26. This passage, I think, shows that the king of the North, Gog (the king of Sheshach, as I believe) has possession of the regions called " North " in Judaea, by virtue of the system of judgments which come thereon. It is not then his simple inherited possession. "The king of Sheshach" I take to be Gog, not in his original, natural position, but after his having in a great measure possessed himself of the earth, and then upon the putting out of Antichrist, being alone in the earth as against God—the sun darkened, they that are drunken, drunken in the night, see Hab. 2—and so thus, indeed, the king of all the confusion; but it is in the night of his destruction. Of the activity of this, Nebuchadnezzar seems a type—of its being confounded, Belshazzar. I have always thought Nebuchadnezzar, as conquering, to be the type of the Assyrian of the latter day.
But it appears to me that there is a point here of new light breaking in—the Gog, the Assyrian, becomes the representative of power over Babylon, when Antichrist is put out, and, though put out by God's mighty ones, he will think it is all to his dominion; see Joel, and the account of the Assyrian in Isaiah. Then, having come against the Jews, he will say, "Where is now their God," setting himself as "the man of the earth" against "the God of the earth," as the other against Antichrist—for the earth is his sphere, power not infidelity and anti-christianism, which is the distinctive point of the former. But Antichrist is in fact the inferior power. Isa. 14:1212How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isaiah 14:12), clearly, I think, applies to him, Antichrist, but the passage which I will go into here, seems to embrace a larger scope, and to open out this very position of the last king, as finding his destruction in having all drowned in his person, except the head who shall then see that their power is gone, "none shut up nor left."
We have observed, elsewhere, the distinctness of character in Antichrist and the king of Babylon in this point of view, i.e., the virtual headship of confusion, on the destruction of Antichrist, but who holds it in power (for in this God will vindicate it as between them) but who, then turning that power against God, as having all, touches not them, the Remnant but the apple of His eye. "The king of Babylon" is not, in my opinion, used of Antichrist, which is a most important point, and opens out the whole question, and reflects light on many others; compare the connection in Isa. 14:22, 24, 2522For I will rise up against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the Lord. (Isaiah 14:22)
24The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: 25That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders. (Isaiah 14:24‑25). Verse 13 shows the other's assumed dominion in his origin. He is not power but popular, the head "of" not "over," in his principles, as Buonaparte said, "I am the representative of the people"; consider also verse 29, et seq. Then Psa. 48:22Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King. (Psalm 48:2) determines, I think, verse 13, and thus the whole matter is made plain. We have also, hence, a very definite understanding of Rev. 16 and 17 and the time of chapter 18: 21, confirming generally the view heretofore taken, the details not being there unfolded; see note on the passage now.
The bearing of this I feel to be sound and interesting, but there is not sufficient scope left for what passes between the destruction of Antichrist and the inroad of Gog, as in Zechariah for example, and Gog and the Assyrian are unduly identified.