Why Both Names May Be “Right” in Balaam’s Prophecy (Numbers 24:7)

Hi Friends,

I am currently reading a new book by Joel Richardson, titled “Gospel of the Skull Crusher“, and following along with his bible study, which can be viewed for free on his Youtube channel. His recent study, based on chapter 7 of the book, discussed Numbers 24. I highly recommend both the book and the online study for both the serious bible student as well as the biblically curious. Joel’s passion for biblical hope and his ability to discuss complex theological issues in a down-to-earth manner is a tremendous gift to the body of Christ.

In Numbers 24, the pagan prophet Balaam saw that it pleased God to bless Israel. Instead of resorting to divination as he had in the past, he turned toward the wilderness and saw the encampment of Israel’s tribes. The ensuing prophecy contained many layers of blessing for the nation of Israel.

Today’s article will examine a few ideas that are on full display in Balaam’s prophecy. We will take a brief look at biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), as well as biblical translation. I aim to provide insight that will hopefully assist you with your own bible study, while also examining a text that has long been debated by bible students and translators alike.

Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy

Modern readers often approach prophecy with a flat “prediction → fulfillment” grid. Ancient Jewish interpretation, however, operated on a richer, more organic logic — “seed → pattern → climax“. A promise begins as a seed in Israel’s story, develops into recurring narrative patterns, and ultimately reaches an eschatological climax.

The original “seed” prophecy is found in Genesis 3:15.

Hebrew Text (Masoretic): וְאֵיבָ֣ה ׀ אָשִׁ֗ית בֵּינְךָ֙ וּבֵ֣ין הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וּבֵ֥ין זַרְעֲךָ֖ וּבֵ֣ין זַרְעָ֑הּ ה֚וּא יְשׁוּפְךָ֣ רֹ֔אשׁ וְאַתָּ֖ה תְּשׁוּפֶ֥נּוּ עָקֵֽב׃

Literal Translation: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise/crush your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

This is sometimes referred to as the “Protoevangelium” (Latin: prōto = “first” + evangelium = “gospel”) because it is the first announcement of the gospel in Scripture. In essence, Eve’s seed, Jesus of Nazareth, will ultimately destroy the seed of Satan, who we often refer to as the Anti-Christ.

If we utilize the “seed → pattern → climax” approach, we can trace from the original seed many patterns. Throughout biblical and secular history, there have been many “pattern anti-Christs”, such as Pharoah, Agag/Gog, Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus Epiphanes, or Hitler, among many others. At the same time, there have been lesser God elected “deliverer and/or king” figures, such as Moses or David, who create a pattern leading to the climatic and perfect Messiah, who is Jesus our Lord.

These conflicts with the “anti-Christ of our time” reveal the repeated pattern of attempted Genocide against covenantal Israel that will ultimately come to a climax when the final Anti-Christ arrives on the scene.

When we view biblical prophecy in a vacuum, or employ a flat “prediction → fulfillment” grid, we come to the first advent of Jesus and imagine that most, (or in some extreme cases all), biblical prophecy has now been completed and fulfilled. We do this especially at Christmas time, when we quote passages such as Isaiah 9:6-7, and assume that because Jesus was born, has died, and has been raised from the dead that now His kingdom is fully in effect. This is because we are choosing to see the promise of the Messiah/Christ as already being fulfilled. Yet, such an application is too flat, finite, and spiritualized. If we view prophecies like Isaiah 9 in light of the complete pattern provided by Scripture, it becomes far more obvious that all things have not yet been fulfilled.

The One who was born, died, raised from the dead, and who ascended into the heavens must also return and establish His government on earth. So there is no mistaking my meaning, I am referring to Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord, Savior, and Messiah King.

A Difference in Translation: Agag vs Gog

With these things in mind, let’s examine Balaam’s oracle in Numbers 24:7 — the one with the debated “Agag/Gog” reading — suddenly opens into a panoramic biblical-theological vista.

The Masoretic Text reads “Agag,” the Amalekite king.
The Septuagint, however, renders the name as “Gog.”

Some treat this as a scribal slip.
I’d argue it may be a deliberate theological choice — and that both names fit the seed-pattern-climax structure of Scripture.

Agag: The Historical Seed

Agag isn’t random. He represents the royal line of Amalek, Israel’s archetypal enemy (Exodus 17; Deut. 25:17-19).

Amalek’s identity is covenantal, not merely political.
They embody the serpent’s hostility toward the chosen seed (cf. Gen. 3:15).

In ancient Hebrew memory, “Agag” wasn’t just a king; but was also a type — a royal embodiment of anti-Yahweh aggression. Saul’s failure to destroy Agag (1 Sam. 15) isn’t just military negligence; it’s a failure to strike down the serpent’s seed. In Saul’s case, the first King of Israel proves to be a failed Messiah figure who was fully incapable of succeeding in a manner that only the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” can succeed.

In any event, reading Agag in Numbers 24 fits perfectly as the seed of this enemy pattern.

Gog: The Apocalyptic Climax

Fast-forward to Ezekiel 38–39. Gog of Magog isn’t merely geopolitical. He is a cosmic enemy distilled — the final, ultimate, eschatological opposition. If Agag is the seed-enemy in Torah history, Gog is the fully matured serpent-king in the prophetic climax.

Ezekiel’s vision isn’t replacing the Agag tradition — it’s magnifying it. The “Agag-type” has grown into its final form.

I almost hate to use this example, but think video-game logic:

• Agag = mid-boss
• Amalek = recurring enemy faction
• Gog = final boss

Same enemy family. Different phase in the narrative arc. The prophets were not given to us so that we can turn this narrative arc into over-spiritualized metaphors or mere moral lessons. Rather, God is providing to us, through the prophets, a consistent and unfolding history. The idea is that we hear and receive the prophecies, see their pattern repeat throughout redemptive history, and look forward to the climatic hope and salvation that awaits us when Jesus returns to crush the final enemy.

The Septuagint’s Move: Not Error, but Insight

So why did the Septuagint translators render “Agag” as “Gog”?

Possibly because they saw the pattern already embedded in the Torah story:

• Serpent vs. Seed (Gen. 3:15)
• Amalek vs. Israel (Ex. 17)
• Agag vs. Davidic kingship (1 Sam. 15)
• Gog vs. Messiah’s kingdom (Ezek. 38–39)

I do not believe the Alexandrian translators were confused. They were drawing the eschatological line forward. For them, Balaam wasn’t only speaking about a local king — he was tapping into the cosmic conflict already germinating in Genesis.

This interpretive decision is something modern bible translators wrestle with today. Some prefer a word-for-word approach, while others employ a thought-for-thought or meaning-for-meaning approach. Translators from thousands of years ago likely did not use the same methodologies as today, so my conclusion is truly only a “possibility”.

In essence, it is quite possible that the Septuagint translators saw the developing biblical pattern — and perhaps detected a phonetic and thematic connection between Agag and Gog — and chose to render the text in a way that ensures readers grasp the prophetic meaning. In doing so, they translated not merely the word, but the theological intent.

Meanwhile, the Qumran community didn’t change the name because they didn’t need to — they already saw the pattern and lived inside a worldview of Messianic apocalyptic expectation. The Agag-Gog lineage would have been obvious to them.

In other words:

• MT preserves the historical seed (Agag)
• LXX highlights the eschatological climax (Gog)

I would conclude that both are right, because biblical prophecy isn’t one-dimensional prediction → fulfillment. It’s seed → pattern → climax.

Why This Matters

This perspective protects us from two extremes:

• Over-literalism that flattens prophecy into newspaper-headline prediction charts.
• Over-spiritualizing that severs eschatology from real history and covenant conflict.

Balaam’s prophecy wasn’t merely about a king in his own time, nor merely a cryptic hint of a distant apocalypse. It was about the shape of history itself — an enemy seed rising, one which will finally fall before the true Messiah King.

This is why in prophetic interpretation, Gog’s defeat ultimately finds its fullest horizon in the Messiah’s future triumph (Rev. 20:8-10).
But that triumph was once whispered in the desert as Israel camped near Moab, when a pagan diviner saw a glimpse of the world’s final story.

As antisemitism once again rises, even among Christians in the west, it is vital to remember that it pleases God to bless Israel, that the ruler will come out of Jacob (Israel), and He will reign over the earth from David’s throne (in Israel). When connected to other biblical prophecies, Balaam’s oracle is a promise that the returning Messiah/Christ will come to destroy Israel’s enemies.

Let’s choose to be friends to Israel and the Jewish people.

Amen.

– J. S. Marek