Dr. Gleason - Religion & Faith

Education & Background / Family / Hobbies / Religion

The Battle of Armageddon 

Where in the Bible is a future "Battle of Armageddon mentioned?

Answer: "Nowhere"

For starters, in Revelation 16:16, the Bible states:  "Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon." 

Note: for this discussion all Bible text is taken from the NIV at www.biblegateways.com 

Many people find this surprising due to all of the modern day movie making and book writing pertaining to such a future battle.  Yet, I have thus far found no clear indication of a future "Battle of Armageddon".

To add some understanding and clarity, it is logical to study the paragraphs and chapters most proximal to the above verse, Revelation 16:16


Revelation 16:14 “They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.” Granted, this does get the word “battle” at least in within a couple of verses of 16:16. Admitted, a battle is indicated and Kings are involved, drawn out by the demons. Still, the fact remains there is no indication of a Battle occurring at Armageddon. 

It is noteworthy that the Kings of the “whole world” were drawn out. I have discussed before that much of the New Testament books use “world” to refer to the Roman Empire. If every competent nation of the modern world were to field an army on the Mount of Megiddo, they would likely spill over into the sea. Less or no speculation is needed when one considers that true earthly Kings did gather their armies together at the Mount of Megiddo before launching siege to Jerusalem in 67 – 70 A.D.  As to the “great day of God Almighty” – pages of discussion are possible here, but the destruction of Jerusalem, The Temple, the Sanhedrin, and the Blood Sacrifices in the Temple I am sure was considered a “great day of judgment by God Almighty” by the first readers of John’s Apocalypse. It was significant enough to be foretold by Jesus and documented by John also in his Gospel: John 4:21-23  Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.   You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, ……….. ‘ 


After Rev 16:16, the next hint of possible physical, earthly battle appears in the next chapter. That verse is: 

17: 14 "They will make war against the Lamb," 
If such were to occur in this post-modern world as the “futurists” claim, it seems difficult to imagine that a group of leaders would lead large scale military assaults against "the Lamb" when the lamb is so dispersed, suppressed, and persecuted, although victorious forever. Note, it does not say "make war against or between the pagan, atheist, or unbelieving peoples”. It is against the “Lamb” (or perhaps a consolidation of His people or something that symbolizes Him ie. His Church) There is only one tiny nation on earth that claims to exist solely to represent the Lamb. That would not make a very epic battle. Certainly, no giant gathering of armies would need to gather at Armageddon or Megiddo in order to assault the Vatican or any dispersed group of Christians. If it is a future physical, military attack against the Lamb (His Church), this Church would have to be physically present and organized in such a manner as to be attacked by a military force or forces. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ already refused to take up the sword, in the sense of him being a physical military leader, and stated that if his Kingdom were of this world he would call down angels, etc…..” What evidence is there that he should do any differently after his “completed work” has been done. I think one should not only consider verse 17:14 in the context of the 1st century of Christianity, but also in the context of a spiritual battle. It seems a bit silly to picture Jesus come riding on a white horse into battle against tanks, missiles, and airplanes, in the 21st century. Admitted, he can do as he wills. 

Jesus has already taken his seat at the throne of David! John 16: 33 “……. In this world you will have trouble (the RSV uses “tribulation” in place of “trouble”). But take heart! I have overcome the world." 

In John 12: 31 “Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.”

Going backward a couple more verses: 

Revelation 16: 12 "The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East". In a cataclysmic clash of world powers in the 21st century, no one (in my opinion) would need a dried up river to launch an attack, be it Desert Storm I, II, or a Chinese or Islamic Invasion, any half-way rational invasion would start by air first, ICBM's, cruise missiles, airplanes, drones, etc. Furthermore, any modern military will be very cautious against gathering large numbers of ground forces in one place as they would be very vulnerable to a nuclear strike. To add a little more clarity, in modern times, be it Americans, Muslims, Chinese, Russians, etc. the "kings", presidents, dictators, etc do not lead the charge into battle.
That ended during the proximate time of the American Civil War & Napoleon. In modern times, the head guy stays in safe quarters. 


However, during the 1st century A.D., during the period of the Jewish-Roman wars, things were different, as can be read at nauseum in the Works of Josephus (Flavius) in his work, the section on War of the Jews, pages 543 – 770.  As to the reality of “kings” truly participating in the scenes depicted in Revelation, one may turn to page 698 of The Works of Josephus, Book 5, Chapter 1, Section 6, line 42, “Of these legions he ordered the fifth to meet him, by going through Emmaus, and the tenth to go up by Jericho; he also moved himself, together with the rest; besides whom marched those auxiliaries that came from the Kings, ………..” Other nearby reading indicates that King Agrippa and his soldiers were desperately trying to protect the Temple itself from the three competing savage gangs of zealots fighting over control of Jerusalem prior to the siege on Jerusalem by Titus. If my recollection serves me correctly, Titus himself and his own soldiers did come from the “East” Armies posted on the East side of the Euphrates River during the first century A.D. would be greatly aided by a dried up river, contrasted with a modern military. 

According to Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 1, Par 6, verse 44 “..There followed him also three thousand drawn from those that guarded the river Euphrates…” Any verse from Josephus included herein came from approx. 1 or 2 hours total reading. I don’t doubt that I could find his account of the Euphrates drying up prior to the invasion of Jerusalem. 



Revelation 17:10 "........Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come;......." The angel is explaining to John the vision. Since the angel is aiming to make things more clear to John, we should perhaps think in a practical way, at least for starters. Five have already died. One is alive. Start with that. Assuming that this vision describes kings, emperors, or world leaders and not peasants, the one alive would have to be Nero or Domitian, depending upon the time of writing of the book, circa 68 A.D. or 95 A.D. I assume that John understood who or what the "other has yet to come" meant. Would it not seem rational for John to assume that the "other has yet to come" to be the next Roman Emperor since clearly "one is" at the time of the vision and its writing. This is not a matter of what “is” is!!  



Interestingly, the kings are gathered together by "they". 
I reasonably presume that "they" are the angels pouring/delivering the 7 bowls of judgment of God? As well, I presume that if the ancient pagan empire of Babylon could carry out a judgment of God by conquering Jerusalem, destroying the Temple, and carrying the people into captivity, then the same could be done by the Romans in 67-70 A.D, particularly as a judgment against the Sanhedrin, the Temple sacrifices, and the hardened hearts.  Remember the words of Jesus:  “Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.” John 12: 31 


More on Armageddon

Many kings and generals, led by Titus, gathered at the Mount of Megiddo (Armageddon) prior to launching the invasion upon Jerusalem during the Jewish-Roman wars of 67 to 70 A.D. 

I think it is noteworthy that the scripture Rev 16:16 goes to the trouble to mention “which is called in Hebrew Armageddon”. If John wrote the remainder of this book in Greek, why did he not use the Greek version of the name, which I am presuming to be Megiddo, as we use in English, especially if his many prophecies applied specifically to the 21st century?

Perhaps, because he wanted his readers to recognize the term/place as described in the scriptures and history books of the Jewish people?
In the Bible, this location was the site of many past historic battles: Judges 4-5, Judges 6-7, 1 Samuel 29-31.  Mentioning the Hebrew name Armageddon would conjure up memories of all of these events. More important than those however, would be the battle of King Josiah against the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho, during which Josiah was killed. ( 2 Kings 23:29; Zechariah 12: 10-11) A short time later, Babylon intervened, defeating the Israelites and the Egyptians and destroyed the city of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple. 

Where in the Bible is a future "Battle of Armageddon mentioned?

Answer: "Nowhere"

For starters, in Revelation 16:16, the Bible states:  "Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon." 

Note: for this discussion all Bible text is taken from the NIV at www.biblegateways.com 

Many people find this surprising due to all of the modern day movie making and book writing pertaining to such a future battle.  Yet, I have thus far found no clear indication of a future "Battle of Armageddon".

To add some understanding and clarity, it is logical to study the paragraphs and chapters most proximal to the above verse, Revelation 16:16


Revelation 16:14 “They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.” Granted, this does get the word “battle” at least in within a couple of verses of 16:16. Admitted, a battle is indicated and Kings are involved, drawn out by the demons. Still, the fact remains there is no indication of a Battle occurring at Armageddon. 

It is noteworthy that the Kings of the “whole world” were drawn out. I have discussed before that much of the New Testament books use “world” to refer to the Roman Empire. If every competent nation of the modern world were to field an army on the Mount of Megiddo, they would likely spill over into the sea. Less or no speculation is needed when one considers that true earthly Kings did gather their armies together at the Mount of Megiddo before launching siege to Jerusalem in 67 – 70 A.D.  As to the “great day of God Almighty” – pages of discussion are possible here, but the destruction of Jerusalem, The Temple, the Sanhedrin, and the Blood Sacrifices in the Temple I am sure was considered a “great day of judgment by God Almighty” by the first readers of John’s Apocalypse. It was significant enough to be foretold by Jesus and documented by John also in his Gospel: John 4:21-23  Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.   You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, ……….. ‘ 


After Rev 16:16, the next hint of possible physical, earthly battle appears in the next chapter. That verse is: 

17: 14 "They will make war against the Lamb," If such were to occur in this post-modern world as the “futurists” claim, it seems difficult to imagine that a group of leaders would lead large scale military assaults against "the Lamb" when the lamb is so dispersed, suppressed, and persecuted, although victorious forever. Note, it does not say "make war against or between the pagan, atheist, or unbelieving peoples”. It is against the “Lamb” (or perhaps a consolidation of His people or something that symbolizes Him ie. His Church) There is only one tiny nation on earth that claims to exist solely to represent the Lamb. That would not make a very epic battle. Certainly, no giant gathering of armies would need to gather at Armageddon or Megiddo in order to assault the Vatican or any dispersed group of Christians. If it is a future physical, military attack against the Lamb (His Church), this Church would have to be physically present and organized in such a manner as to be attacked by a military force or forces. In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ already refused to take up the sword, in the sense of him being a physical military leader, and stated that if his Kingdom were of this world he would call down angels, etc…..” What evidence is there that he should do any differently after his “completed work” has been done. I think one should not only consider verse 17:14 in the context of the 1st century of Christianity, but also in the context of a spiritual battle. It seems a bit silly to picture Jesus come riding on a white horse into battle against tanks, missiles, and airplanes, in the 21st century. Admitted, he can do as he wills. 

Jesus has already taken his seat at the throne of David! John 16: 33 “……. In this world you will have trouble (the RSV uses “tribulation” in place of “trouble”). But take heart! I have overcome the world." 

In John 12: 31 “Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.”

Going backward a couple more verses: 

Revelation 16: 12 "The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East". In a cataclysmic clash of world powers in the 21st century, no one (in my opinion) would need a dried up river to launch an attack, be it Desert Storm I, II, or a Chinese or Islamic Invasion, any half-way rational invasion would start by air first, ICBM's, cruise missiles, airplanes, drones, etc. Furthermore, any modern military will be very cautious against gathering large numbers of ground forces in one place as they would be very vulnerable to a nuclear strike. To add a little more clarity, in modern times, be it Americans, Muslims, Chinese, Russians, etc. the "kings", presidents, dictators, etc do not lead the charge into battle.
That ended during the proximate time of the American Civil War & Napoleon. In modern times, the head guy stays in safe quarters. 


However, during the 1st century A.D., during the period of the Jewish-Roman wars, things were different, as can be read at nauseum in the Works of Josephus (Flavius) in his work, the section on War of the Jews, pages 543 – 770.  As to the reality of “kings” truly participating in the scenes depicted in Revelation, one may turn to page 698 of The Works of Josephus, Book 5, Chapter 1, Section 6, line 42, “Of these legions he ordered the fifth to meet him, by going through Emmaus, and the tenth to go up by Jericho; he also moved himself, together with the rest; besides whom marched those auxiliaries that came from the Kings, ………..” Other nearby reading indicates that King Agrippa and his soldiers were desperately trying to protect the Temple itself from the three competing savage gangs of zealots fighting over control of Jerusalem prior to the siege on Jerusalem by Titus. If my recollection serves me correctly, Titus himself and his own soldiers did come from the “East” Armies posted on the East side of the Euphrates River during the first century A.D. would be greatly aided by a dried up river, contrasted with a modern military. 

According to Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 1, Par 6, verse 44 “..There followed him also three thousand drawn from those that guarded the river Euphrates…” Any verse from Josephus included herein came from approx. 1 or 2 hours total reading. I don’t doubt that I could find his account of the Euphrates drying up prior to the invasion of Jerusalem. 



Revelation 17:10 "........Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come;......." The angel is explaining to John the vision. Since the angel is aiming to make things more clear to John, we should perhaps think in a practical way, at least for starters. Five have already died. One is alive. Start with that. Assuming that this vision describes kings, emperors, or world leaders and not peasants, the one alive would have to be Nero or Domitian, depending upon the time of writing of the book, circa 68 A.D. or 95 A.D. I assume that John understood who or what the "other has yet to come" meant. Would it not seem rational for John to assume that the "other has yet to come" to be the next Roman Emperor since clearly "one is" at the time of the vision and its writing. This is not a matter of what “is” is!!  



Interestingly, the kings are gathered together by "they". 
I reasonably presume that "they" are the angels pouring/delivering the 7 bowls of judgment of God? As well, I presume that if the ancient pagan empire of Babylon could carry out a judgment of God by conquering Jerusalem, destroying the Temple, and carrying the people into captivity, then the same could be done by the Romans in 67-70 A.D, particularly as a judgment against the Sanhedrin, the Temple sacrifices, and the hardened hearts.  Remember the words of Jesus:  “Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.” John 12: 31 


More on Armageddon

Many kings and generals, led by Titus, gathered at the Mount of Megiddo (Armageddon) prior to launching the invasion upon Jerusalem during the Jewish-Roman wars of 67 to 70 A.D. 

I think it is noteworthy that the scripture Rev 16:16 goes to the trouble to mention “which is called in Hebrew Armageddon”. If John wrote the remainder of this book in Greek, why did he not use the Greek version of the name, which I am presuming to be Megiddo, as we use in English, especially if his many prophecies applied specifically to the 21st century?

Perhaps, because he wanted his readers to recognize the term/place as described in the scriptures and history books of the Jewish people?
In the Bible, this location was the site of many past historic battles: Judges 4-5, Judges 6-7, 1 Samuel 29-31.  Mentioning the Hebrew name Armageddon would conjure up memories of all of these events. More important than those however, would be the battle of King Josiah against the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho, during which Josiah was killed. ( 2 Kings 23:29; Zechariah 12: 10-11) A short time later, Babylon intervened, defeating the Israelites and the Egyptians and destroyed the city of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple.