Lesson 9: Iran, Sudan, and Libya – Gog and Magog
Lesson 9 Overview
Ezekiel 38: A Study of Gog and Magog with Dr. Andy Woods
This lesson continues the “how” question by moving from general observations to a nation-by-nation walkthrough, focusing on Persia (Iran), Cush (Sudan), and Put (Libya). Use this overview to review the key points after watching the full video.
Review: The Nations and the Motive
Dr. Woods restates his case from the previous lesson. Israel is back in her land, the specific nations Ezekiel named now surround her, and the motive for the attack is in place. He argues that motive is Islam, since Jerusalem is regarded as a holy site in Islam, so any nation occupying it is seen as a usurper. He quotes Benjamin Netanyahu: if the Arabs put down their weapons there would be no more violence, but if the Jews put down theirs there would be no more Israel. From this he argues Israel is the defender, not the aggressor, and he criticizes the two-state solution as asking a very small nation to give up more land to hostile neighbors.
Persia: Iran
Dr. Woods returns to Persia, which he identifies as Iran. He emphasizes how strange this prophecy would have seemed to Ezekiel, since Persia was Israel’s benefactor. Under Cyrus and Artaxerxes, the Persians allowed the Jewish people to return home in three waves after the seventy-year captivity.
Persia was renamed Iran in 1935, and as late as the 1970s Iran was an ally of both Israel and the United States. The decisive shift came in 1979, when the Shah was replaced by the Ayatollah and Iran became a Shiite Islamic theocracy. Dr. Woods shows before-and-after images of Iranian society, noting the sharp reduction in women’s freedoms, and argues this is the moment Ezekiel’s prophecy began moving toward fulfillment.
He discusses former president Ahmadinejad as a Holocaust denier and a “Twelver,” who believed the return of the Twelfth Imam could be hastened through the destruction of the “great Satan” (the United States) and the “little Satan” (Israel). Dr. Woods notes the order of that phrasing, arguing that hostility toward Israel is ultimately hostility toward America. He raises concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and criticizes the Iran nuclear deal. He also cites reporting on Iranian school textbooks, arguing that the next generation is being educated toward apocalyptic conflict, and quotes the idea that the philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation becomes the philosophy of government in the next.
The Question of Propaganda
A significant portion of the lesson argues that the Palestinian national identity is a modern political invention. Dr. Woods cites Mark Twain’s 1867 description of the land as desolate and nearly empty, a series of questions from Richard Booker’s book Christians and Jews, and a 1977 interview in which a PLO official said the Palestinian people “does not exist” and that the idea serves the wider struggle against Israel.
He argues that after failing to defeat Israel militarily in 1948, 1967, and 1973, these nations shifted to a propaganda war, learned in part from the Soviet Union, aimed at eroding sympathy for Israel by minimizing or denying the Holocaust and casting Israel as an occupier. He mentions Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial as a safeguard of the historical record, and quotes William James on how a claim repeated often enough comes to be believed.
Cush: Sudan
Dr. Woods identifies Cush as Sudan, noting that its government harbored Osama bin Laden from 1991 to 1996 and that the country was the site of the Darfur genocide. He is careful to say his criticism is directed at the philosophy of the regime, not at all the people of the nation.
Put: Libya
Put is identified as Libya, which Dr. Woods says has appeared prominently twice in his lifetime. First, under Gaddafi, with the 1986 bombing of the La Belle discotheque in West Berlin, which killed and injured American servicemen and prompted retaliatory U.S. strikes ordered by President Reagan. Second, the 2012 attack on the American facility in Benghazi, which occurred on September 11 and which he argues was not a spontaneous reaction to a video. He sees both as consistent with the character Ezekiel foresaw for this nation.