The Question from a Russian sister went like this: “Many brothers and sisters from eastern Europe have come to the Christadelphian family and are faced with the problem of the interpretation of Ezekiel 38. We know most Christadelphians take the point of view about the Russian invasion of Israel, but some brethren see Arabs in Ezekiel 38. The ‘Russian’ identification is not very convincing in the Russian Bible. So this subject causes some differences in the new-born ecclesias.
“My question is: Have we freedom of interpretation in such Bible passages as Ezekiel 38? As I understand, it doesn’t belong with the basic principles of fellowship.”
Differences in language
In the English Bible (Revised Version), Gog is said to be the prince of “Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal” (Ezk. 38:3). While this is not the only pointer we see to Russia, it would probably be considered the most specific. “Rosh” we would suggest on the authority of Gesenius’s Hebrew Lexicon is an ancient name for Russia. Meshech and Tubal to our ears have similar sounds to Moscow and Tobolsk on the river Tobol. In the Russian Bible, however, “Tubal” is rendered “Fooval,” and bears no resemblance to the sound of “Tobolsk,” which, at any rate, is a rather small town east of the Urals located where the Tobol river disappears into the river lrtysh, one of the biggest rivers of the area. Furthermore, the sounding of “Meshech” in the Russian Bible bears faint resemblance to “Moskavah” which is roughly the way “Moscow” is pronounced in Russian.
We are also aware that “Meshech and Tubal” are thought by some to reference “Musku and Tobal” referred to in Assyrian documents written slightly before Ezekiel’s time. The Assyrians referred to them as a warlike people living in an area now occupied by Turkey, Iran and northern Iraq (Interpreter’s Bible; Smith Bible Dictionary, etc.). So we are aware there may be some room for discussion on the point.
Considering these factors, should we respond with a strong defense of the “Russian” interpretation, which we believe is correct, lifting it almost to the level of a “must-believe” element of the faith?
Not a first principle
Our response follows:
“We have freedom of view on how we interpret the specifics of Ezekiel 38 and other prophecies concerning the details of the process of bringing the nations into subjection to Christ. Of course it is a basic of the faith that all nations will be brought into subjection to Christ, acknowledging his rule and the sovereignty of God.
“The problem of espousing different points of view on Ezekiel 38 in the same ecclesia is that people can start making mountains out of mole hills and get into big arguments about such things. If differences can be kept at the level of interesting discussion, well and good, but if not, then it’s better just to agree to differ and concentrate on the areas of commonality of view.”
We suspect most readers would agree with our response. Our brethren in eastern Europe are coming from decades of anti-God propaganda and in many cases face stiff opposition, if not outright persecution, for their beliefs. It doesn’t make sense to insist they accept every interpretation of prophecy traditional to English-speaking brethren working from English-language Bibles. (We might also concede a certain western bias to some of our interpretations as we generally portray the English-speaking peoples as readily submitting to Christ when he comes.)
Some things are vital and some are not. We need to avoid strife in areas not vital to the fundamentals of the faith.
Paul’s pointed warning
Unnecessary contention is not new. Writing to two of his most trusted helpers, Paul cautioned them:
- “Charge certain persons not to. ..occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations…” (I Tim. 1:3-4 all RSV).
- “Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths” (I Tim. 4:7). (Note Bro. Steven Cox new series starting this month.)
- “Charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers” (II 2:14).
- “Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels” (II Tim. 2:23).
- “Avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile” (Titus 3:9).
As with ourselves, the first century brethren had to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3 KJV). The true faith is continually under attack by those who seek to lower its moral standards and compromise its basic teaching. So the believer strives mightily to preserve that which has been delivered to him. But at some point we must stop striving and begin to live in joyous harmony with our brethren as we build one another up by that which every person contributes. The problem we sometimes have is knowing when to stop striving and live in joyous harmony.
An area we feel should not be a topic of strife is whether Meshech and Tubal refers to Russia or whether it refers to Muslim nations north of Israel. If we have different opinions on the matter, so be it; let us agree to differ and still rejoice in our common commitment to the essentials of the gospel.
Application to the atonement
With Paul’s words before us warning against disputing about words, we need to note the application of his exhortation to our considerations of the atonement — God’s work of salvation from sin and death through our Lord Jesus Christ. Once again in our community dissension has arisen regarding a full understanding of this matter. Some are being charged with believing in “partial atonement.” Of course both sides of the controversy claim to wholly accept the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith which gives extensive treatment to the matter in clauses 5 through 16.
We recently had occasion to ask elders of a community which shares our view on the nature (Christ had our human nature in the days of his flesh) and origin (Christ had no personal existence prior to his birth of the virgin Mary) of Christ to give us their opinion on these clauses. Their united view was that they are excellent, tying together the various elements of the promises and purpose of the Father in a meaningful summary of the principles of salvation through Christ.
Surely brethren who agree with these clauses and yet claim to have serious charges against one another on the atonement can only be “disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.”
We cannot, we must not, insist that every brother express himself in exactly our favorite terms. If we do, then the greatest exhortation to love that has ever been conceived (the atonement) ends up as a field of contention, strife and hostility among brethren. Such strife is a total negation of the very heart of the atonement for, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another” (I John 4:10-11).
A key element of loving one another is recognizing when we have gone too far with the detailed agreement we are exacting from our brethren. Love means backing off from our own form of words or interpretation of detail and living in harmony, rejoicing in the great truths we hold in common.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One