The Battle of Armageddon
Number 11of 12 in the Second Coming Series
"This powerful group of allies will lead
an attack on restored Israel. ... The attack upon the Russian confederacy and
the resulting conflict will escalate into the last war of the world, involving
all nations."
Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth, 1970, page 60
Armageddon is a term that has slipped easily into today's vocabulary. One hears
of "nuclear Armageddon" and the "final battle" in both political and religious
speeches. What does it all mean? Are premillenialists, like Hal Lindsey, correct
when they tell us the last battle will involve Israel and Russia? What does the
Bible say about Armageddon?
While one might imagine numerous references to Armageddon would occur in
scripture, it is only mentioned once. Revelation 16:16 says "They gathered them
together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon." Here, John is
told, the false prophet and beast bring together all the armies of the kings of
the earth to fight against God. Har-Magedon is actually a Hebrew term that means
mountain of Megiddo. Megiddo is a valley that makes a natural pass in the
mountains for all traffic between Egypt and points north and east. Every empire
of Bible times tried to control this valley, due to its strategic importance.
Interestingly, while there is a valley of Megiddo there is no mountain of
Megiddo. The place Revelation points to as the site of this great battle does
not exist! What do we make of that?
Armageddon's symbolic name just points to the nature of the book of Revelation.
It is not a book to be taken literally. It is apocalyptic, a kind of literature
that portrays the battle between good and evil in fascinating signs and symbols
(Rev. 1:3). "Armageddon" type battles are not unusual in apocalyptic literature.
One of the Dead Sea Scrolls offers this picture of a battle between God and
Satan: "The rule of War on the unleashing of the attack of the sons of light
against the company of the sons of darkness, the army of Satan ... This shall be
a time of salvation for the people of God, an age of dominion for all members of
His company, and of everlasting destruction for all the company of Satan... ."
(The War Scroll, 1:1-9). The uninspired work 1 Enoch contains a similar scene
(1:9). Revelation's battle is no different than these. It is a "big picture"
look at God overcoming all those who oppose Him and His people (19:1). To make
it all literal is to make a fatal mistake that deprives the student of any
chance of properly understanding what he is seeing. Let's look closer.
The reference to Armageddon in Revelation 16:16 is no more a reference to a
real, literal battlefield than the reference to the beast (16:13) is to a real
monster. What do we make of the frogs, the drying up of the Euphrates (16:12),
and the context of the entire book? By what rule of interpretation can we say
"figurative, figurative, figurative" to these and then suddenly decide "the
geographic place (which does not exist) must be literal? To say such is poor
exegesis in an understatement.
Revelation 19:19-21 is no different. Yes, there is a battle
portrayed there, but is it literal? Jesus is portrayed as the conquer, but are
we to believe He literally has a sword in His mouth (19:15, 21)? Again, it is a
picture in symbols. The battle that is discussed is a spiritual conflict between
right and wrong. To put tanks and helicopters into Revelation 19 is a travesty.
Christians in the John's day needed to know that they were not dying in vain,
that God had not abdicated His throne, and that the devil would not triumph.
They are reassured when they see these pictures of Jesus conquering by the power
of the Gospel. Of what value would knowing about ICBMs and a future physical
battle be to these persecuted saints? John's apocalypse shows that even when it
looks like Christians are losing, they are winning the spiritual battle.
Regrettably, extensive efforts are made to find Armageddon not only in
Revelation but in Ezekiel 38-39. Gog and Magog are identified as Russia, and the
battle in Ezekiel is said to be the one in Revelation 19. Really? The armies of
Ezekiel 38 ride horses and carry swords (38:4). If the battle is literal why
isn't the weaponry? How can we say "this is a literal battle, but the weapons
will be tanks and machine guns?" Notice that in 39:9-10 the prophet specifically
says that when the battle ends Israel will burn their enemies' weapons as
firewood. This cannot be modern weaponry - one cannot burn an AK-47! To further
confound premillenial uses of these chapters, Gog and Magog are dead and buried
in Ezekiel's battle (39:11-12). Premillenialists are happy to parallel this to
Revelation 19's battle and make it all one and the same conflict, the battle of
Armageddon. But has anyone noticed that in Revelation 20:8 Gog and Magog appear
(note: for the first time in Revelation)? How can Gog and Magog materialize in
Revelation 20 if they were already killed in the battle of Armageddon described
in Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 19?
Someone is mixed up, and it is those who are trying to force Ezekiel's message
into John's book.
Ezekiel's visions and prophecies were for the people of his day, the captives in
Babylon. He gives them a reassuring message of God's power and ability to
re-establish them in their home land, and to protect them from attack when they
get there. To pick up those symbols and jam them into Revelation, a book written
to give confidence and hope to Christians in the first century, makes a giant
mess. Revelation 19's battle is not Ezekiel's battle, and Ezekiel is not talking
about Revelation's battle of Armageddon. These are two separate events, two
separate visions, given to two entirely different peoples in entirely different
circumstances. Premillenial ideas just prove to be a "Bible blender" that
confuses and contradicts scripture.
The most important lesson to be learned from studying about Armageddon is that
God will indeed triumph. Rather than fearfully wringing our hands at "wars and
rumors of wars" let us be about the business of teaching the Gospel to the lost
and standing for purity and holiness. This aligns us with the One who is always
victorious in every battle.
By Mark Roberts
From Expository Files 6.11; November 1999
