ARMAGEDDON (REVELATION 16:16)

The concepts of Armageddon and the Battle of Armageddon have entered into the consciousness of the general public, even among those who have never read the Bible. Back in 1939, William Hendricksen wrote: “Of late it has been raining sermons and lectures on Har-Magedon or Armageddon.” And there has been little diminution of interest since that time.

The word itself only appears in one verse, Revelation 16:16. And Mounce calls it “one of the more cryptic and difficult problems of Revelation”, which is certainly saying a lot. Metzger calls this a “mystic place-name” and demonstrates the problem Bible scholars have had with the word itself for over 1,000 years by the fact that the name is actually spelled thirteen different ways in the ancient manuscripts. And the common spelling I have used in the title above only appears in some rather late Byzantine documents.

So the first thing to consider is the way this word is rendered in modern English translations. Here are six possibilities, with attendant comments:

Mountain of Megiddo

One of the alternative spellings of the word in question is Har-Mageddon, possibly meaning Mountain of Megiddo. On the one hand, Sheriffs says, “The fact that the tell of Megiddo was about 70 feet high in John's day, and was in the vicinity of Carmel Range, justifies the use of Heb. har, used loosely in the Old Testament 'hill' and 'hill country.'” (By the way, Megiddo was located about a two-day walk north of Jerusalem.) However, Mounce and others are not convinced. He states flatly that “there is no Mt. Megiddo. None of the solutions offered is especially persuasive.”

City of Megiddo

This translation is possible if the preferred reading is Ar-Mageddon as found in some late manuscripts, where ar is possibly the equivalent of the Hebrew word a'r, meaning “city.” Neither supposition is particularly likely.

Mount of Assembly

This would be an apt designation for the context of the verse if, as Torrey and Bruce believe, it is in fact a reference to har mo'ed, found in Isaiah 14:13.

The Fruitful Hill

Mounce mentions this as a possible translation if it is a corruption in the text for “his fruitful city” or the “desirable city,” either of which would refer to Jerusalem.

Mountain or City of the Attacker

This interesting possibility is suggested since “Megiddo” may be derived from a Hebrew root meaning “to attack or maraud.” Thus, the designation would actually be to the destroying nation of Rome.

The place-name is primarily symbolic.

Mounce concludes: “Fortunately, geography is not the major concern.” Most responsible commentators recognize that many of the events in the Book of Revelation look back to the Old Testament for inspiration and express their ideas in the forms of symbols. Thus, we have the following comments from some scholars who note the importance of mountains as well as the plain of Megiddo for decisive battles in Israel's history (see Judges 5:19; II Kings 9:27; II Chronicles 35:22):

Sherrifs: “The 'mountains of Israel' witness Gog's defeat in Ezk. xxxix.1,4. This may be in the writer's mind.”

Mounce, in agreement with the above, states, “One frequent suggestion is that the Apocalyptist began with Ezekiel's prophecy of a great eschatological slaughter of the nations on 'the mountains of Israel' (Ezek 38:8-21; 39:2,4,17) and then made the reference more specific by adding the name Megiddo as the place where so often in Israel's history the enemies of God were destroyed.”

Morris: Since many great battles have been fought nearby, the city [of Megiddo] may stand in John's mind for decisive conflict. In that case it will stand here as a symbol or the final overthrow of all the forces of evil by an almighty God.”

Ruiz: “Here is the symbolic assembly point of the forces hostile to God as they prepare for the eschatological battle.”

Hendricksen takes the battle described in Judges 5 as John's model for Revelation 16:16. “Hence, Har-Magedon is the symbol of every battle in which, when the need is greatest and believers are oppressed, the Lord suddenly reveals his power in the interest of his distressed people and defeats the enemy.”

The last major issue is a description of the Battle of Armageddon, wherever it might occur. We are given virtually no details in Revelation 16 concerning this conflict. But as most commentators agree, Revelation 16:13-16 anticipates the actual battle given in 19:17-21 in which the combined forces of evil are destroyed by Christ. And Hendricksen even feels that Revelation 11:7ff and 20:17ff describe the same battle. He notes that most theories regarding this conflict can be divided into four general categories, rejecting the first three in favor of the last one:

1. The battle is between two groups of nations present today.

The more speculative and popular prophecy “experts” tend to flip-flop back and forth in their pronouncements on exactly which modern nations will be involved depending on where the hot spots in the world happen to be at the time.

2. It is a spiritual battle between paganism and the Gospel of Christ.

This view goes in line with more liberal commentators who reduce much of the Book of Revelation to a series of images illustrating the everlasting battle between good and evil but having no specific reality in future historical events.

3. It is a literal battle that will take place after the seven years of tribulation at which time the wicked nations of the world will besiege the Jews in Jerusalem. But Christ and his saints will descend from the sky to rescue them.

This is the view held by many Premillennialists and all Dispensational Premillennialists. An influential proponent of this theory is John Walvoord, who is uncharacteristically rather restrained in his pronouncements on this specific subject. He begins by saying that Satan will deceive the nations of the world into destroying the very world government that he himself set up by luring them to Jerusalem to resist the coming of Christ. “Though the nations may be deceived in entering into the war in hope of gaining world political power, the satanic purpose is to combat the armies from heaven at the second coming of Christ.” I am not sure that I quite follow his logic here, but let us proceed. “The war...involves house-to-house fighting in Jerusalem itself on the day of the Lord's return (Zech. 14:1-3)...The war will be going on for some time, but the climax will come at Christ's second coming.”

4. The last view treats the event as historical (unlike #2 above), but certainly without all the extraneous speculations that the Dispensationalist tack on to their scenario. And rather than the “battle” being one of protracted length, in a sense no battle at all takes place since Christ merely comes down and wipes out the assembled hostile army. As Payne puts it, “The victory of the messiah is single-handed: the mere word of His mouth is the sole weapon of His victory.”

Thus, Mounce conclusion is “Wherever it takes place, Har-Magedon is symbolic of the final overthrow of all the forces of evil by the might and power of God. The great conflict between God and Satan, Christ and Antichrist, good and evil, which lies behind the perplexing course of history will in the end issue in a final struggle in which God will emerge victorious and take with him all who have placed their faith in him.”