, for ...") is a commission to John to write (like in 1,19 and 10,7-11), and the third is addressed directly to John (vv. 6-8). Roloff states that "two auditions follow a brief double vision". 41 Adding up the evidence from this analysis of 19,11-21,8 it is hard to confirm the neat outline with a cycle of seven visions. Aune finds Revelation 2 1 - 2 2 to "constitute a pastiche of prophetic sayings, literary devices and patterns, and apocalyptic motifs", 42 and our analysis of 19,1121,8 seems to confirm this. We have seen that especially Revelation 20 is also a very composite chapter in terms of stylistic elements. We therefore reject the theory of taking 19,11-21,8 as an intended, but unnumbered sequence of seven visions. In Bauckham's words: "When John intends a number of sections to have a structural significance he makes the numeration explicit ... In a text intended for oral performance he had to do so".43 38 Ruiz discusses what he calls "The hermeneutical imperatives" of Revelation over 25 pages of his book; Ruiz 1989: 190-214. In this he includes the blessings, curses, the sections with "Let him who has an ear hear what the Spirit says to the churches", as well as some other sections. 39 Fiorenza 1991: 108. 40 Cf. Fiorenza 1 9 9 1 : 1 0 6 . 41 Roloff 1993: 234. 42 Aune 1983: 286. 43 Bauckham 1993 a: 6 (italics his).

244

V: John 's use ofthe

Gog and Magog

traditions

This does not mean, however, that Rev 1 9 . 1 1 - 2 1 , 8 is not built up by visions, it certainly is. Our objection to the theory of an unnumbered cycle of seven visions has been the insistance on the n u m b e r of such visions being seven, and the lack of regard for other features, as pointed to in our discussion. 4 4 W e will rather claim that 2 0 , 7 - 1 0 is a unit by itself, introduced by a temporal note which takes us to another time, and with a shift in the tenses of the verbs. W e also claim that 2 0 , 1 1 - 1 5 ought to be taken as one vision, though Kai elSov is repeated in v. 12. On this basis I will follow the following outline: 19,11-16: 19,17-18: 19,19-21: 20,1-3: 20,4-6: 20,7-10: 20,11-15: 21,1-8: 5.1.4

The rider on the white horse The invitation of the birds The battle against the beasts S a t a n ' s imprisonment The millennial kingdom The battle against Gog and Magog The final judgement The New Jerusalem

Text-critical

matters

Fortunately there are not many instances of text-critical problems in Rev. 1 9 , 1 7 - 2 1 and 2 0 , 7 - 1 0 , the further context 1 9 , 1 1 - 2 1 , 8 contain some more difficult passages. The following places will be discussed as w e approach the texts: -

the word p€puA.aKii, not apuaaog, as it was in v. 3. His release is told in the passive, which probably is another divine passive, whether one should think of God himself or one of his angels as the one who breaks the seal and unlocks the enterance. Verses 7-10 tell, then, in a direct and short manner, 127 about Satan's futile attempt to attack God's people. He leaves his prison in order to deceive the nations. This corresponds directly to the reason for the precautionary imprisoning. This confirms to the reader the need for his imprisonment, and it also tells of Satan's unchanged aims. This again corresponds well to one of the descriptions John used for Satan in v. 2: "the old serpent", who deceived Eve. At the end of the thousand years, he sets out to deceive again. Nothing is said about his strategy or the means he uses, unlike the broad description of his preparatory actions in ch. 13, which eventually lead up to the battle in 19,11-21. The object of Satan's deceit is designated as "the nations at the four corners of the earth", which again are given the names "Gog and Magog". The reader immediately wonders who these nations are: Christ's millennial co-reigners, - a very unlikely suggestion given their steadfastness in the previous tribulation - or somehow the subjects of Christ's and his coreigners' millennial reign, or possibly a third group of nations that was neutral in the battle described in 19,11-21. This difficulty corresponds to the reference to the nations in v. 3. We shall also return at length to the suggestions that they are demons, spirits etc. This is one of the most central discussions of this book, and will be treated in ch. 5.3.2. Their number is said to be "as numerous as the sands of the sea", a traditional metaphor which is found in the Old Testament, e.g. Josh 11,4 and Judg 7,12. Satan's intention is further said to be "to gather them for battle", literally "for the battle". The need to gather the nations is obvious, since these nations were "at the four corners of the earth". One may understand this literally, indicating that they did not inhabit all the earth, but only the most remote places, or as a more inclusive note, stating that all over the earth, even to the most remote corners, Satan is able to find and gather people for his purposes.

127

Kraft 1974: 2 5 8 sees this as indicative of the fact that "unser Verfasser hat an diesem Teil der Erwartungen nur geringes Interesse". This and other suggestions will be discussed in the f o l l o w i n g chapters.

266

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

The narrative rushes to the next step: "They marched up over the breadth of the earth". All the nations, however different from one another, and totally untouched by a thousand years of millennial reign, are in a moment turned into one mass of obedient soldiers marching to battle under the leadership of Satan. They reach the battlefield, and "surround" their target. This expression indicates their superiority in number. The target is explained as "the camp of the saints and the beloved city". These expressions again have their background in the OT, though not as one fixed designation. All readers trained in the Hebrew scriptures would think of Jerusalem. Nothing has been said, however, in the previous verses, indicating that the millennium is located at one specific terrestrial spot. We shall return to the implications of this designation and the other Israel-like expressions in Revelation 20 at the end of ch. 5.4. At this critical point, where the reader expects to hear of Satan's attack on God's people, warfare is cancelled by fire coming down from heaven, consuming "them", i.e. Gog and Magog, Satan's many "nations". It is not stated directly that this was God's direct intervention, but such a note is totally superflous; no reader or listener of the preceding 20 chapters can be in doubt about the originator of this celestial fire. Similar expressions about celestial fire are found in the OT, 2 Kgs 1,10 and 12. We shall later take the opportunity to consider the lack of mention of Christ the Messiah here; the defeat of Gog and Magog is not ascribed to Messiah, like in most of the Gog and Magog traditions, but rather indirectly to God himself, like in Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 . Verse 10 holds Satan responsible for this event, and he receives the same punishment as did the beast and the false prophet, 19,20. At this point all three of the "unholy trinity" are united in the lake of fire. An explanatory note on their fate is also added: "and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." A similar note is not found the other places where the lake of fire is mentioned, 19,20; 20,15; 21,8. We have seen that verses 7 - 1 0 were prepared by previous notes about some "necessity" of Satan's release from his prison after the thousand years. He immediately picks up his earlier activity by deceiving the nations, which are here called as "Gog and Magog", a reference to which we are dedicating our entire monograph. Satan gathers all these peoples for a last, final attack on a city called "the camp of the saints and the beloved city". Instead of a successful attack, Satan is stopped by G o d ' s direct intervention, arrested, and thrown into the lake of fire, where he is united in his final and everlasting torment with the beast and the false prophet, the two other figures of 'the unholy trinity'.

5.2 Main theological

5.2.7 Revelation 20,11-15:

lines in Revelation

The final

19,11-21,8

267

judgement

All three figures of 'the Satanic trinity' have been cast in the lake of fire; Babylon has been destroyed; the kings of the earth have been killed by Christ along with all their adherents, and the nations at the four corners of the earth - Gog and Magog - have been destroyed by fire from heaven. John's readers will repeatedly have sensed that they were brought to the threshold of the judgement that will draw history to its final close (6,1217; 8,1; 11,19; 14,14-20, not to speak of 19,11-21 and 20,7-10). Are there still more battles or judgements to be expected? The answer is yes; the final division of all mankind into two distinctive groups is now to be described. The account given is strikingly scarce and meager; in Kiddle's words: 128 "Every irrelevance is cast aside, until the theme is stated in stark simplicity; nothing is allowed to distract our eyes from the spectacle of the Judge, and the judged". There is no equivalent judgement scene following the Gog and Magog oracles in Ezekiel 38-39, where the defeat of Gog is called "my judgement that I have executed", Ezek 39,21. The annihilation of Gog and Magog is followed directly by the visions of the new temple, Ezekiel 4 0 - 4 8 . "A great white throne" - "Throne" is an Ezekielian motif, but here Daniel 7 is once more in the foreground, cf. our note on Rev 20,4 above. The point is not the thrones and the theophany itself, but rather the judgement which takes place from the throne. A certain contrast can be seen between the many thrones of Christ's co-reigners during the millennium in 20,4 and this one throne of the Judge. Daniel's vision of the judgement of the beast in Dan 7,9-14 has been referred to both in the account of Christ's victory over the beast in Rev 19,20 and in the millennial reign, Rev 20,4-6. Such multiple use of one OT-text may be useful as analogy to John's uses of Ezekiel 38-39. "The one who sat on it" in our text probably refers to God himself, not to Christ or the martyrs. 129 Hence we see that the same OT motif is employed in somewhat different directions in various parts of Revelation. This is also a useful observation of an analogy to the use of Ezekiel 38-39. "The earth and the heaven fled from his presence". - The verb (jjeuyco - to flee, to seek safety in flight - implies that earth and heaven were unable to remain in God's presence, and a certain sense of personification can be

128

Kiddle is here cited from Morris 1987: 234. A f e w other N T texts suggest that Christ will share in the eschatological judgement, cf. Matt 2 5 , 3 1 - 4 6 and 2 Cor 5,10. 129

268

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

sensed. 1 3 0 Cf. Rev 16,20: "And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found". Morris commments on the explanatory note "from his presence": "There was something so terrible in the demeanour of him on the throne that earth and heaven themselves fled away from him." 1 3 1 Logical considerations of where the throne and the judgement are placed, when both earth and heaven are destroyed, are out of place, cf. also the reference to "the sea" in the following v. 13. Mealy compares this description to OT-passages like Jer 4,23 that also speak of destructions of heaven and earth; they do not refer to "a cosmic vacuum, but rather an earth returned to its primaeval state of (uninhabitable) chaos" 1 3 2 . This prepares for the introduction in Rev 21,1 of the new heaven and the new earth. "And no place was found for them." - This makes it perfectly clear that the old earth and heaven did not " f l e e " to a different place; no such place exists to which one might escape to get away from God, Rev 6 , 1 6 - 1 7 . Morris is probably right: "they were completely destroyed". 1 3 3 Dan 2,35 tells of the destruction of Nebuchadnezzar's statue, and the Greek version ascribed to Theodotion has the very same words: totto? ou% eupeGr|.134 This points to still another use of Danielic material (Daniel 2) in a section which elsewhere is more indebted to another Danielic passage (Daniel 7), as was remarked above. John goes on to describe the judgement of the dead, who apparently are brought back to life, or at least to some sort of personal and individual existence. 1 3 5 John's favourite expression "small and great" is here reversed, naming first the great, cf. 11,18; 13,16; 19,5.18. 1 3 6 Does this refer to all of mankind throughout the ages, including those who shared in the first resurrection/the millennial reign? One may object to this, taking it rather to refer to "the rest of the dead" of 20,5. On the other hand we should not speculate in the logical relationship of the various

1 3 0 The verb is in singular, referring primarily to "the earth", though it is not repeated when "heaven" is mentioned also; cf. the plural aikoi«;, referring to both earth and heaven. Cf. Mosbech 1 9 4 4 : 196. 1 3 1 Morris 1987: 2 3 4 . 1 3 2 Mealy 1992: 161. 1 3 3 Morris 1987: 2 3 4 . 1 3 4 Cf. Mealy 1 9 9 2 : 162 note 1; cf. also Beasley-Murray 1 9 8 1 : 3 0 0 . 1 3 5 Roloff 1 9 9 3 : 231 objects to an interpretation implying a physical resurrection of all men: "John obviously avoids speaking of a general resurrection of the dead at the judgement ... Made alive in the sense of granting new corporeality are only those to whom the resurrection to salvation is imparted (cf. 2 0 , 4 ) ... John considers the dead standing before God only as incorporate souls (cf. 6,9; 2 0 , 4 ) " . It is hard to combine this, however, with John's explicit words: "And I saw the dead standing..." 136

Cf. Mosbech 1 9 4 4 : 196.

5.2 Main theological

lines in Revelation

19,11-21,8

269

visions as if given in a theological treatise; it seems like John is not hesitant to present us with one picture at the time, whether or not they are 'consistent' according to our standards. The rest of this judgement scene obviously refers to all mankind, regardless of the time of their resurrection. The reference to "the book of life" clearly shows that not only the wicked are now presented for God's throne for judgement. In terms of history of traditions Dan 12,1-2 forms a clear parallel, but strictly speaking that account only says that "many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake", here stress is laid on the all-inclusiveness of the judgement. Ezekiel 37, of course, also speaks of a resurrection, whether limited to the nation of Israel, as in the original context, or in universal categories, like John 5,28-29, cf. also the echo of this passage in Rev 20,4. The reference to written records used in the divine judgements is probably influenced by Dan 7,10 b, as noted above. That vision also probably inspired 4 Ezra 6,20; 2 Apoc. Bar. 24,1. 137 The passive of the verb — r|voLX0r|aav — is probably influenced by the rendering in Dan 7,10a. This could be taken either as another divine passive or as referring to the angels as God's servants or as an impersonal subject, 'someone'. 1 3 8 John here adds another traditional motif to the heavenly records, that of a special "book of life"; cf. Rev 3,5; 13,8; 17,8; 20,15; 21,27. 139 This book probably finds its OT-background in Exod 32,32 and Isa 4,3; it is referred to several places in the NT as well, Phil 4,3; Luke 10,20; Heb 12,23. "And the dead were judged." - This judgement apparently is different from the sort of Kpi|ia which is referred to in 20,4; here the outcome relates directly to the everlasting fate of each individual, whether or not he is thrown into the lake of fire, v. 15. Distinctions between judgement according to faith or works is not essential to our study, and will be left out here. Revelation often focuses on the willingness or refusal of taking the beast's mark, cf. 13,16-18; 14,9-11; 19,20 and 20,4. The point is that there is a correspondence between the life on earth and the eternal state.

137

Roloff 1993:231. Cf. Mosbech 1944: 196: "... man aabnede B0ger ...". 139 Harder 1963/1964: 73 suggests that these books point to two different gische Schemata. 138

eschatolo-

270

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

"And the sea gave up the dead that were in it." 140 - The comprehensiveness of the judgement is recorded in this note as well as in v. 12 b. Even those who never had a funeral - a most disgusting fate - are assembled before the great, white throne. "The sea" carries more meaning within the world of Revelation than it does in a modern world view as a huge amount of H 2 0. 1 4 1 The sea "was the sinister border region to the underworld, the demonic, which offered a hiding place to powers threatening the earth (cf. 13,1; Sib. Or. 8,236237)", as Roloff comments. 142 The new world order described in ch. 21 therefore no longer provides room for any sea, 21,1 b. The use of the verb 6l6co|j,l suggests that the sea is portrayed here almost as a personified demonic power, no longer being able to hold back its prey. 143 The same appears to be the case with "Death" and "Hades" in the following sentence. Everyone and everything becomes powerless in the presence of God. Christ proclaimed in the introductory vision that "I have the keys of Death and of Hades". At the opening of the fourth seal, in 6,8, however, John saw Death and Hades following a pale, green horse; "they were given the authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, famine and pestilence, and by the wild animals of the earth". Rolloff finds here not only associations or influence, but even dependence on the Hellenistic notion of the god of the underworld, Hades. 144 One should, however, be very careful about claims of John's dependence of sources, written or unwritten, traditional or contemporary. If indeed John alludes to Greek mythology in this note, his message is that their power even in this age is limited to what "is given" to them, 6,8, and that they finally will be utterly destroyed in the lake of fire, 20,14. "Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire." The key figures on "the Satan side' in Rev 19,11-20,10 end up in the lake of fire, - the beast, the false prophet, Satan, and now even Death and Hades themselves. Gog and Magog are not explicitly said to suffer this fate, but if "Gog and Magog" are identified with "the nations at the four corners of the earth", and these "nations" are humans, then they are surely included among those who are going to be judged. 140 Bauckham 1993 a: 5 6 - 7 0 gives a detailed exposition of this passage, relating it to a number of other texts related to the motif. 141 Cf. Provan 1996: 91. Cf. also the broad dicussion of this in Mealy 1992: 1 9 3 - 2 0 0 ; and the response to this in Beale 1994: 2 4 7 - 4 8 . 142 Roloff 1993: 235. Bousset 1906: 4 4 2 - 4 3 cites a number of parallel statements from other literature. 143 Cf. Roloff 1993: 232. 144 Roloff 1 9 9 3 : 2 3 2 .

5.2 Main theological

lines in Revelation

19,11-21,8

271

"And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." Besides the obvious information implied in this note there is a rhetorical point which should not be missed: Any reader/listener must make sure his name is recorded in this book. 5.2.8 Revelation 21,1-8: The New Jerusalem The preceding verses have concluded the accounts of judgement, telling about the final fates of all implied on 'the Satan-side'. Time has now come to focus on the fulfilments of the promises to Christ's faithful. Their reward in the millennial reign was just a preliminary stage on the way to the complete renewal of all things. 20,11 stated that "the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them." This prepares the way for the introduction of an entirely new universe, and 21,1 indeed makes use of the most comprehensive terms available: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth." John even repeats the note from 20,11 about the (old) heaven and earth passing away, and he now adds that the sea was no more, cf. 20,13 a. The qualitatively new world order is thus stressed clearly, in Bousset's words: 145 "Der Apok.[-alyptiker] erwartet also das himmlische Jerusalem erst nach dem tausend-jährigen Reich, er rechnet dasselbe schlechthin zu der zukünftigen Welt. Jeder Gedanke an eine Verklärung und Erneuerung des irdischen Jerusalems ist ausgeschlossen." 21,2 must then be a further description of this new heaven and earth, as John goes on to tell about the new Jerusalem, and John once again uses wedding imagery to describe what he sees: "And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." Further details about this beauty is given in the next section, 21,9-22,5. "The Lamb's Bride becomes, like the harlot, the city she symbolizes," as J. Sweet comments. 146 We have earlier noted the contrast between this city and that of Babylon, chs. 17-18, 1 4 7 cf. also the contrast to the careful reference in 11,8, where Jerusalem is described in the following way: "... the great city that is prophetically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified." John's visionary report is broken off in v. 3 by a voice coming from the throne; the speaker's identity is not spelled out explicitly, but since God is referred to in the third person it is probable that someone other than God

145 146 147

Bousset 1906: 443. Sweet 1990: 298 (italics his). Cf. also Kramer 1997: 113; Deutsch 1987, and Bauckham 1993 b: 127-32.

272

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

himself is speaking. The report in v. 5, however, refers to, in the first person, words than noone but God the Almighty may say. The speech contains eight comforting utterances, the first four of which are formed in the positive, the latter four in the form of negations: S e e , the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them as their God; they will be his p e o p l e s , 1 4 8 and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.

Several of these utterances recall OT passages, most notably "he will wipe every tear from their eyes", which comes close to a verbal citation of Isa 25,8. One should also recall the promises and the anticipatory visions of celestial celebration within Revelation itself, i.a. in 7,9-17 and 19,1-10. Verse 5 adds two sayings probably intended to confirm the reader/listener that God himself guarantees the validity of these joyful statements; first he says: "See, I am making all things new," and he then commissions John to write, with the affirmation: "for these words are trustworthy and true." The following oracles are diverse, both in form and content; first comes a brief note announcing that "It is done!" echoing the destruction of Babylon, 16,17. Then follows a self-revelatory announcement, now from the mouth of either God himself or of Christ, like in 1,8: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end". A series of promises follow, first one with implications for the present situation of the reader/listener: "To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life." Then follows additional promises to "those who conquer", and this obviously functions as an admonition to the reader/listener to endure: "Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children" (v. 7). This formula of adoption recalls both Natan's promise (2 Sam 7,14) and the Ezekielian oracle from Ezek 11,20, except for the change from "father" to "God". Nowhere in Revelation is God explicitly called the father of the Christians. 149 148

The plural has somewhat better manuscript support than the singular, and should be chosen as a lectio difficilior; c f . M o y i s e 1995: 8 1 - 8 2 and V o g e l g e s a n g 1985: 81 note 5. This must not, however, be understood as pointing to a diversity or even split notion of the celestial people of God; that would contradict a passage as 7 , 9 - 1 7 on the harshest. It points, rather, to the comprehensiveness of the celestial people of God; it is "a great multitude that no o n e could count, from every nation, from all tribes and p e o p l e s and languages." Rev 7,9. 149

Cf. Sweet 1990: 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 .

5.2 Main theological

lines in Revelation

19,11-21,8

273

An even stronger sense of application to the present situation of the reader/listener can be sensed in the harsh warning in v. 8. (cf. the seven letters in chs. 2 - 3 ) . A list of those who will have to join the unholy trinity in the lake of fire follows: "the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolators, and all liars..." Similar lists can be found in the NT letters and in Rev 9,21, 21,27 and 22,15, though these are shorter than this. 150 The mention of such people after 20,12-15 may to us appear as inconsistent, but may be understood rhetorically rather than ontologically, i.e. as warnings to the readers/listeners rather than as actual statements of the location and actions of the condemned. John continues his account of visionary and auditiory reports relating to the new Jerusalem in 21,9-22,5, and the uses of Ezekiel 4 0 - 4 8 are numerous and illustrative in many respects. These allusions have been explored in detail by Vogelgesang (cf. ch. 5.4), and our aims are rather to analyze in detail the uses of Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 in the two sections 19,17-21 (ch. 5.3.1) and 20,7-10 (ch. 5.3.2), and then to relate these texts to the other Gog and Magog traditions. 5.2.9

Conclusions

We have now seen how John within 34 verses (19,11-21,8) has been able to tell of the coming of the rider on the white horse, the battle against the beasts, the confinement of Satan for a thousand years, the millennial kingdom, a second war - this time against Gog and Magog, the general judgement of all of mankind, and the establishment of the New Jerusalem. The amount of theologically loaded questions presented within some few and brief visions obviously has led to a number of theological controversies throughout the history of the Christian church. We have not had ambitions to enter into a full scale discussion of these many questions, but hopefully we have now a basis to discuss Revelation's use of the Gog and Magog traditions. We have observed that John alludes to a number of O T scriptures; particularly we have found allusions to the Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. As for the order of the events referred to in J o h n ' s visions, we shall devote ch. 5.4.2 to a discussion of the eschatological Schema which may be discerned in Rev 19,11-21,8. This can next be compared to the other eschatological Schemata from writings contemporary to Revelation and to the various traditions, e.g. from the book of Ezekiel.

150

Cf. Briitsch 1970 vol. 3: 338.

274

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

5.3 The Gog and Magog traditions in Revelation We shall now proceed to a detailed analysis of the use of the Gog and Magog traditions in Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10. Doing so we shall offer an exegesis of these passages, trying to relate the various aspects of the texts to the Gog and Magog traditions as these have been presented in Chapters Two, Three and Four of this monograph. Although the main focus of this monograph is on Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10 it is also necessary to see if John used Ezekiel 38-39 or other parts of the Gog and Magog traditions at other places in his writing. The various descriptions of judgements in Revelation naturally stand out as the most probable texts, and one of these indeed contains several features that correspond to Ezekiel 38. Interpreters throughout the ages have generally agreed that the gathering at Harmagedon (16,16), together with the brief account of war and judgement in the following verses 16,17-21, is indeed the same event as that presented in our text in 19,17-21. Echoes of Ezekiel 38 in Revelation

16,17-21

Rev 16,17-21 completes the series of the seven bowls of God's wrath. This is the third and last of the three series of seals, trumpets and bowls. Much of the imagery is reminiscent of the Exodus-plagues, but these are combined also with elements found in the theophany at Sinai, Exodus 19.151 Ruiz finds in vv. 17-21 several echoes of Ezekiel 38 as a third OT text, which along with the other two forms "its OT infrastructure". 152 He finds the following correspondences with Ezekiel 38: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Both texts present the actions as manifestations of God's wrath. Both texts refer to earthquakes. 153 Both texts describe effects of the earthquakes on the mountains. In both texts hail is part of the execution of the divine judgement. 154

The preceding verses, 16,12-16, tell about a gathering of kings from the east (v. 12) and from the entire world (v. 14) assembled for battle against God or his faithful.

151 A detailed treatment of these aspects of this text has been made by Ruiz 1989: 2 5 8 - 9 1 . Moyise 1995: 123-24 speaks of "the dominance of the Sinai story (including the plague sequence), probably combined with Ezekiel 38." 152 Ruiz 1989: 265. 153 The phenomenon of earthquakes in eschatological and apocalyptic texts is discussed by Bauckham 1993 a: 199-209; and Nur & Ron 1997. 154 Ruiz 1989: 263-65. Cf. Also Moyise 1995: 122 and Beale 1999: 976.

5.3 The Gog and Magog traditions in Revelation

275

T h e o u t c o m e or e f f e c t s of what is told in 1 6 , 1 2 - 2 1 are very different f r o m that of E z e k i e l ' s oracles, h o w e v e r ; E z e k 3 8 , 2 3 indicates that this c a u s e s the m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f G o d ' s h o l i n e s s and its r e c o g n i t i o n a m o n g the nations, w h e r e a s the h u m a n response in R e v 1 6 , 2 1 is not r e c o g n i t i o n but blasphemy.155 R u i z ' s c o n c l u s i o n is that these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s "add up to point in the direction of E z e k i e l 3 8 , although the e c h o e s are t o o scattered to permit us to call this a large s c a l e reference." 1 5 6 W e agree w i t h R u i z in this e v a l u ation; R e v 1 6 , 1 7 - 2 1 is not central to a study o f the u s e s o f E z e k i e l 3 8 - 3 9 in R e v e l a t i o n , s i n c e the n u m b e r o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s i s not nearly as great and significant as those in R e v 1 9 , 1 7 - 2 1 and 2 0 , 7 - 1 0 . 1 5 7 It d o e s f o r m , h o w e v e r , s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e to c o n f i r m the thesis o f J o h n ' s d o u b l e , triple or multiple u s e s o f certain O T traditions and texts. This e v i d e n c e w a r n s readers against premature n o t i o n s o f ' p r o p h e c i e s and f u l f i l m e n t s ' as argum e n t s f o r recapitulation or p r o g r e s s i o n in the millennial d e b a t e s . 1 5 8

155

Ruiz 1989: 264. Ruiz 1989: 265. 157 Kline 1996 argues for a much tighter connection between Rev 16,12-21 and both Ezekiel 38-39 and Rev 20,7-10. The article tries to establish both etymological and exegetical evidence for "a fundamental correspondence between the Zaphon/Magedon and Gog-Magog concepts", Kline 1996: 213. The programmatic title given to the article ("Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium") indicates its primary task: "Har Magedon marks the end of the millennium. And that conclusion spells the end of premillennialism." Kline 1996: 220. In my view, however, Kline has not managed to establish convincing evidence on the brave etymological hypothesis ("... the very term har magedon itself identifies the Rev 16, 14-16 event as the Gog-Magog event of 20,7-10." Kline 1996: 220), which appears to be the basis of the further exegetical claims. 158 Fiorenza uses these and other correspondences in the overall discussion of recapitulations and the many attempts to find some 'timetable' of eschatological events in Revelation. Concerning Rev 20,7-10 she finds that "the whole vision thus appears to refer to the same final demonic battle narrated already in 9,1-11; 16,13-16; and 19,1921." Cf. Fiorenza 1991: 107. This interest is even more outspoken in White's dissertation; he claims to see "John highlighting the connection between 16,17-21 and 19,17-21 by painting them both with colors from the palette of Ezekiel 38-39." White 1987: 150. On the following p. 151 he draws an even stronger conclusion: "All in all, then, the repeated use of the Ezekiel 3 8 39 material in 16,17-21, 19,17-21 and 20,7-10 strongly supports a prima facie understanding of the events narrated therein as congruent and concurrent with one another." [Underlining original]. A major argument for this is the use of the article with the noun in "the battle" in 16,14; 19,19 and 20,8; cf. p. 151. We shall meet again the same use of common Old Testament pre-text as argument for recapitulation in our ch. 5.4.5, where we shall deal with the double use of Ezekiel 38-39 in Rev 19,17-21 and 20,7-10. 156

276

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

Some scholares have also suggested a correspondence between Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 and Revelation 9. The image of devastating locusts in the fifth trumpet (9,1-11) may have some affinity with the locusts in the LXX version of Amos 7 , 1 - 3 , where the king of the locusts is called Gog, cf. ch. 2.2.3 of this study. Giesen suggests that "Hintergrund dafür dürfte das Dämonenheer G o g ' s sein, das Arnos 7,1 mit einem Heuschreckenschwarm vergleicht (Kraft 142)." 1 5 9 He also suggests that the following sixth trumpet (9,13-21) is "von Ezechiel 38,1-39,8 beeinflusst (Kraft 144)". 1 6 0 The correspondences to Ezekiel 3 8 39 are not, however, very concrete, but appear to be suggested more on the basis that all of these texts speak of demonic attacks in some way or another. This is not, in my view, significant and clear enough to be called allusions or echoes in the sense in which we otherwise use these terms. It must not be ruled out, however, that Ezekiel 3 8 - 3 9 may have contributed along with a number of other texts to the imagery in Revelation 9. Our point is that such influences are too veiled to be labelled 'allusions' or ' e c h o e s ' .

5.3.1 The Gog and Magog traditions

in Revelation

19,17-21

It has been an important observation in our previous chapters not to find more than one single text that directly takes up the peculiar image of the birds's banquet from Ezek 39,17-20, i.e. Sib. Or. 3,644-645.697; and even this text does not really focus on this theme. Such a distinct feature would not have been too difficult to observe if indeed it was employed in any other text. Not even in those texts that do have contact with the other Gog and Magog traditions has this feature been found, except for the one section in Sibylline Oracles 3. This is by itself a strong indication that John used Ezekiel 38—39 quite independently. The myth about the bird called Phoenix may suggest itself as a related motif. The bird Phoenix was an international symbol of strength, self-renewal and extra-ordinary manifestations throughout the Ancient world, though variations are found from one culture to the other and from one time to another. 1 6 1 Jews as well as Christians came to make use of the symbol, and one might consider whether this symbol somehow influenced the imagery in Ezekiel 39 or Revelation 19. As far as I can see there are no such influences; the very idea of birds feeding on the corpses of humans is not, as far as I can see, attested in any of the variations of the myth of Phoenix. The closest parallel I can see is the idea that the faithful Israelites in the coming world shall eat Leviathan, Behemot and Phoenix. In that case the roles are reversed from that of Ezekiel 39 and Revelation 19, where the birds are part-takers in the banquet, not part of the menu.

Even a preliminary glance at the the texts in translation shows the affinities of these texts; words held in common in italics: Rev 19,17-21: Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midheaven, 159 160 161 162

Ezek 39,17-20: As for you, mortal, thus says the Lord God: Speak to the birds of every kind and to all the wild animals:

Giesen 1997: 219. Giesen 1997: 224. Cf. Alderink 1992 vol. 5: 3 6 3 - 6 5 . Cf. Klostergaard Petersen 1996: 2 5 6 - 5 7 for reference(s) to the ancient literature.

5.3 The Gog and Magog traditions "Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders, the flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great". Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed in its presence the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur. And the rest were killed by the sword of the rider on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

in

Revelation

277

Assemble and come, gather from all around to the sacrificai feast that I am preparing for you, a great sacrificai feast on the mountains of Israel, and you shall eat flesh and drink blood. You shall eat flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth - of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bulls, all of them fatlings of Bashan. You shall eat fat until you are filled and drink blood until you are drunk, at the sacrificai feast that I am preparing for you. And you shall be filled at my table with horses and charioteers, with warriors and all kinds of soldiers, says the Lord God.

The names Gog and Magog are not used in Rev 19,17-21, neither are there any introductory or concluding formulas; and still there are correspondences both to a peculiar motif and to resembling terms. Both the similarités and the differences should be recorded and evaluated. Then I saw an angel standing in the sun The invitation to the great supper in Rev 19,17-21 is given by "an angel standing in the sun", Kal eiôov eva ayyeA-ov èoxûta kv t û r)A.ico, a location not elsewhere used for any angel in Revelation. 163 This designation may, however, be compared to 16,12, where it is said that this is the direction from which the kings were gathered for Harmagedon. 164 The angel's position in the sun may possibly relate to his mission, which is to communicate with the birds, the creatures "in the midheaven"; on the other side it could be taken as a positive attribute, "a position of splendour appropriate to a herald of victory", as Mounce suggests. 165

163

The use of tva ayyelov in this construction should not be taken as a specific number, but rather as an indefinite article (tic) like evoq àcioO ireio|i 8ixnav fiou tiv teGuKa uhlv duoiav jicyaAriw

In this case there is no correspondence of terms with Rev 19,17-21; Ezek 39,17 b and 19 speaks of rot, which in the LXX is translated tf]y Bvoiav |iou, whereas Rev 19,17 b has an entirely different term: to SetiTvov. Why did John use this term and not Guoia? 179

176

Rowland 1993: 146. Boring 1989: 200. Sweet 1990: 285 similarly calls 19,17-21 for "the ghastly parody of the marriage supper of the Lamb". 1 Farrer 1964: 201. Metzger, B.M. 1993: 91 similarly speaks of "a solemn travesty on the marriage supper of the Lamb"; and Krodel 1989: 324 calls it a "counter-image". Kramer focuses on the point of finding contrasts as a key to an understanding of Revelation; Kramer 1997. 179 We are not suggesting that John was so bound to the text and context of Ezek 3 9 , 1 7 - 2 0 that we are allowed to deduce very much from deletions or variations in terms, especially since John probably used a Hebrew text to the OT. What we do suggest is that the variations or omissions may be considered as indications of special concerns on behalf of John. 177

282

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

Two reasons for this can be suggested. 180 The contrast between the birds' meal in 19,17-21 and the Lamb's marriage supper in 19,9 is probably deliberate; the use of the same term makes the correspondence explicit. But another reason may also be considered. ôeîiTvoy generally is not used about sacrificial meals like Quota. Neither the noun 9uoia nor the verb 9ûvœ are used in Revelation, though the deriviate noun OuaiaotiipLov is used eight times. John may deliberately have avoided a term which could suggest that this meal offered to the birds of prey carries any sacrificial connotations. 181 Actually there are no indications in the text of Rev 19,1721 that may suggest that this is a sacrifice, except for the associations with Ezek 39,17-20; that text, however, is indeed sacrificial, both in the term Ouoia and in the rest of Ezek 39,17-20, which also speaks of "my table", v. 20. John does not further the reference to the Lord's "table", which could have carried sacrificial implications. In his classical study of the use of Ezekiel in Revelation Vanhoye 182 commented upon John's choice of ôeîirvov instead of 9uoia, and he found this shift intentional. He also argued that John combined the feastdescription of Isa 25,6 with the sacrifical birds' supper of Ezekiel 39 in order to correct the sacrificial aspects of that text through the combination with Isa 25,6, which suggests feast, not sacrifice: En Ap. 19,17-21, un texte d'Ezéchiel qui parle de "sacrifice" où les oiseaux et les bêtes sont invités par Dieu à se repaître (Ez.39,17) est corrigé grâce, semble-t-il, à une réminiscence d'Is. 25,6 qui parle de "festin" préparé par Yahweh Sabaoth. Jean répugnait sans doute a conserver le nom de sacrifice pour designer l'execution des judgements divins contre le monde pécheur. 1 8 3

Vanhoye finds such combinations of OT texts in Revelation to be highly characteristic of Revelation; he finds only rare instances in which Revelation draws from only a single source. 184 Such combinations are not a matter of random selection, but rather one of skilful combinations for specific purposes. 185 180

6«lttvoi' is used only twice in the LXX, i.e. Dan 1,16 and 5,1, and that is not as a translation of mi. 181 Harrington is the only scholar known to me who suggests that also Rev 19,17-18 is presented as a sacrifice; Harrington 1993: 194: "Here, too, is a sacrificial meal..." Briitsch 1970 vol 2: 310 refers to Cerfaux-Cambier 170: "Opfermahl, wo Gott seine Feinde opfert." 182 Vanhoye 1962: 4 6 9 - 7 0 and 453. 183 A glance at Vanhoye's tables shows that he considers the influence of Isa 25,6 as possible, not certain; Vanhoye 1962: 474-76. 184 Vanhoye 1962: 468. 185 Ruiz accepts both Vanhoye's general characterization of these combinations and his reference to Rev 19,17-21 in particular, cf. Ruiz 1989: 76. Bauckham 1993 a: 2 9 9 -

5.3 The Gog and Magog

traditions

in

Revelation

283

Sacrificial meals in the OT generally were happy occasions, and the Lamb's wedding feast in Rev 19,1-10 is certainly one of great joy. The present meal, however, is not described in similar terms, though there is no regret in the text on behalf of the many victims, as a modern reader would expect. 186 The meal is explicitly called "the great supper of God", T O S E I I T V O V T O |ieya T O U 9eo0, v. 19 b, which both underlines the plentifulness ("great") and the fact that God is the host of this meal. 187 In light of the many other correspondences between Ezek 39,17-20 and Rev 19,17-21 we may suppose that John chose to use 6eliruov, though he knew that Ezekiel had used Guoia in his invitation to the birds and the animals. The main reason for this probably was John's need not to confuse the birds' banquet with a sacrifice. To eat Rev 19,18 invites the birds eat: (Jjaynxe. Ezek 39,18 commands the birds and the animals both to eat and drink: Ezek 39,18 MT:

Ezek 39,18 LXX:

Rev

inufn "fcxn

^ayeoGi

4)ayr|X€

iu6o9e

19,18:

We immideately see the shift from both eating (flesh) and drinking (blood) in Ezekiel 39 to only eating in Rev 19,17-21. John may deliberately have avoided the reference to drinking blood in order to avoid associations with the Christian communion. This observation confirms to a certain degree Vanhoye's hypothesis concerning the terms for meal referred to above. The term used for eating is the same, and only the grammatical form is slightly changed. The correspondence with Ezekiel 39 is striking, and this close correspondence further underlines the shift from both "eating" and "drinking" to only "eating". ... the flesh

of...

Rev 19,18 specifies the objects of the birds' eating in a sequence of five repeated occurences of the term oap^: oapKac PatuAitoi; KOCL oapKac xLA.iapxuv Kal aapKaq loxupuy Kal oapKac L I T I T O W Kal T U P KaSrpei'COI'

€IR'

AIIICOV

3 0 2 g i v e s a very instructive illustration of a similar strategy, relating the technique to what Jewish e x e g e s i s later came to call gezera shewa. 186

Cf. Eichrodt 1970: 5 2 6 . Ladd 1972: 2 5 7 . L. Morris 1987: 2 2 6 suggests that this expression is a Semitism with the meaning "a supper great to God", i.e. "a very great supper". 187

284

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

Kai oapKai; udvxwv tXevQepwv i€ Kai S o u l u v Kai tuKpcov Kai [icyaXcoi'.

In addition to this we have the concluding remark in v. 21 b: Kai n a m a xa opvea ¿xoptaaOriaav €K xtiv oapKtoi' a u i u v .

The term oapE, is therefore central in this passage. The plural form of the noun is somewhat remarkable, though hardly commented on by previous scholars. 188 The plural of this noun is uncommon, though not unique, cf. Jas 5,3; Rev 17,16, and in the LXX: Mic 3,3; 2 Kgs 9,36 and Ps 27,2 (=26,2 in the LXX). E. Schweizer summarizes the classical use of the term: In older speech the plur. oapK6r| instead of only Kai. e^eleijoexai iTAayfjoai. xa eOvr). The attestation of iravta is too week to be considered original text.

The major positions of the discussions about the identity of these "nations" may be summarized as follows: 251 -

they are remote peoples, not involved in the war described in 19,17— 21252

-

-

they are survivors or spectators to the war described in 19,17-21; the comprehensiveness of the terms in 19,17-21 is a hyperbole, not intended to be taken literally 253 they are resurrected peoples, identical to the beasts' armies in 19,17-21, coming to life again "after the thousand years" 254 they are demons, ghosts, spirits, maybe the spirits of the human dead 255

250 Hengstenberg makes an effectful play on words, though it c o n f u s e s totally the roots leading to the words: "Gog - M a g o g - Demagog"; Hengstenberg 1861 vol. 2: 3 0 5 . 251 The most recent and comprehensive study of this issue is Mealy 1992. Not included in this list of suggested identifications is the v i e w held by those w h o interpret the war in 2 0 , 7 - 1 0 as the same as that in 1 9 , 1 1 - 2 1 . 252

Schlatter 1928 vol. 3: 3 2 3 . Cf. i.a. Beasley-Murray 1981: 2 8 2 : (To include absolutely all peoples in the Harmagedon-war) "is surely pressing John's language beyond his intention (...) the term here means all kinds of men". Mealy 1992: 121 points to the f o l l o w i n g verses in Revelation which at first sight seem to indicate that s o m e o n e other than the Christians will survive the parousia and respond to it in various ways: 1,7; 11,13; 15,4. He strongly argues against this position, however. 253

254

This v i e w is held by Mealy 1992: 1 2 0 - 4 2 .

306 -

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

some suggest that the text does not speak in logical, referential language, and that the sequence of events does not correspond to each other like in a modern history-book. Hence "the peoples" in 20,8 are not intended to be anything but "nations" elsewhere in Revelation 256

It is easy to find counter-arguments to all these suggestions: Any reader gains the impression from 19,11-21 that all of mankind is enrolled in one of the two sides: either with the beasts, or with Christ. This is true both for suggestions of nations being too far away from the battlefield (no.l above), and for the option of neutral peoples not involved in the battle (no .2 above). And yet Rev 20,3 speaks of preventive measures that will not allow Satan to deceive "the nations". A resurrection of the beasts' followers "after the thousand years" but before the battle against Gog and Magog (no. 3 above) seems to anticipate the resurrection related to the general judgement in 20,11-15. The suggestion that these nations are demons, and not "nations" built up by ordinary humans (no. 4 above) would be a total novelty within Judaism; nowhere do we find an expectation of a final eschatological battle against Israel comprised by an army built up by demons, who even are said to be annihilated be fire! It also sounds unreasonable that the term "nations" changes meaning from the ordinary semantic domain of "peoples" into an entity describing incorporal, bodiless demons, who are said to "come to life", 20,5. (We shall return to a more extensive discussion of this interpretation under "Gog and Magog" later in this chapter.) Finally it appears as inconsistent that the otherwise clear and consistent eschatological scenarios of John here crash into contradictory and mutually exclusive expectations (no. 5 above). None of the main interpretations are without major weaknesses, and our further discussions will have to return to these questions. 257 The term for "the nations" - ta e0vr| - occurs more than 20 times in Revelation, all of which are either in the plural or in clusters of fourfold descriptions as in 13,7: "every tribe and people and language and 255

A s held e.g. by Kraft 1974: 259; Rissi 1972: 3 4 - 3 5 ; Metzger, W. 1948: 1 1 4 - 1 5 , and probably also Fiorenza 1 9 7 2 a: 3 1 1 - 3 3 2 , though she appears not to be entirely decided on this issue. 256 This is Beckwith's position, according to Mealy 1992: 1 2 0 note 2; and in a different, yet analogous way, also Bousset's position; Bousset 1906: 4 3 9 , cf. the note in Mealy 1992: 122 note 1. Bauckham 1993 b: 108 similarly warns against an attitude which takes "the image literally - as predicting an actual period in the future history of the world. (...) The millennium b e c o m e s incomprehensible once w e take the image literally." 257

A most thorough and careful discussion of the term "nations" in the OT, the L X X and in other Jewish literature is found in a n e w monograph called "Paul and the Nations", written by Scott 1995: 5 7 - 1 2 1 . Webb 1994: 14 lists various interpretations.

5.3 The Gog and Magog traditions

in

Revelation

307

nation". 258 As in the rest of the NT this noun can be used either in a neutral sense of "a people" or in a religio-ethical sense of pagan people(s) opposed to the Christians, cf. the Hebrew cia. 259 Revelation uses the term t a €0vr| in two ways. First the positive way: Christ has ransomed a church for himself out of every nation, and thus made them priests and kings, 5,9 f. Second the negative use referring to the objects of either Satan's deceit or Christ's judgement, cf. 19,15. We have exactly the same terms as in v. 3: irAavfjaai tk e0vr|, cf. v. 3: tva fit) ulaviioi] e n xa €0vr|, cf- o u r notes in ch. 5.2. This confirms that the preventive measures taken by the imprisonment of Satan for a thousand years were not without reason. The identity of the terms used necessitates, also, in our view, the same meaning for the term "nations" in both verses. Closest to our use is probably 18,23 and 20,3, where we also find t a eGvri as the object of the verb irA,avaco. It is improbable that xa eevq carries a different meaning in these cases. 260 John does not describe tot 60vri in 20,3 as a new world empire like Rome. 261 We do not hear of any organized armies like in 19,19-21. On the contrary, we simply get the impression of folk-masses, hords, led by the one and only organizing principle called Satan's rrlavaw; Giblin calls it "this innumerable, demonic, earthly mob". 262 Satan knows what means to use; the masses simply follow him. The term cria occurs six times in Ezekiel 38-39. In 38,12 it refers to the peoples from which Israel was gathered; all the five other places are in recognition formulae. There it bears the general meaning of "the peoples", the pagan nations, those who do not know the Lord, - the audience, so to say. Nowhere in Ezekiel does it refer to the peoples comprising Gog's army.

258

Bauckham 1993 a: 326 and 336 points to the fact that John uses a fourfold formula for the nations seven times in Revelation, and he sees this as "a remarkable example of the way John's subtile compositional techniques create a story of meaning hidden within his text..." One may ask, however, if this message is a not little too well hidden to be observed by an ordinary reader. 259 Schmidt, K.L. 1964: 371. 260 rj-jjis point is decisive for Briitsch , who rejects Rissi's view that these peoples actually are demon-spirits, see Briitsch 1970: 362 and Rissi 1966: 3 5 - 3 7 . 261 Cf. Madsen 1896: 705. Ellul 1981: 207, says that za e9vr| corresponds to the Roman term for provinces of the empire. But the term is far too common - both in ordinary Greek and in the book of Revelation - to carry this specific meaning at this place, I would claim. Ellul himself takes the word here to mean "anything human", not refering to individuals. 262 Giblin 1991: 188.

308

V: John 's use of the Gog and Magog

traditions

At the four corners of the earth This expression serves to locate the peoples that Satan is to deceive, though not necessarly in terms of geography: tcc e0vr| ta ev tal