Gog and Magog in Revelation and Ezekiel

Andrewn said:

Gog is a mountain tribe north of Assyria, and Magog is an area in eastern Turkey. In the book of Revelation, we read:

Rev 20:7 When the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 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.9 They 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 consumed them. 10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

The war of Gog and Magog is described in detail in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39.

My question is: What is being described in these passages? How is it interpreted in different traditions?

Click to expand...

The "final war" is between God and satan ... and God Himself will end this war for eternity.

Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 (depicts locally) a type

In the endtimes it will be globally ... a anti-type


Ecclesiastes 1

9What has been will be again,
and what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10Is there a case where one can say,
“Look, this is new”?
It has already existed
in the ages before us.

We are to learn from the past .... to know what is coming in the future. What happens in the future will be global.

Note: type and antitype

A type is a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate (foreshadow or symbolize) something higher in the future, which is called the antitype.

eleos1954 said:

The "final war" is between God and satan ... and God Himself will end this war for eternity.

Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 (depicts locally) a type

In the endtimes it will be globally ... a anti-type


Ecclesiastes 1

9What has been will be again,
and what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10Is there a case where one can say,
“Look, this is new”?
It has already existed
in the ages before us.

We are to learn from the past .... to know what is coming in the future. What happens in the future will be global.

Note: type and antitype

A type is a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate (foreshadow or symbolize) something higher in the future, which is called the antitype.

Click to expand...

Does this mean that you are applying what is recorded in Ezekiel 38-39 to that of past events that have already been fulfilled?

If we have 3 scenarios, where one is depicting local events, the other two are depicting global events, and that the former being a type, the latter two being an anti-type, what would all of that mean if we are viewing all 3 scenarios like such?

Ezekiel 38-39 is fulfilled in the final days of this age. And so is what is recorded in Revelation 19. But what is recorded in Revelation 20:7-10, it is fulfilled in another age following the end of this age.

As to types and anti-types, what would this mean in regards to Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 19 since both accounts are being fulfilled in the final days of this age?

Unless someone can present convincing proof that all of Ezekiel 38-39 has already been fulfilled, in the meantime it is not reasonable to insist all of those events have already been fulfilled if one can't even convincingly prove it by providing undeniable evidence that is has already been fulfilled. Some interpreters argue, well look what it's involving, it's involving ancient weaponry, therefore, this proves it can't fit the 21st century.

Is that same interpreter going to argue likewise about what is recorded in Revelation 19, that since that depicts armies on horses, the 21st century can't be meant then? When it should be obvious to everyone, that if a prophet, such as Ezekiel in ch 38-39, is being told through visions or whatever about things pertaining to the 21st century, and that he is being told about these events during ancient times, then is describing what he is being told/seeing, he is going to be comparing it to things he is familiar with at the time. So, if he sees it involving missiles, for example, obviously he is not familiar with missiles during his day and time, therefore, he might use arrows to describe those things, so on and so on.

DavidPT said:

Does this mean that you are applying what is recorded in Ezekiel 38-39 to that of past events that have already been fulfilled?

If we have 3 scenarios, where one is depicting local events, the other two are depicting global events, and that the former being a type, the latter two being an anti-type, what would all of that mean if we are viewing all 3 scenarios like such?

Ezekiel 38-39 is fulfilled in the final days of this age. And so is what is recorded in Revelation 19. But what is recorded in Revelation 20:7-10, it is fulfilled in another age following the end of this age.

As to types and anti-types, what would this mean in regards to Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 19 since both accounts are being fulfilled in the final days of this age?

Unless someone can present convincing proof that all of Ezekiel 38-39 has already been fulfilled, in the meantime it is not reasonable to insist all of those events have already been fulfilled if one can't even convincingly prove it by providing undeniable evidence that is has already been fulfilled. Some interpreters argue, well look what it's involving, it's involving ancient weaponry, therefore, this proves it can't fit the 21st century.

Is that same interpreter going to argue likewise about what is recorded in Revelation 19, that since that depicts armies on horses, the 21st century can't be meant then? When it should be obvious to everyone, that if a prophet, such as Ezekiel in ch 38-39, is being told through visions or whatever about things pertaining to the 21st century, and that he is being told about these events during ancient times, then is describing what he is being told/seeing, he is going to be comparing it to things he is familiar with at the time. So, if he sees it involving missiles, for example, obviously he is not familiar with missiles during his day and time, therefore, he might use arrows to describe those things, so on and so on.

Click to expand...

"the age" ..... the age is the Christian era .... has been going on for about 2,000 years and "the age" (Christian era) will continue until the Lord returns.

type & anti type

I'm not saying some prophecies haven't been fulfilled, but many of those prophecies have a symbolic meaning in the future (such as you stated). ok .... if arrows, horses etc. are seen as symbolic .... then why reject other aspects of the book of Revelation as being symbolic .... ie a spiritual Israel and the New Jerusalem descending from heaven as opposed to referring to modern day physical Israel.

All of us come to Jesus Christ the same way—by grace through faith and repentance from sin (Acts 16:30–31; Ephesians 2:8; 2 Peter 3:9; Mark 1:15). “Jew nor Greek” speaks of race, nationality, and ethnicity. “Slave nor free” refers to our rank, social class, or profession. And “male and female” indicates our gender.

We (believers) are all one in Christ His Son. All believers are the same in Christ .... it don't matter about anything else.

Trivalee said:

For a start, I'm struggling to understand your grammar "it is hardly likely that...", so I will assume you believe every mortal will accept Christ during the millennium. If this is what you meant, then you are very wrong! Those referred to, as Gog and Magog are real mortals (flesh and blood); there is no basis to assume they are spirits or merely symbolic. And if they are mortals, they couldn't have been those that lived in this age who made it into the millennium because they won't be as many as the number described as the sand of the sea Rev 20:8.

Click to expand...

They are not mortals. They are not born in Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Being a mortal is being in a body of death, ie mortal.

DavidPT said:

Unless someone can present convincing proof that all of Ezekiel 38-39 has already been fulfilled, in the meantime it is not reasonable to insist all of those events have already been fulfilled if one can't even convincingly prove it by providing undeniable evidence that is has already been fulfilled. Some interpreters argue, well look what it's involving, it's involving ancient weaponry, therefore, this proves it can't fit the 21st century.

Click to expand...

Does it mean how we perceive what is the borders of Israel, or what God considers the borders of Israel?

From God's perspective even Turkey is part of the land of Israel, not necessarily what any Israelite has ever had control over.

Parts of many nations currently hold power over the whole of what God would consider land belonging to Israel. There has been war for the last 20 years off and on in the whole area.

Andrewn said:

I agree that the war in Rev 20 is not against a tangible city and temple. Do you consider the Church/Christians on earth the New Jerusalem? Usually, this expression is reserved for the Church Victorious.

Click to expand...

I disagree with the last part. I don't see any distinction made in scripture between the church and the church victorious:


The church is in Christ, and He in His church, and Christ is victorious, seated at the right hand of God:

Andrewn said:

These passages describe the current millennium, the Church age. Christ himself said that Isaiah 61 was fulfilled in his ministry.

Click to expand...

Andrewn said:

I think they were fulfilled in the Jewish Wars ending in 70 AD. It is not a personal opinion. You likely heard this from a lot of people before.


I agree.


This is the usual argument against Amillennialism. If Satan is bound now, why is there evil and persecution? Amillennialists’ answer that Satan has been unable to stop the spreading of the Gospel is evidence that he is bound. After his release, persecution will be more vigorous, but Christ will protect the saints.

Click to expand...

That's not what the scripture says though. It does not say he is bound so that he cannot stop the spread of the gospel. It says he will be bound so that he cannot deceive the nations. Some amillennialists add the words "unto battle" to that sentence, not realizing that in their minds they are adding to scripture to take away from the meaning of what the scripture plainly says.

The nations are being deceived and have always been deceived since the day the serpent deceived mankind in the garden. Revelation 12:9 calls him "The great dragon, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world." And it says he was cast down to the earth, and for the rest of the chapter and to Revelation 13 we read that he first went to war against the woman who had given birth to the seed, then against the rest of her offspring who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ, then gives the beast his seat, power and great authority.

The scripture says nothing about the deceiver being thrown into the lake of fire at the time of the cross.

The scripture says nothing about the deceiver not being able to deceive the nations from the time of the cross.

The scripture says nothing about the deceiver being bound so that he is unable to do anything to hinder the spread of the gospel from the time of the cross. Indeed, the opposite has been the case. He has deceived through false prophets and Rabbis alike and a whole new Antichrist middle Eastern religion followed on the heels of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (Rabbnic Judaism) and then a few centuries later a new one begun by a "prophet". Islam. In the 1800's another "prophet" started a whole new deceiving religion in the USA. Mormonism.

Andrewn said:

You misunderstood. I didn't say that Rev 20:7-22:21 was fulfilled in 70 AD. This is all future.

Click to expand...

I beg your pardon then I misread your first sentence in your answer post to DavidPT.

I realize now it's because you do not have Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 20 together.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

So we disagree. The Gog-Magog war has nothing to do with 70 A.D. Those armies were also not destroyed. The Jerusalem being destroyed was not the camp of the saints.

Click to expand...

Obviously, that undeniably proves that it is not even remotely possible that Ezekiel 38-39 can be involving 70 AD. Because if it is it would mean Gog and his multitude are meaning the Romans, and that the house of Israel is meaning the unbelieving Jews that were slaughtered in 70 AD. Except Ezekiel 38-39 records zero about any Jews being slaughtered. It is Gog and his multitude that are slaughtered, which clearly didn't happen to the Romans in 70 AD, meaning what happens to Gog and his multitude. Or am I missing something here? Are some of these interpreters implying that Gog and his multitude are meaning unbelieving Jews in 70 AD? If yes, who are meaning the Romans in Ezekiel 38-39 then? It was the Romans that slaughtered the unbelieving Jews, was it not?

Reality doesn't even remotely match their interpretations. And when comparing Ezekiel 38-39 to that of 70 AD, reality proves that none of that is involving 70 AD, since it was those being attacked that suffered the most causalities, not those attacking them. In Ezekiel 38-39 it is the ones do the attacking suffering the most casualties, not the ones being attacked. And once again, in regards to those being attacked in Ezekiel 38-39, those accounts don't even record any casualties as to pertaining to them. Maybe because they suffer no casualties?

This is basically what we have.

In 70 AD it was the ones being attacked that received the most casualties, not the ones attacking them.

In Ezekiel 38-39 it is the ones doing the attacking that receive the most casualties, while those being attacked receive zero casualties.

How anyone can remotely think Ezekiel 38-39 can fit 70 AD, defies logic. Even if we try and make Gog and his multitude mean the unbelieving Jews in 70 AD, it still defies logic. Because in 70 AD it was the ones being attacked that suffered the most casualties. In Ezekiel 38-39 it is the ones doing the attacking that suffer the most casualties. By making Gog and multitude mean unbelieving Jews in 70 AD is to make them being the attackers of themselves. That they are both attacking and being attacked by themselves. If that doesn't defy logic, I guess nothing does.

Unfortunately though, when something has been undeniably debunked, some interpreters refuse to accept and admit it, but instead keep on insisting they are interpreting things correctly, regardless. That only hurts them though, and anyone that might adopt their interpretation. It doesn't hurt anyone not willing to accept their interpretation the fact their interpretation is clearly wrong if it has been debunked.

DavidPT said:

As pertaining to the subject of this thread, something else we need to factor in here, is the following.

Ezekiel 39:9 And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves, and the spears, and they shall burn them with fire seven years:


Regardless what this might look like when this is being fulfilled, it is meaning after Gog and his multitude have been slaughtered, that there is then 7 years that follow this. The question then is, where do these 7 years logically fit? Do they fit before Christ has returned? Or do they fit after Christ has returned? Or is there maybe another option? This is not involving 7 literal years. Assuming that could be an option, what would be the logic in not taking them as 7 literal years, though?

Which brings up something else, a thread I had recently started involving Matthew 24:7 and Isaiah 2:4. Isaiah 2:4 records the following.

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Could Ezekiel 39:9 be the beginning of this process? Maybe, maybe not. Yet I can certainly see how it might be even though it's debatable as to whether it is or not.

And let's not forget where the NT places the last days, and that what Ezekiel 38 and 39 is involving are these same last days. Meaning both Isaiah 2:4 and Ezekiel 38-39 involve the last days.

Click to expand...

In the thread you created it seems like you completely forgot where the NT places the last days because in that thread you have Isaiah 2:4 occurring AFTER the return of Christ even though the NT places the timing of the last days BEFORE (and leading up to) the return of Christ (see Acts 2:16-21 and 2 Peter 3:3-4).

Spiritual Jew said:

In the thread you created it seems like you completely forgot where the NT places the last days because in that thread you have Isaiah 2:4 occurring AFTER the return of Christ even though the NT places the timing of the last days BEFORE (and leading up to) the return of Christ (see Acts 2:16-21 and 2 Peter 3:3-4).

Click to expand...

Logically speaking, if there are last days and that there is then a last day, this should mean there are no more days after the last day. That would be true if the last day meant is only involving 24 hours or less. But what if it is involving an era of time instead, meaning more than 24 hours? Couldn't that mean that the last day of this age begins with the 2nd coming and that we are still in the last days until this era of time is fufilled, meaning if the last day is involving more than a single 24 hour day or less?

tranquil said:

Rev 20:10 says that it is occurring after the false prophet is thrown into the fire (which happened in Rev 19).

Click to expand...

It doesn't say how long after, though. You assume that it's 1,000+ years later only because you assume that what is described in Revelation 20 chronologically follows what is described in Revelation 19.

tranquil said:

That outline is not correct on a lot of things.

Rev 12 doesn't go back in history, it is going to the start of the Trumpets.

Click to expand...

Revelation 12:5 references Jesus Christ's birth and ascension, so I couldn't disagree more with you on this. It's clear to me that there are parallels within the book of Revelation rather than it being chronological throughout, as you seem to believe.

DavidPT said:

Logically speaking, if there are last days and that there is then a last day, this should mean there are no more days after the last day. That would be true if the last day meant is only involving 24 hours or less. But what if it is involving an era of time instead, meaning more than 24 hours? Couldn't that mean that the last day of this age begins with the 2nd coming and that we are still in the last days until this era of time is fufilled, meaning if the last day is involving more than a single 24 hour day or less?

Click to expand...

Show me any scripture which teaches that the last day involves more than 24 hours. I am certain that you can't do it. So, my answer to your question is no.

Based on Acts 2:16-21 and 2 Peter 3:3-4, the timing of the last days is basically from the first coming of Christ up until the second coming of Christ. In 2 Peter 3:3-4 it indicates that scoffers scoff at the promise of His second coming during the last days right up until the day He actually returns. Well, they can't scoff anymore after the day He comes again, right? So, the last day of the last days will be the day on which Christs returns. There is no basis for claiming that the last days will extend beyond that.

One other thing. If the last day represented an era of time rather than 24 hours then would you try to say that each of the last days (plural) represent an era of time as well? I highly doubt it. So, where is the consistency in that view? It's not there.

Andrewn said:

I think they were fulfilled in the Jewish Wars ending in 70 AD. It is not a personal opinion. You likely heard this from a lot of people before.

Click to expand...

It is a personal opinion, that a lot of people agree with.


Popularity does not make a belief less personal.

Islam is a personal opinion, and billions of people accept that personal opinion.

Preterist beliefs are personal opinions. There is nothing in Scripture that declares nor implies what adherents of preterism claim.

Fullness of the Gentiles said:

The Jerusalem being destroyed was not the camp of the saints.

Click to expand...

The camp of the saints was not even destroyed. There was no battle declared, but many were consumed by fire from heaven.

I know that is what you accept. Just saying that the camp of the saints was not destroyed in Revelation 20. Jerusalem was not destroyed in Revelation 19.


The 6th Seal is when Jesus rearranges the city of Jerusalem and the whole area is changed for His temple and throne.

Yes there is an earthquake in the 7th vial. But Jerusalem is not destroyed in battle, nor does it necessarily mean the city was destroyed, but the empire that Satan built, which Jerusalem was just a single part.