I have been debating with myself on whether or not to cover this topic.[1] The most sensitive subject to bring up with other Christians is the End Times. Especially in the context of the last couple of years (with the Pandemic and the recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia), many Christians have been pushed into thinking that the Mark of the Beast has arrived and that an End Times war has broken out (the Gog-Magog War mentioned in Ezekiel 38 and 39).

Just taking a quick look at Christian social media will show you that many believers think that Russia is the main villain of Ezekiel 38-39[2] and that Russia’s recent foray into Ukraine is the beginning of the End. Why is Russia so important for many Christians when it comes to the End Times?  The reasons for this involve the following arguments:

1. The thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters of Ezekiel describe an invasion of Israel by an individual named Gog. Gog is said to be the leader of a group of nations including Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Rosh. Meshech and Tubal are believed to be Moscow and Tobolsk, the latter being a city in central Russia,[3] while Magog and Rosh are often believed to be references to Russia. Gog is accompanied by a group of other nations including Iran (Persia), Libya (Put), Sudan (Cush), and possibly Turkey (Gomer, Beth Togarmah). This is important since Iran and Russia are allies today.
2. Another argument in favor of a Russian ruler invading Israel in the End Times is the mention of a “king of North” in Daniel 11:40-45. Gog of Magog is also said to come from the “uttermost parts of the north” in Ezekiel 38:6, 14-16, and 39:1-3. Since Russia is to the far north of Israel it is argued that this ruler from the north must be Russian.[4] It is usually pointed out that Moscow is on an almost direct north-south line with Jerusalem.[5]

Although this theory is very popular today, I am not convinced that Russia has anything to do with these prophecies. I am going to lay out my argument in this essay.

Meshech and Tubal

We have four nations that are typically associated with Russia in Ezekiel 38-39: Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Rosh. Meshech, Tubal, along with Magog, first appear in the Bible in Genesis 10:2 as grandsons of Noah. Ezekiel mentions Meshech and Tubal in two other places (27:13 and 32:26). In 27:13, Meshech and Tubal are seen as nations that trade with Tyre (in modern-day Lebanon). Both passages locate them in the general area of the Middle East and the Mediterranean, not as far away as northern Russia or Siberia.

The ancient Assyrians, an ethnic group living in the Middle East, spoke about Meshech and Tubal in their records. They knew Meshech as Muskaya and Tubal as Tabal. What is very interesting is that the Assyrian records also couple Meshech and Tubal together just like Ezekiel does (Tabali and Muski can be found in an inscription of Sargon, a king of Assyria).[6] The Assyrians placed both of these nations in Anatolia (modern Turkey).[7] The ancient Greek historian Herodotus mentions Meshech and Tubal as being nations in Anatolia as well.[8] So, two of the nations led by Gog do not have anything to do with Russia (at least with records dating to roughly the time of Ezekiel).[9]

Rosh

What about Rosh? The Hebrew word here is, well, rosh. This word is the center of a huge controversy as it has the general meaning of a “chief” which is why we find Ezekiel 38:2 sometimes translated as “Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief [rosh] prince of Meshech and Tubal.” However, some Bible prophecy teachers believe that Rosh is the name of a country. Thus, it could be translated as “Gog, of the land of Magog, prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal.” Some believe that Rosh here stands for “Russia.” 

The first problem I have with equating Rosh with Russia is that it would be anachronistic since the word “Russia” comes, not from Rosh, but from the word Rus, which was not even brought into the region of Russia until the Middle Ages by the Vikings.[10]

It makes more sense to translate Rosh as “chief” in this passage. Ralph Alexander, in his Expositors Bible Commentary on Ezekiel, said of rosh, “The accentual system and syntactical construction of the Hebrew language strongly indicate an appositional relationship between the words ‘prince’ and ‘chief.’ Both terms are related equally, then, to the geographical words Meshech and Tubal. Grammatically, it would seem best to render the phrase, ‘the prince, the chief, of Meshech and Tubal.’”[11] This would indicate that rosh is not a place in this passage.

Scholar Daniel Block summarizes the debate about whether or not Rosh is a place or a common noun by saying:

“Recent attempts to equate Rosh with Râshu/Rêshu/Arashi in neo-Assyrian annals is more credible, except that the place so named was located far to the east on the border between Babylon and Elam [western Iran], and would have had nothing to do with Meshech and Tubal. This interpretation is also difficult (though not impossible) from a grammatical point of view. If Rosh is to be read as the first in a series of names, the conjunction should precede ‘Meshech.’ rō’š is therefore best understood as a common noun, appositional to and offering a closer definition of nāśî’. Accordingly, the prince, chief of Meshech and Tubal, combines Ezekiel’s preferred title for kings with a hierarchical designation, the addition serving to clarify the preceding archaic term. Ezekiel’s point is that Gog is not just one of many Anatolian princely figures, but the leader among princes and over several tribal/national groups.’”[12]

When Block is speaking about Rosh possibly being a nation, he is referring to the work of James Price who argues that Rosh was a nation on the Tigris River on the border of Elam and Ellipi. If Rosh was a nation, and not the word “chief,” this would put Rosh in the area of Iraq and Iran. If this is correct, then Rosh was a Middle Eastern nation, and not Russia.[13] I believe that Rosh should be translated as “chief” in this passage but if I am wrong, it would still not point to Russia, but a place in the Middle East (like Meshech and Tubal).[14]

Magog

The identification of our last nation, Magog, is a bit more ambiguous. There have been primarily two major interpretations as to the location of the land of Magog. The first view is that Magog is Russia.[15] This stems from the identification of Magog with the Scythians, an ancient people known to have lived in an area stretching from Ukraine to western China. This interpretation comes from the ancient Jewish historian Josephus who lived from c. 37-100 AD. He says that the Greeks called the Magogites “Scythians.”[16] 

The second view of the location of Magog argues that Magog is to be identified with the ancient nation of Lydia.[17] Many scholars believe that “Gog” is likely a reference to the king of Lydia named Gyges.[18] During the days of Ezekiel, Lydia made up what is today western Turkey. Gyges lived around the year 660 BC and the Greeks referred to him as tyrannous, or the “tyrant.” 

This, of course, does not mean that Gog was the same as Gyges. It is possible that the name “Gog” was used to give people in Ezekiel’s day an example of the horrors of a future leader to come, similar to what we may say about a future dictator being “another Hitler.” It is important to note that he ruled in Turkey.[19]

The big problem with locating Magog is that neither of these interpretations has an airtight argument. Josephus doesn’t tell us where the Scythians were located, and it is common knowledge that the Greeks viewed the Scythians as a people in modern Ukraine. However, Herodotus (c. 484-425 BC), the first great ancient Greek historian (who lived closer to the time of Ezekiel than Josephus did), placed the origins of the Scythians in present-day Turkey.[20]

Herodotus’s identification of Magog with Anatolia is not an isolated case. Other ancient historians placed Magog in Turkey as well including Pliny the Elder and Hippolytus of Rome, an early Christian theologian in the third century.[21] Pliny talks of an ancient city called Magog near the border of Turkey and Syria.[22]

Although I can understand why someone wants to equate the Scythians with modern Russia, we must remember that the Scythians lived from Ukraine into Central Asia and western China, and not just Russia. It is also possible that Gog may have nothing to do with Gyges of Lydia. A Russian identification of Magog is not impossible, but it is not the only interpretation that we have. Placing Magog in Turkey aligns very well with Meshech and Tubal being located in Turkey as well. The location of Magog is ambiguous and both sides of the debate must proceed with caution.

Similar Sounding Names and Migrations

Before I move on to the title “king of the North” I want to comment on two counter-arguments that can be used against everything that I just argued. The first counter-argument deals with similar-sounding names and the second deals with migrations. I already noted how similar-sounding names have been used to equate Meshech and Tubal with Russia (Moscow and Tobolsk).

Just as interesting is the use of migrations. Bible scholar Leon Wood notes that Magog, Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal were all originally Middle Eastern peoples, but they eventually migrated to Russia. This argumentation concludes that because these nations eventually moved into Russia then Russia is the place where Gog will come from.[23] However, there are some serious problems with using similar names and migrations to identify nations in prophecy.

Just because names sound similar does not mean they are the same. One of Noah’s grandsons was named Javan. This is the name translated as Greece in the Old Testament. However, Javan is very similar to the name Japan. Since they are so similar, I could therefore argue that Javan is not Greece but Japan. It would be foolish for me to do so when contextual clues in Scripture equate Javan with Greece. I could also argue that the same for Scythia and Scotland (I could manipulate Scots and Scyths to be the same).

Gomer, another nation mentioned in Ezekiel 38-39 was located in Anatolia but some of his descendants moved into Europe. Does this mean that we should include Germany, Spain, and other European nations as part of Gog’s coalition? I could argue this because Gomer is mentioned as following Gog into battle. Europeans eventually migrated to the Americas. Should the United States and Canada be included as well? Even many Native Americans and Hispanics have European ancestry. Should they be included in Gog’s invasion because they are descended from Gomer? Cush and Put are also mentioned so should we include all of Africa since their descendants eventually migrated deeper into Africa?[24]

As one can see if the migration model is the one we should be using then where do we stop? Why is it that many Western Christians only want to pick on the Russians? We are all descended from people who lived in the Middle East so why is Russia only brought up as descended from the nations mentioned in Ezekiel? The same can be said of similar-sounding names. Just because something sounds the same does not mean that they are. We must examine the context of the passage to know for sure.

The “King of the North”

I now want to tackle the title “king of the North” which appears in Daniel 11:40-45. This title is often used to argue that Russia (the alleged “king of the North”) will invade Israel at some point in the End Times. A big problem with this is that Daniel uses the title “king of the North” to refer to the ruler of the Seleucid Empire, the Greek kingdom headquartered in Syria earlier in the same chapter. There is nothing to indicate that Daniel has changed the location of the king of the North in the very same chapter.[25]

A counter-argument is that the king of the North must be Russian because he travels through other countries on his way to Israel as mentioned in verses 40-41. A Syrian king, it is argued, would not go through many countries before reaching Israel. This means that the king of the North must be a Russian since a Russian king would go through many countries on his way to Israel.[26] However, verse 40 may simply be referring to the three nations mentioned in verses 42-43: Egypt, Libya, and Nubia (modern-day Sudan). The point is that the king of the North will invade and conquer many countries.

What is also interesting is that Gog is said to come from the “uttermost [or remotest] parts of the north?” Does this not prove that Russia is in view here? No, it does not. The expression “from the remote parts of the earth” appears four times in the book of Jeremiah where it refers to Middle Eastern nations.

Jeremiah 6:22 says, “Behold, a people is coming from the north land, and a great nation will be aroused from the remote parts of the earth.” Because of the context, it is generally agreed that this is referring to Babylon. Notice that Babylon is said not only to come from “the remotest parts of the earth” but also from the north. However, Babylon, which is in Iraq, is east of Israel. The answer seems to stem from the fact that Babylon had to invade Israel from the north. Invading from the east would be hard to do because the east of Israel is desert.

Jeremiah 50:41 says, “Behold a people is coming from the north, and a great nation and many kings will be aroused from the remotest parts of the earth.” The context of this verse is dealing with God’s judgment upon Babylon and the enemies that he will bring upon it. Although the invaders are not clearly specified, there is mention of the ‘kings of the Medes’ (who are in northern Iran) in the general context (51:11; cf. 51:27, 28). Two other verses (25:32; 31:8) depict God as stirring up the nations from the remote parts of the earth, but the references are quite vague.[27]

Outside of Ezekiel 38-39, the phrase “remotest parts of the earth” is used in a geographical sense of nations in the Middle East (at least where we have enough evidence), thereby showing that the expression does not need to be taken to mean the farthest point possible.

Conclusion

To sum this argument up, the Russian interpretation is based upon the following arguments: 1) nations in Ezekiel 38-39 that point to modern-day Russia (Magog, Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal)., and 2) the phrases “the king of the North” and from “the remotest parts of the north.”

I am personally not convinced that any of these places refer to Russia. The nations mentioned in the book of Ezekiel are either located in the Middle East (particularly in Anatolia/Turkey) or are too ambiguous for us to know for sure. Then we have the phrases “king of the North” and “uttermost parts of the north” which, at least in biblical times, referred to places in the Middle East such as Syria, Babylon, or others.

---

[1] This essay was updated on March 25, 2022. Much of it is adapted or quoted from my previous essays on “The Nations of Gog,” and Daniel 11.

[2] David R. Reagan. “The Wars of the End Times” http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_tribulation1.php. Nathan E. Jones. “Timing Gog-Magog” http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_tribulation2.php. Joel Rosenberg. “What is the War of Gog and Magog.” http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/what-is-the-war-of-gog-and-magog-part-one/. Leon Wood. A Commentary on Daniel. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973). 309-310.

[3] Henry M. Morris. The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976, 248.

[4] David Reagan. “The Antichrist: Will He Be a Muslim?” http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_islam4.php. Rosenberg. “What is the War of Gog and Magog.” http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/what-is-the-war-of-gog-and-magog-part-one/.

[5] Wood, 308-309.

[6] H.C. Leupold. Exposition of Genesis, vol. 1. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942).  360. Also see Walid Shoebat, with Joel Richardson. God’s War on Terror (Top Executive Media, 2008), 258 and Daniel I. Block. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48. In “The New International Commentary on the Old Testament.” Ed. R.K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 435.

[7] It is interesting to know that Josephus located Meshech in Cappadocia (Turkey). See Josephus, book 1, chapter 6, part 1.

[8] Herodotus, Histories, 3.94. See Block, 436, fn. 48.

[9]

[10] Block, 434, (see fn. 40 as well). Edwin Yamauchi. Foes from the Northern Frontier (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982). 243; “Meshech, Tubal, and Company: A Review Article,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 (1976). Quoted in Richardson, 212.

[11] Ralph Alexander. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Jeremiah-Ezekiel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010). 864.

[12] Block, 435.

[13] James Price, “Rosh: An Ancient Land Known to Ezekiel,” Grace Theological Journal 6 (1985) 69-89. http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/26-ezekiel/text/articles/price-rosh-ezekiel-gtj.pdf.

[14] Joel Richardson. Mideast Beast. (Washington D.C.: WND Books, 2012), 215-217; Shoebat, 258; Block, 435-436; L. John McGregor. Ezekiel. In the “New Bible Commentary” 21^st Century Edition. Ed. D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1994), 741; Leslie C. Allen. Ezekiel 20-48. In the “Word Bible Commentary” Volume 29. (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 204; New Moody Atlas of the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 2009), 92-93; The IVP Atlas of Bible History (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 18.

[15] See for example Morris, 247-248.

[16] Flavius Josephus, The New Complete Works of Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, book 1, chapter 6, part 1.

[17] Richardson, 207. Shoebat, 254-258. McGregor, 741. Leupold, 360. New Moody Atlas of the Bible, 91, 94. The IVP Atlas of Bible History, 18. 

[18] Block, 434. It is also interesting to note that Gog was named Gugu by the ancient Assyrians (who lived in present-day southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and eastern Syria).

[19] Richardson, 202. Shoebat, 264-265. Daniel I. Block, 433. Allen, 204-205.

[20] Herodotus 4.11.

[21] Hippolytus, The Chronicon, “The Sons of Japheth.” Pliny, Natural History, chapter 23.

[22] Pliny calls it “Bambyce, otherwise called Hierapolis; but of the Syrians, Magog.”

[23] Wood, 309.

[24] Shoebat, 259.

[25] It is interesting that Leon Wood says on the same page that the identification of the king of the North should be the same as the rest of the chapter (Syria), but then changes the king of the North to Russia in the very next paragraph (Wood, 308).

[26] John C. Whitcomb. Daniel. Everyman’s Bible Commentary. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985). 155-156.

[27] J. Paul Tanner, “Daniel’s ‘King of the North.’: Do We Owe Russia an Apology?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35, no 3 (September 1992): 325. http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/35/35-3/JETS_35-3_315-328_Tanner.pdf.