Revelation 16:16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
“Thus far there has been no satisfactory explanation of the name.” Joachim Jeremias, “Ἃρ Μαγεδών,” TDNT 1:468.
After the sixth bowl of God’s wrath has been poured out on the earth, the nations are deceived by demonic signs gather at a place called Armageddon. The word Armageddon has become part of western apocalyptic vocabulary, but books and films describing the “end of the world” as Armageddon do not reflect the use of the word in Revelation 16:16.
John tells the reader the word Armageddon (Ἁρμαγεδών) is Hebrew or Aramaic (Ἑβραϊστί can mean either). The Hebrew, presumably, would be Har-Megiddo, or the Mount Megiddo. Megiddo is a well-known location in central Israel, bordering the broad Valley of Jezreel. The valley had been the site of numerous battles, from Egyptian battles in 1500 B.C. to a British conflict in 1917. Those who have visited Megiddo on an Israel tour might recall the lurid video in the visitor’s center suggesting this is the location of the “end of the world.”
But there is no Mount Megiddo. Megiddo was a city and occasionally a plain (2 Chron 35:22; Zech 12:11). Perhaps the Hebrew word could be A’r-Megiddo, the city of Megiddo, but this does not seem likely. John may not intend for Armageddon as a literal place name, but as a metaphor for the conflict between the forces of evil and the forces of God in a final battle.
It is tempting to understand Mount Megiddo as a reference to the Carmel range near Megiddo. The traditional site of Elijah’s confrontation with the priests of Baal at Carmel overlooks the plain of Jezreel (1 Kings 18:16-45). Like the book Revelation, Elijah faces a challenge to the worship of the Lord from Ahab and Jezebel. Who is the God who is worthy of Israel’s worship? Elijah proves it is only the Lord, the God of Israel and not Baal when God sends fire from heaven to consume his sacrifice. The story has a three-year drought, famine, miraculous protect of God’s servant Elijah, and a climactic bloody slaughter of those who worship Baal. Many of these resonate with the conflict between the kingdom of the Beast and the Lamb in Revelation.
Following a 1938 article by C. C. Torrey, Meredith Kline suggested the word should be read as har môʿēd, “Mount of Assembly.” If this is the case, then Revelation 16:16 would allude to Isaiah 14:13, one of the boasts of the king of Babylon is that he would ascend to heaven and set his throne on the high, “I will sit on the mount of assembly, I the far reaches of the north.” The Hebrew phrase בְּהַר־מוֹעֵ֖ד (“on the mount of assembly”) is render as ἐν ὄρει ὑψηλῷ (“on the high mountain”) in the LXX. The Greek ὑψηλός refers to a high or lofty mountain, but also to arrogance or presumption (BrillDAG).
Kline points out Isaiah 14:13 has “the far reaches of the north” in parallel to the mount of assembly. The high mountain in the north (צָפוֹן, zaphon) is where the gods lived in Ugaritic mythology. Whatever real-world mountain this might refer to, in Isaiah 14 the king of Babylon is ultimately arrogant in his desire to set his throne in the place of the gods. Rather than sit in the place of the gods, the king of Babylon will be brought down to the pit (Isa 14:14).
Kline then connects Mount Zaphon (the abode of the gods in Canaanite mythology) with Mount Zion, the abode of God. Psalm 48:1 calls Mount Zion God’s holy mountain, “beautiful in elevation” and “in the far north (zaphon).” At least in this psalm, Zion is like Zaphon. But in many other texts Zion is God’s meeting place with his people.
Like the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14, Revelation 16:16 refers to the ultimate arrogant attempt to demand the worship God himself deserves. “Satan will make his last attempt to usurp Har Magedon” (p. 213). For Kline, “The typological Zion/Jerusalem provides the symbolic scenery for prophecies of the climactic conflict in the war of the ages” (p. 213). Kline supports this view by examining Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38-39.
I find Kline’s suggestion intriguing because the allusion to Isaiah 14 describes an arrogant king of Babylon who will demand to be worshiped as God. This is similar to the arrogant little horn in Daniel 7 as well as the willful king in Daniel 11. In the very next section of Revelation John describes Babylon as a whore drunk on the blood of the saints and the fall of Babylon dominates Revelation 17-19:10. However, it is difficult for me to move from Har Moed to Har Magedon.
The name of the mountain is obscure. Along with Jeremias, BDAG says the interpretation of the word is “beset with difficulties that have not yet been surmounted.” Robert Mounce agrees, the meaning of Armageddon is like the mystery of the name of the beast. There are many suggestions, but few are satisfying.
Whatever Armageddon refers to, the kingdom of the beast will gather for a final confrontation with the Lamb that was slain in order to finally show who is worthy of the worship of the nations.
Bibliography: Meredith G. Kline, “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium” JETS 39 (1996): 207-223; C. C. Torrey, “Armageddon,” HTR 31 (1938): 237-248.
A fascinating discussion is definitely worth comment. I think that
you ought to write more about this topic, it might not be
a taboo matter but usually people do not discuss these topics.
To the next! Kind regards!!
My blog post Annmarie
I find it interested how there is not actually a set meaning for Armageddon. I never have thought on the topic besides that I have learned that Armageddon is the end times when the Lamb defeats Evil finally in battle. I have never thought much at all either on the point of the location and the importance of this fact. I think something important to understand in this topic with Revelation is that no one really knows what will happen exactly other than John the writer and God himself. We the audience can only find interpretations and in a lot of ways guess what will really happen. This also means that we cannot fully understand what John meant by Armageddon because we do not have the context of being in the mind of God or John during this writing. I think that the idea of what Armageddon is as a metaphor instead of a literal place is fascinating because I too believe this. When you read these passages to me it seems much more fitting that Armageddon is not necessarily place rather an event that is happening.
Armageddon was a location in Insrael. It was said to have been where there would be a war fought by Christians and angles. This side was going to be led by Jesus and the other side of the war was the anit-christ kings. This was also known as the Beast in the Book of Revelations. There is no definite meaning for Armageddon. The only thing that we do know is that the it does stand for the end times in the sense of the Lamb killing Evil in a war. People make up there own assumptions and theories of this place called Armageddon. Professor Long stated that “John may not intend for Armageddon as a literal place name, but as a metaphor for the conflict between the forces of evil and the forces of God in a final battle.” (Long, 2020) With not having the exact meaning of Armageddon we cannot fully understand what John had to say. It was a place for battle though. I think that it is interesting to research and study Armageddon because there is no certainty for it. I like to picture what it would be like.
****Angels
I think that Mike Heiser makes a good argument for the gamma in άρμαγεδων being a transliteration of a ע rather than a ג. This would render the phrase not as Mount of Megiddo, but Mount of Mo’ged, or the Mount of Assembly (as used in Isaiah 14:13). This seems to make sense theologically, with the final battle takes place over Jerusalem and between spiritual forces present in the Assembly of the Most High. 1 Enoch (which should not be scripture, but is a good indicator of Jewish tradition and belief), in discusses Jerusalem and the end times in chapter 26, calling it a “holy mountain” and the “center of the earth.” Jerusalem is blessed with rivers and plants, but the land around it is cursed and barren, because – as Sariel explains to Enoch – it is the dwelling place of the cursed. Sariel continues, saying, “Here they [the cursed] will be gathered, and here will be their habitation at the last times, in the days of righteous judgment in the presence of the righteous for all time.” It seems then that Jerusalem (and the land desert around it) was seen as the place where the evil forces of the material and spiritual world would be finally judged and defeated. It makes sense, then, that the final “battle” takes place at Jerusalem, because it is where all things started, and where all things will end.
The Battle of Armageddon as described in Revelation 16:16 has become nearly unanimous in pop culture as a reference to the end of the world or a cataclysmic event, distance from its actual usage in the text. This location refers to the place where all of God’s enemies, represented by the kingdom of the beast, gather together to fight against God in a cosmic battle of good and evil. John uses the Hebrew word to describe the place, which would be ‘Har-Meggido’ or the ‘mountain of Meggido’ (Long, 266). Yet, this location would be an interesting choice for a battle, since Meggido is hardly mountainous, primarily being referred to as a region of plains in central Palestine. It has hosted many battles throughout its history, ranging from Egyptian battles in the 1500s BC to the modern British conflict of 1917, yet nothing compares to the scene portrayed in Revelation 16. Some scholars suggest that perhaps the Hebrew should be ‘Ar-Meggido’ or ‘City of Megiddo’, but others say this may have linguistic difficulty (Long, 266). If one takes an idealist perspective, perhaps the location does not necessarily matter, as it would serve as a metaphorical reference to the timeless conflict between the forces of evil and God. Some scholars like Michael Heiser suggest that this region should be interpreted as Jerusalem since Zachariah 12:9-11 describes the final battle happening in Jerusalem along with the audience knowing that Armageddon was a reference to the mountain assembly of God, which was located on Mt. Zion or Jerusalem. This could provide interesting insight into this dialogue of the location of this future battle (assuming you aren’t a full preterist) yet will need further research to validate. Overall, it is an interesting debate, but I don’t think people should get so heavily focused on its location that they forget the purpose of this event, which is the great battle between cosmic forces of evil and God, unto which God will reign victorious.
Before our class discussions, I never realized that Armageddon doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the world. I feel like in the Christian circles I grew up in, this was seen as the final battle of the end of the world. Interestingly, in Hebrew, this would actually refer to Mount Megiddo in Israel (but from what I hear, it’s not much a mount, more like a glorified ant hill). Mount Megiddo doesn’t even exist, but the city/plain does. As mentioned in the article, Armageddon could just simply be a metaphor for the battle between good and evil (symbolic rather than literal). The connection that Kline makes with Isaiah 14 is also interesting to me when used symbolically. The idea that the battle could happen on a hill similar to that of Isaiah 14 is possible. I really appreciate the connects made in this article with a few other authors because it is hard sometimes to grasp the full picture of passages like this without knowing some of the OT background that this might be referring to. I think that the last paragraph of this article is important to remember as well. We can get so caught up in trying to figure things out that we miss the big picture. In this particular case, we know that the Anti-Christ will have to come face-to-face with the Lord God Almighty, a battle which the Anti-Christ will surely lose. Christ will then assert Himself as the rightful King who has conquered all. That is our hope in the midst of prevailing evil.
The interpretation of Armageddon indeed presents a fascinating mystery. Such a mystery is the exact reason why Revelation is such a hard book to interpret. Among the vast connections to Old Testament and other New Testament passages, even the grammar and spelling of the word is difficult to put a finger on. The various proposed explanations offer insights into the symbolic significance of this enigmatic term within the context of Revelation. The connection to Mount Megiddo and its historical significance as a site of battles adds depth to the imagery of a final conflict. I am inclined to think of this as the true meaning, however, the suggestion of Armageddon as a metaphorical representation of the ultimate battle between the forces of evil and God’s righteousness aligns with the broader themes of Revelation. Meredith Kline’s proposal of interpreting Armageddon as “Mount of Assembly” offers a compelling perspective, linking it to Isaiah’s portrayal of the arrogant king of Babylon’s desire to elevate himself to the level of the gods. This interpretation underscores the theme of rebellion against God’s sovereignty and the ultimate defeat of such arrogance. While the exact meaning of Armageddon remains elusive, its role as the setting for the climactic confrontation between the forces of darkness and the Lamb of God underscores the cosmic significance of this apocalyptic battle. Above all of this is the call for the “hermeneutics of humility” that we have discussed in class in the past. Some things in this book are just not going to be interpreted fully because we do not have the wherewithal necessary to do so. Despite this, we need to be looking for the greater themes throughout this book as they instruct practical theology and life as a Christian. The mysterious nature of Armageddon’s name reflects the depth of symbolism and metaphorical language employed throughout Revelation, inviting readers to ponder its meaning and significance within the larger narrative of God’s ultimate triumph over evil.
This has just left me speechless. I feel like many of these posts are things that I should have known. I have always just listened to things that other Christians have told me. This was something that wasn’t even true. This is just showing the importance of word studies and in context reading. So I guess I am left with a few questions. Is this referring to the place where the end times will begin? “Whatever Armageddon refers to, the kingdom of the beast will gather for a final confrontation with the Lamb that was slain in order to finally show who is worthy of the worship of the nations.” You end with this and I think I understand but at the same time I just get a bit confused when it comes to the mystery of some of the things in scripture. I think this is normal but at the same time I don’t like being confused.