THE OT BACKGROUND TO ARMAGEDDON
(REV. 16:16) REVISITED
by
MARKO JAUHIAINEN
Tampere
Abstract
This
study challenges
the old view,
accord
recently championed
by John Day,
the 'Mount of Megiddo'
and is a
16:16) means
12:11 and the 'mountains of Israel' in Ezek. 38
Zecharian
and Ezekielian
influence, a closer inspection
'ApuxxyeScov (Rev.
ing to which
in Zech.
conflation of'Megiddo'
39.
Instead
of betraying
con
of Rev.
16:16 points to the Isaian and Jeremian prophecies
a
as
more
v.
of
the
destruction
of
'Apuaye?
Babylon
cerning
plausible background
It is concluded
that the solution to the riddle of 'Armageddon'
is most likely to
an inter
be found in the etymological
and that within this approach,
approach
of the context
of the word as a reference to the "cutting down"
more attractive than other alternatives.
pretation
of the "mountain"
is perhaps
Babylon
Few names or concepts in Revelation have acquired wider currency
than 'Armageddon', by which the popular mind usually understands
an end-time battle thatmore or less brings about the end of the world
as we know it.*Unfortunately, the full significance of John's reference
to
is not
'Apuaye?cov
as David
Aune
has
as
quite
recently
never been
as
obvious,
pointed
out,
scholars
name
"the
well
know.
Indeed,
has
'Harmagedon'
satisfactorily explained".1 As far as this is true, the import
of 'Apjiaye?cbv in the context of John's story has not been fully appre
ciated,
either.
If the full significance of this famous name
no means due to a lack of proposals, which
Yet
while
'Apficxyeocuv,
there
is no
the most
ence or an allusion
consensus
common
explanation
is that
to the town ofMegiddo
* The
Use
remains veiled, it is by
are many and diverse.
regarding the interpretation of
following is a revised version of a paper
of the Old Testament
in the New Testament
it contains
a
read at the Annual
in Hawarden,
Seminar
North Wales,
2004.
1
D. Aune, Revelation 6-16 (WBC; Nashville:
Nelson,
1998) 898.
2
zur
Aune, Revelation 6-16, 898; M. Oberweis,
"Erw?gungen
apokalyptischen
B?blica 76 (1995) 305.
bezeichnung
'Harmagedon'",
? Koninklijke
Also available
Brill NV,
-
online
2005
Leiden,
www.brill.nl
refer
in northern Palestine.2 A
Novum
Testamentum
on
the
in April
Orts
XLVII,
4
382
MARKO
JAUHIAINEN
of such a view has been championed by John Day
in his
16:16 is an inter
influential 1994 article, where he argues that Rev.
12:11.3 The purpose of this study is to challenge
pretation of Zech.
to promote different interpretive avenues regard
and
Day's proposal
version
16:16 and John's use of the enigmatic word fAp|xaye8c?>v.In
has more to do with OT
particular, I will argue that Armageddon
destruction
than with the nations'
prophecies concerning Babylon's
ing Rev.
attack against
the saints or the Messiah,
as is often believed.
Before
that, however, we will first briefly look at why the word is problem
atic and then survey various solutions that have been offered to the
problem,
including Day's
proposal.
1. The Problem and Previous Proposals for a Solution
Though numerous variants are attested for theGreek word 'ApjiocyeScov
in Rev. 16:16,4 it is not the spelling of the word but rather itsHebrew
that has exercised the minds of commentators. In Hebrew,
meaning
fAp|iaye8a>v appears to mean har m?gidd?n, 'mount[ain of] Megiddo',
yet no such place is known to ever have existed. The question there
fore is, How
should we construe and interpret the Hebrew word or
phrase underlying the Greek word fAppxcye8a>v?
Solutions that have been offered can be divided
those
that
to make
interpret
sense
of
'Apjiaye?cov
the
sider the Hebrew
or
deeming
unimportant.
background
Day
'mount[ain
those
reference;
derives from a different Hebrew
able
as
that
of]
into three groups:
and
Megiddo'
suggest
that
try
eAp|Liaye8cbv
or phrase; and those that con
of 'Apjiaye?cov to be either unrecover
word
examines
proposals
from
all
them unconvincing on various grounds.5 Though
three
groups,
quite impres
3
16:16 as an Interpretation of
"The Origin
of Armageddon:
Revelation
John Day,
Zechariah
12:11", in S. Porter and P.Joyce
(eds.), Crossing theBoundaries: Essays inBiblical
followed, for
Interpretation inHonour ofMichael D. Goulder (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 315-26;
in theBook of
(An Exegetical Analysis ofJohn's Use of ?echariah
by R. Rogers
example,
The Impact and Transformation of ^echariah's Text and Themes in theApocalypse
111-14) and cited with
Seminary, 2002]
[Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological
Revelation (ECNT; Grand Rapids:
cautious approval by G. Osborne,
Baker, 2002) 560,
Grand
and G. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC;
Paternoster,
Eerdmans,
1999; Carlisle, England:
1999) 841.
Rapids:
4
M
'ApjiayeS?,
'Ap^eyeocov,
Ap^ieye??cov,
Apuaye??cov,
y?[?]?c?v, Apiieynocov,
(seeMetzger, A Textual Commentary
Apuaye?ov, Apuaye?coji, Maye?co?, Mayi?cov, Maicc??cov
Bible
on the Greek New Testament [2nd ed.; London:
United
Societies,
1994] 681).
Revelation:
'Apuayeocov is clearly the most likely original reading.
5 Here we can
a short summary of the proposals
examined
by Day
only present
315
see Day,
of Armageddon",
"The
and
details
references,
Origin
(for
bibliographic
THE
OT
BACKGROUND
TO
REVISITED
ARMAGEDDON
383
includes all the proposals ever
sive already, his survey by no means
to
with
the
forward
put
significance of fAp|xaye8cbv,for he chose
regard
to leave out "patristic and other pre-critical Christian views".6 We will
some
to
return
of
these
own proposal, which
a.
Day's
later.
belongs
First,
however,
we
will
evaluate
Day's
to the first group.
Proposal
John has
According to Day, by coining the expression fAp(xaye8cov,
an
to
is
allusion
the
escha
two
OT
motifs:
combined
'Ap
important
tological battle on the mountains of Israel, depicted in Ezek. 38 and
in Zech.
12:11, where it
39, and MayeScov is an allusion toMegiddo
ismentioned in the context of the eschatological battle against Jerusalem.
is the first to
these connections have been made before,7 Day
reasons
out
is
how
this
the
fApjiaye8c?v
why
ought to be
fully
spell
While
understood.
22). According
and is never
name
to him, Armageddon
for it is too far from Megiddo
(a) is not Mt Carmel,
called
'mountain of Megiddo';
(b) does not derive from TeGeuiya?cov,
for
of Ereshkigal
(the Babylonian
goddess of the underworld),
to suggest a connection;
in Revelation
(c) does not come from Hebrew
har m?c?d, 'Mount of Assembly', for it is too remote in form to be a source of Armageddon;
har migd?, 'his fruitfulmountain'
(i.e., Mt Zion), for it
(d) does not come from Hebrew
of the husband
there is nothing
'mount of (the)
of Mt Zion or anywhere else; (e) does not mean,
the Great), for this proposal has nothing to commend
it;
(i.e., Alexander
or car hemda, 'the
c?r m?gidd?n, 'the city of Megiddo',
(f) does not come from Hebrew
and c?r only for a
desirable
city', for car is never attested for c?r ('city') in Hebrew
Moabite
place name Ar; (g) does not come from '?rac m?gidd?n, 'the land of Megiddo',
'land' and there is even less reason to call Megiddo
for the vocalization
tells against
is never
Macedonian'
employed
a land than a mountain;
are "far-fetched";
gestions
derives from apocalyptic
or Rome,
for such sug
(h) is not a code name for Jerusalem
and (i) is not a name, whose meaning
is unknown and which
tradition, for such a view is "a counsel of despair". As for
can be referred
the first proposal,
there is some force in Day's
objection, yet ifKishon
or if it is
to as 'the waters of Megiddo',
to speak about
'Taanach,
possible
by the
as
waters of Megiddo'
then Mt Carmel
is not com
(Judg. 5:19-21),
'Armageddon'
is located is only about
range where Mt Carmel
pletely impossible, for the mountain
than Taanach.
2km farther from Megiddo
6
315nl. Also left out are?obviously?the
views
Day, "The Origin of Armageddon",
to symbolize
of later commentators.
for example,
considers Armageddon
the
Beale,
to his unqualified
world
of this view,
(Revelation, 835). In addition
acceptance
Beale
is cautious not to completely
rule out other possibilities. Thus, he also consid
ers it
that Armageddon
and Mt Zion, or that it is refer
possible
symbolizes Jerusalem
or that it is associated with Mt Carmel.
Furthermore,
ring to the 'city of Megiddo',
he deems Day's
argument "probable"
(841).
7
I. Beckwith, The Apocalypse ofJohn: Studies in Introduction with a Critical and
E.g.,
1919; reprint, Grand Rapids:
Exegetical Commentary (New York: Macmillan,
Baker,
1967)
whole
685.
384
MARKO
JAUHIAINEN
Assuming that theHebrew phrase underlying 'Apiiaye? v is har megid
d?n, 'mountain of Megiddo',
Day gives five reasons why John must
have taken up the reference toMegiddo
from Zech. 12: ll:8 First, prior
to Revelation, Zech.
12:11 is the only place where Megiddo
appears
in an apocalyptic context. Second, Zech.
12:11 is the only instance of
a
the MT
with
final
nun, i.e., m?gidd?n rather than
spelling Megiddo
a
not
has
"exerted
Zechariah
megiddo.Third,
only
pervasive influence
but also the verses immediately
throughout the Book of Revelation",
and
and 12:12, are clearly alluded
12:10
preceding
following 12:11, i.e.,
by verses that
show "evidence of influence" from Zech.
12-14, i.e., 16:13-14 and
in Zech.
16:18-19. Fourth, the reference to the 'valley of Megiddo'
to in Rev.
1:7. Moreover,
Rev.
is sandwiched
16:16
12:11 naturally suggests the presence of a mountain also. Finally, the
author of Revelation may have read Zech. 12:11 as implying that the
in the context of an escha
nations of the earth will mourn inMegiddo
an
tological battle against Jerusalem and thus arrived at the idea of
end-time assembly for battle at Megiddo.
Day solves the traditional problem, i.e., the absence of a mountain
as an allu
in or near Megiddo,
by taking the prefix *Ap in fAp|Liaye8a>v
sion to Ezek. 38-39. He considers this likely for the following three
reasons:9 (1) Ezek. 38:8, 39:2, 4, 17 "predict that the eschatological
conflict will
EzekiePs
'on the mountains
take place
influence
general
of Israel'";
Revelation
throughout
(2) not only is
obvious,
but
chap
ters 38-39 have
specifically influenced John's portrayal of the conflicts
in Rev.
19:17-21 and 20:7-10; and (3) John often conflates themes
from different OT books and elsewhere in Revelation we find exam
ples of other conflations of Ezekiel
b. Evaluation
of Day's
and Zechariah.
Proposal
are some weaknesses with Day's proposal, however. First, it
on
rests
the assumption that theHebrew phrase underlying 'AppxxyeScov
this is
is indeed to be translated as the 'mountain ofMegiddo'. While
as we will see below. Second,
as
exist
other
well,
possibilities
possible,
a single eschatological
Day seems to take it for granted that there is
as I
conflict which John narrates and to which he alludes. However,
'end-time
have argued elsewhere, John does not collapse different OT
There
conflict' traditions into one but alludes
8
9
Day,
Day,
"The Origin
"The Origin
of Armageddon",
of Armageddon",
319-26.
323.
to at least three different tra
THE
OT
BACKGROUND
TO
ARMAGEDDON
REVISITED
385
ditions in the course of his narrative and uses them for different pur
to the apocalyptic
context of the word
poses.10 Third, the appeal
not
in
the use of the OT
is
for
Zech.
12:11
very helpful,
'Megiddo'
inRevelation is by no means limited to apocalyptic passages. Moreover,
if a name or motif appears inmore than one place in the OT,
there
is no evidence thatJohn prefers the apocalyptic context simply because
of the perceived similarities in the genre.11 Indeed, it is difficult to
demonstrate that out of a number of possible background texts fea
turing a motif, John ever alludes to one specific text rather than to
the motif in general, unless there are clear indicators to the contrary.
In other words, ifJohn intends to allude only to theMegiddo
of Zech.
on
to
that
needs
be
established
other
12:11,
grounds. Fourth, the fact
that Zechariah
a
have
number
has
of
influenced Revelation
other
OT
books
as
is equally unhelpful, for so
well.
a
Furthermore,
closer
around Rev.
16:16
analysis of the proposed allusions to Zechariah
reveals that Day has somewhat overestimated the Zecharian
influence
on John's portrayal of the last two bowls.12
Fifth, while the argument from the final n?n has some force, it ulti
mately remains unconvincing. The fact that the same Hebrew word
'Megiddo' (V??) has been transliterated by the translators of the LXX
in seven different ways should make one at least cautious regarding
if the Greek word Maye?cov in the
the opposite process.13 Moreover,
translates or transliterates in three occasions
OT
HUG in Hebrew,14
16:16 the same word must come from
how do we know that in Rev.
]Hj1D instead? After all, the only place where
has
12:11,
ple
than
form
as
apparently
of
a
JTT3, 'to
proper
been
cut',
noun.15
read
'cut
It
by
down',
is also
the
'cut
worth
]YTD appears,
LXX
off',
asking
translator
or TO,
whether
as
i.e., Zech.
a
'to cut',
John's
partici
rather
audi
ence would have been aware of, and able to recall, the differentHebrew
10M.
and Chronological
Jauhiainen,
"Recapitulation
Progression inJohn's Apocalypse:
a New
Towards
49 (2003) 543-59.
Perspective", NTS
11
If this were
the case, one would
to Zechariah,
for
expect to see more allusions
'Behold, I am Coming': The Use of^echariah inRevelation
(see furtherM. Jauhiainen,
example
of Cambridge,
[Ph.D. diss., University
2003]).
12
For a thorough analysis of the use of Zechariah
see Jauhiainen,
in Revelation,
Behold.
13
v (Josh. 12:21); Maye??co
Maye?
(Josh. 17:11); Maye?co
(Judg. 1:27); Meye??co
(Judg.5:19); Mccy?co[?] (3Kgdms. 2:35 LXX/1 Kgs. 9:15 MT); Meke?co (3Kgdms.
4:12); and Maye??cov
(4 Kgdms.
9:27).
14
1:27 (A); 2 Chr. 35:22.
12:21; Judg.
Josh.
15 JH3
is normally favoured
(T. Jansma, Inquiry into theHebrew Text and theAncient
Versions ofZechariah IX-XIV
1
[Leiden: Brill, 1949] 199; W. Rudolph,
Haggai/Sacharja
8/Sacharja 9-14/Maleachi
[KzAT XII 4; G?tersloh: G?tersloher Verlaghaus Mohn,
1976]
386
MARKO
JAUHIAINEN
and, on the basis of the final 3 in Zech.
12:11,
spellings ofMegiddo,
been able tomake a connection. It seems more likely thatJohn's point
3 in
regarding Hebrew was not to draw attention to the paragogic
is a
12:11, but rather to the fact that in Hebrew, Armageddon
conflation of 'mount[ain]' and something else.
Sixth, while the Hebrew word Hi?pD in Zech. 12:11 could have the
Zech.
sense Valley' or 'plain', why would the author of Revelation, usually
a Palestinian Jew, read it as 'valley' if there is neither
thought to be
a valley, nor mountains,
inMegiddo?
lends no sup
Again, the LXX
to Day's
argument, for the translator has chosen rce?iov ('level
'plain', 'field') rather than (papaya ('valley', 'ravine') or koi?cx?
place',
('a hollow', 'deep valley'), both of which would have more readily con
port
a
noted
elevated
high,
In any case, even
surrounded
as
area?such
a
mountain?bordering
if 7te8iov can be used
by mountains,
in the context of Zech.
no
such
to describe
connotation
the
HtfpD.
a proper valley
is necessary,
especially
12:11.
Seventh, Day's otherwise interesting reconstruction of how John must
is weakened by the fact that he leaves the role
have read Zechariah
of
very
'Hadad-Rimmon'?clearly
plained
stood
in John's
it either
as
stating that John may
reading, merely
a
place
name
in Zech.
prominent
or
as
a
personal
name.16
12:11?unex
have under
Moreover,
even if correct, Day's reconstruction would merely supply a motive for
16:16 and not function as evidence
12:11 in Rev.
alluding to Zech.
that John has actually done so in the first place.
reasons for invoking Ezekiel 38-39 as the source of
Eighth, Day's
are not adequate
in the phrase 'mountain ofMegiddo'
the mountain
to explain why that passage should be preferred over other OT pas
sages
that
connect
an
eschatological
conflict
with
a mountain
or moun
tains. Indeed, John had better traditions available, as we will see below.
Finally, together with most commentators, Day fails to explain why,
in the context of the summary description of the fall of Babylon, John
a passing reference in 16:16 to a chronologically subse
described three (19:11-21) or four (20:7-10) chapters
conflict
quent
later. Thus, while Day's proposal remains the best defence of the tra
would
have
comp., A Greek-English Lexicon of theSeptuagint
218; J. Lust, E. Eynekel, and K. Hauspie,
1997] 183), though some seem to
Bibelgesellschaft,
[Part II: k-co; Stuttgart: Deutsche
A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Twelve Prophets
accept 113 instead (T. Muraoka,
the translator (a) misread
1993] 71). It is impossible to say whether
[Louvain: Peeters,
was close
was confounded
by the hapax and groped for something that
[]]V for ]1, (b)
one of their senses,
as
cut
to
113
ITT3
down'
'to
have
and
considered
both
(c)
enough,
our MT
at Zech.
or (d) had a Hebrew
12:11.
Vorlage different from
16
323.
"The Origin
of Armageddon",
Day,
THE
OT
TO
BACKGROUND
REVISITED
ARMAGEDDON
387
'mountain of Megiddo'
position, we must conclude that, in
the final analysis, itsmany weaknesses render it unsatisfactory.
ditional
2. AlternativePossibilities
As an alternative to the 'mountain ofMegiddo'
perspective, I would
16:16 that both takes
like to present an approach to interpreting Rev.
its context in John's unfolding story seriously and ismore sensitive to
background. Let us begin by looking at the context of Rev.
16:16. One of the interesting features of 16:14-16 is the fact that no
its OT
enemy
a battle
nor
is mentioned,
narrated,
so
that
the
audience
need
to fill in the gaps themselves. The information provided by the con
text is therefore crucial. The seven bowls, beginning in 16:1, are part
of the process described as "destroying the destroyers of the earth",17
16:12-16 portraying the pouring out of the sixth bowl, together with
the accompanying events. This is immediately followed by the seventh
bowl, as "God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the
cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath" (16:19b). The next section,
17:1-19:10, focuses almost entirely on the description of Babylon and
her fate, elaborating on the summary statement in 16:19b. The place
ment of 16:16 thus suggests that the gathering of troops toArmageddon
has something to do with the destruction of Babylon.
this conclusion seems to be confounded by 17:14, which
However,
the kings "will make war
says that the beast and
this
verse
have
the picture
tions
refers
clearly
concluded
suggest.
to
the
events
in
therefore
19:11-21,
refers
to
most
the
As
commentators
same
battle.
Yet
that simple, as the following five considera
is not quite
First,
the
16:14-16
that
on the Lamb".
immediate
context
concerns
the
destruction
of
Babylon, which makes it very difficult for the audience, at least at the
first reading of the document, to perceive 16:14-16 as a description of
something that follows three chapters later, especially if there are any
reasons
to
connect
the
passage
with
its present
context.
Second,
if
16:14-16 refers primarily to the confrontation narrated in chapter 19,
the way the story is shaped gives the odd impression that the kings
of the earth were gathered to Armageddon
before the seventh bowl,
presumably waiting there while Babylon was being destroyed.
Third, the activities of the beast and the kings are described not
only in 17:14, but also in 17:16-17, according to which the coalition
17
R.
T&T
Bauckham,
The Climax
Clark, 1993) 21.
of Prophecy: Studies on theBook
of Revelation
(Edinburgh:
388
MARKO
JAUHIAINEN
will make
Babylon "desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and
burn her up with fire", "for God has put it into their hearts to carry
out his purpose".18 Thus, while God
is ultimately responsible for
the
actual
work
is
done
Babylon's fall,
by the beast and the kings and
their forces, who attack and destroy Babylon. Moreover,
John, this takes place before the confrontation between
according to
the beast and
the Lamb in chapter 19. This fits the biblical pattern whereby God
uses one evil nation to punish another, which in turn is punished by
yet another nation, and so forth, until God or his Messiah
slays the
final
enemy.19
Fourth, our interpretation is consistent with the legend of Nero's
return, to which John appears to allude in his description of the beast
and its activities.20 One of the aspects of the legend portrays Nero as
returning from the East, allied with
Rome.21 If John understood Babylon
the Parthians, and destroying
or some
to symbolize Rome
aspects of the Roman Empire, then the sixth bowl is best understood
as a preparation for the seventh bowl, which in turn is expanded on
in chapters 17 and 18.
texts
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, some of the key OT
behind Rev. 16:14-19:5, particularly Isa. 13 and Jer. 50 and 51, envis
age the destruction of Babylon at the hands of foreign armies and
many kings.22 Thus, the great gathering of kings for war in 16:14-16
is, at
least
in the first
instance,
for
the purpose
of attacking
ing Babylon,23 rather than to attack the Lamb
is narrated
and
destroy
and his forces, which
later.24
18The
(16:16) are
"kings from the east" (16:12) and the "kings of the whole world"
to be the same kings that "receive authority as kings for one hour,
understood
The Climax ofProphecy, 429; and
(17:12); see, e.g., Bauckham,
together with the beast"
Beale, Revelation, 878.
19
& Stoughton,
Cf. M. Kiddle,
The Revelation of St. John (London: Hodder
1947)
327.
20
The Climax of Prophecy, 407-31.
Bauckham,
21 It is also worth
to Herodotus,
the historical Babylon was
noting that according
and Persians, who entered the city by way of the
in 539 B.C. by Medes
conquered
1.191; cf. Jer. 50:38).
(Herodotus
dried-up bed of the Euphrates River
22 See
Rev.
17:1b //Jer. 51:13; Rev.
16:14 // Isa. 13:4 (cf. LXX);
especially Rev.
18:2 // Isa.
17:16 //Jer. 50:13, 41, Jer. 51:25, 29; Rev.
17:2, 4 //Jer. 51:7; Rev.
usually
13:21, Jer. 50:39, Jer. 51:37;
Rev.
18:5 //Jer.
51:9; Rev.
18:6 //Jer.
50:15,
29, Jer.
51:24, 49; Rev. 18:8 //Jer.50:34 (27:34 LXX); Rev. 18:9 //Jer.50:46 (27:46 LXX);
18:24 //Jer. 51:49.
18:21 //Jer. 51:63; Rev.
Rev.
18:20 //Jer. 51:48; Rev.
23This
is recognized
Revelation, and G.
e.g., Kiddle,
only by few commentators,
A & C Black,
London:
The Revelation of St John theDivine
(2nd ed.; BNTC;
Caird,
1984).
24The
presence
of the definite
article with
n6Xz[Loq
in 16:14 may
be
explained
as
THE
OT
BACKGROUND
TO
ARMAGEDDON
REVISITED
389
16:16 and its con
Having established the close connection of Rev.
textwith the destruction of Babylon, we can now turn to the OT
texts
that John is primarily drawing from and see how they can illuminate
A brief analysis of Isa. 13 and Jer. 50-51
John's use of 'Apixocyeocbv.
reveals four significant links with Rev.
16:14-16 that affect the inter
pretation of the latter. First, in these OT passages, many kings and
nations are gathered together (Isa. 13:4; Jer. 50:9, 41-42; 51:27-28).
Second, the purpose of their gathering is for battle. Third, the battle
is against Babylon, whom the kings will make desolate (Jer. 50:13;
37), burn (Jer. 51:25), and devour (Jer. 51:34-35). Finally, not
is
the gathering of the kings and nations on the mountains (Isa.
only
but
also Babylon itself is called a 'destroying mountain' which
13:4),
51:29,
"destroys the whole earth" and which will therefore be made a 'burnt
mountain' (Jer. 51:25). Thus, ifJohn's purpose in Rev. 16:16 is to draw
is a conflation of
attention to the fact that in Hebrew, Armageddon
and
'mount[ain]'
something
else,
then
these
to
references
the moun
tains in the oracles regarding the destruction of Babylon clearly pro
vide a better contextual and thematic match than the mountains found
in Ezek.
38-39.
to the traditional view, then, the difficulty in the word
'ApjxocyeScovis not with 'Ap but with jiayeocbv.While the association of
a mountain with the destruction of
Babylon can be explained, as we
Contrary
is less obvious, unless 'Megiddo'
saw, the alleged connection toMegiddo
is understood merely as a symbol for a 'significant battle site'. However,
if that were the case, then there would be no allusion to Zech. 12:11
in Rev.
16:16
as
Day
suggests,
as
the
references
to
the
battles
at
or near Megiddo
occur in Judg. 5:19, 2 Kgs. 23:29-30, and 2 Chr.
ifJohn had 'the mountfain of] Megiddo'
35:22. Moreover,
in mind,
he could have said it equally well in Greek without losing any of the
significance attached to the phrase by Day and others who follow the
same line of interpretation. In other words, if the name of the town
in Greek appears as Maye?cov in the LXX, why draw attention to the
Hebrew
behind Maye?cov? Or are we to assume that John merely
wanted to provoke the imagination of his audience by making them
translate
a
'Ap?25
to a well-known
both by
gathering for war against Babylon,
envisaged
to see a reference in v. 14 to the
and Jeremiah. Alternatively,
if one wants
conflict in ch. 19, the assembling
at Armagedon
in v. 16, and the subsequent destruc
can be understood
as an intermediate
tion of Babylon,
phase
leading up to the battle
in ch. 19.
25
Oberweis
("Erw?gungen",
316-24) has suggested that 'Apfxaye?cov is a transliter
reference
Isaiah
390
MARKO
JAUHIAINEN
If there is a solution to the conundrum, it ismore likely to be found
in the etymology of the Hebrew word or phrase transliterated by John
as MccyeScbv, than in seeking a connection between the destruction of
in northern Palestine. As already
Babylon and the city of Megiddo
12:11 suggests that )TD? was read as a
mentioned, the LXX of Zech.
verbal form deriving from 113 or IH3. In addition to the meaning
'to
cut',
113
can
also
mean
'to band
together'
or
'to attack'.26
These
pos
sibilities have given rise to a number of views which were left out of
survey, the earliest well-known proposals coming from the sixth
Day's
and Andreas of
century. In their commentaries, both Oecumenius27
Ceasarea28
argued
that
in Hebrew,
'Apjiocyeocuv
means
'mountain
of
slaughter' and that the kings of the earth are gathered to thismoun
tain in order to be exterminated. This view has been followed by some
modern
scholars
as well.
Hans
LaRondelle,
for
example,
understands
fAp^iay??(i)vas the 'mountain of the cut down', which is the apoca
lyptic name for the place where Babylon, the beast, and the kings of
the world will be destroyed.29 Another variation of this view has been
as 'the marauding
offered by Caird, who interprets 'Armageddon'
an
to
in Jer. 51:25.30
mountain'
allusion
the
mountain',
'destroying
Alan Johnson, on the other hand, favours the sense 'to band together'
'the mountain of
of 113, suggesting that 'Ap^ayeScov in Hebrew means
ation of the Hebrew
phrase
]11iiD~in rather than ]T"I3D~in. If reversed and properly
in turn,
this would
(?"TIDI?).These,
divided,
(113) and Gomorrah
give the names Nod
which
in Gen. 4:16) and Gomorrah,
would allude to the fates of Cain
('Nod' appears
and certain other details of
of Babylon
the destruction
would
help to illuminate
It is
it fails to convince.
full argument
is ingenious,
Oberweis's
Revelation.
Though
to
have
been
able
somehow
read
would
those
Revelation
that
being
hearing
unlikely
actualize an allusion by means of 'Apuxxye?cov to Cain
given
(via 'Nod') and Gomorrah,
to traditions that are more
less effort?allusions
that they could have discerned?with
story.
closely related to the present context and the flow of John's
26 F.
Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Brigss (eds.), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and
an Appendix Containing theBiblical Aramaic (Peabody: Hendrickson,
English Lexicon: With
andj. J. Stamm (eds.), The Hebrew and Aramaic
1979) 151; L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner,
E. J.
the supervision of M.
Lexicon of the Old Testament (translated and edited under
4 vols; Leiden: Brill) 1:177.
Richardson;
27H. Hoskier
on theApocalypse: Now Printed
(ed.), The Complete Commentary of Oecumenius
at Messina,
the First Time from Manuscripts
Rome, Salonika, and Athos (University of
Ann Arbor,
series, vol. XXIII;
1928) 179-80.
studies, Humanistic
Michigan
28
des
Geschichte
Studien
zur
Schmid,
griechischenApokalypse-Textes, 1. Teil: Der Apokalypse
J.
Kommentar des Andreas vonKaisareia, Text (Munich: Karl Zink Verlag,
1955) 175.
29H.
27 (1989)
of Har-Magedon
"The Etymology
LaRondelle,
(Rev. 16:16)", AUSS
69-73.
30
Caird, Revelation, 207.
for
THE
OT
TO
BACKGROUND
ARMAGEDDON
REVISITED
391
of gathering troops', which would allude "to the prophetic
expectation of the gathering of the nations for judgment".31
These examples show that even within this etymological approach,
his place
there are at least three different paths one can follow, all of which
receive support from the passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah we exam
ined earlier. First, itmay be possible to interpret 'Apjiocye?covas 'the
of [his place of] gathering troops together'. The weakness
of this interpretation is that it repeats much of the information given
mountain
already
verses
two
i.e.,
earlier,
that
armies
are
gathering
together.32
Nevertheless, if this is what John intended, then it could perhaps still
function as a reference to themountain where the destroyers of Babylon
are gathered before they execute God's judgment (Isa. 13:4). Since
is called
herself
Babylon
'Apixaye?cov
could
also
refer
a
'mountain'
to her.
cf. Rev.
(Jer. 51:25;
Contrary
to
Johnson's
view,
17:9),
how
ever, the primary purpose of the gathering is to destroy Babylon, not
those gathered against her.
A second possibility is to take 'Ap^ayeocov as 'the attacking/maraud
in the case of the first alternative, the name
ing mountain'. Unlike
itselfwould
not contain a direct hint to Babylon's fate, though itwould
to Babylon and invoke the traditions concerning
still be an allusion
Babylon's destruction (Jer. 51:25). This option would be even more
attractive if the preposition etc could be read as expressing disadvan
is
tage, i.e., "They33 gathered them against the place that in Hebrew
called
'the marauding
the preposition
a
couple
of
mountain'".
examples
in the LXX
where
of our interpretation of e?c, however,
of Babylon's
cxovayG) more
While
frequently
eni to express the idea of 'gathering against',
destruction
and
the
etc
is used
the allusion
context
the first target of the gathering armies
instead.34
to the OT
of Revelation
is Babylon,
make
takes
there are
Regardless
traditions
clear
that
as we have noted
already.
31A.
Johnson,
The Expositor's Bible Commentarywith The New International Version:Revelation
Zondervan,
(Grand Rapids:
1996) 156.
32 In
we often find puns
a name which
somehow
Hebrew,
repeats some
involving
or Hos.
else from the verse, e.g., Mic.
"131?mart
1:10 (QJ,^sm
r?22,
thing
1:9,
"
QI? Vb DDK "O "'DI?$b in?
in order for a similar pun to be pre
K~lp "Din. However,
sent in Rev.
and instead of GDv?yco there
16:16, the whole verse should be in Hebrew
would be a form of "ill
33
is
lvvr\yayev is 3 sing., but ? eK7cope\)exai in v. 14 suggests that the antecedent
the "spirits" rather than "God
the Almighty".
34Deut.
2:23. Of course, one of the basic uses of ei? itself
32:23; Judg. 20:11; Odes
is to express disadvantage,
Greek Grammar Beyond the
(see, e.g., D. Wallace,
'against'
Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of theNew Testament [Grand Rapids:
Zondervan,
1996] 369).
392
MARKO
JAUHIAINEN
16-18 would
Perhaps the biggest dividends in the context of Rev.
be paid by the third alternative, according to which
fAp|iocy??(i>vis
interpreted as 'themountain of slaughter' or 'themountain of the cut
reading would also have the advantage of having a
in the translation of 'Megiddon'
in Zech.
12:11
partial precedent
LXX.36 Again, the one slaughtered or cut down in the first instance
down'.35 This
be Babylon rather than her destroyers, as commentators usu
assume.
As the prophets of old prophesied, instead of ascending
ally
to heaven and sitting on the mount of assembly, she will be "cut
would
down" (JT?3;Isa. 14:12-13); she was "the hammer of the whole earth",
but will now be "cut down" (IH3; Jer. 50:23) when the attacking kings
and their armies destroy her (Jer. 50:15, 29, 40-41).
If this approach is correct, then the toponym coined by John would
function as an ironic hint to the fate of the pompous and wicked
mountain, whose final hour is about to be described and explained,
then in some detail in chapters 17 and 18. After the
statement
in 16:19, "God remembered Babylon the great,
summary
to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath", John
first briefly and
declares
that
observation
"no
were
mountains
regarding
the
association
to be
found".
of a mountain
our
earlier
or mountains
with
Given
it is tempting to see v. 20 as a confirmation that
Babylon in the OT,
Babylon has indeed been successfully "cut down".37 This would also
fitwell with John's tendency to bring explicit closure to unfulfilled OT
prophecies.38
35 In
the literal 'mountain
Hebrew,
In Greek,
of the 'cut down mountain'.
genitive'.
36Cf. nl5
of [the] cut down', can have the semantic force
this type of genitive is sometimes called 'Hebrew
shared a consonantal
12:11, John and his audience
If, at Zech.
text resembling our LXX,
then the
to our MT,
and a Greek
translation of ]"I130 as ?KK07CTOuivo\) in the LXX may well have suggested a partial
the senses of IH3 and 113, regardless of how the translator
semantic overlap between
viewed
]113D.
37 If one wishes to see an allusion to Zechariah
in Rev.
16:16, perhaps a better can
didate would
stands
as
above.
text identical
Hebrew
be
in the way
which
the levelling of the 'great mountain',
the prophecy concerning
of the temple (Zech. 4). Insofar
of the building and the completion
as a reference to the glorious eschatological
is and was understood
the prophecy
where
the great
to be built, there is a direct parallel
in Revelation,
temple that was
needs to be destroyed before God's
and destroying
'mountain', Babylon,
eschatologi
can become
full reality.
in the midst of His people
cal dwelling place
38On
concern
writers
teachers and apocalyptic
of Jewish prophetic
the general
to close divine predictions
that had remained
see, e.g., M.
Fishbane,
unfulfilled,
Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon,
1985) 465; and D. S. Russell,
The Method
178-202.
& Message
ofJewish Apocalyptic, 200
BC-AD
100
(London:
SCM,
1964)
THE
In sum, while
or
'ApjiayeScbv
BACKGROUND
OT
absolute
TO
ARMAGEDDON
may
elude
us,
393
the precise
certainty regarding
its constituents
REVISITED
explanations
import of
connecting
it to the kings' attack against Babylon are in any case more likely in
16-18 than understanding it as an allusion to the
the context of Rev.
of
in
Zech. 12:11 or the 'mountains of Israel' in Ezek.
'plain
Megiddo'
38 and 39.
3. Conclusion
as
Even
'Armageddon' has invaded the popular consciousness, its
specific import in John's narrative continues to be a matter of some
debate among the scholars. The view that the name is connected to
Zech.
12 and Ezek.
it ultimately
remains
38-39
is attractive on the surface, yet we
saw that
unsatisfactory.
an alternative, I proposed that rather than assuming that Rev.
16:16 refers to the conflict in chapter 19, our interpretation should be
guided by the immediate context and by John's unfolding story.Thus,
As
in his description of the destruction of Babylon in chapter 16, he is
traditions to which his portrayal of Babylon in
evoking the same OT
17 and
18 is heavily indebted. As for the first part of the
toponym 'Apinaye?cov, I pointed out how 'Ap can be connected to
Babylon and its fall: not only are her destroyers assembling on the
mountains, but she herself is called a 'destroying mountain', which will
be made a 'burnt mountain'. As for the second part, I followed the
chapters
etymological approach,
uxxyeS
v
is probably
best
noting various possibilities and
understood
as
an
ironic
reference
suggesting that
to
Babylon,
is about to be cut down from her loftyplace. This approach does
not deny that her destroyers will later also rise to make war on the
16:16.
Lamb, but emphasizes that this is not John's concern in Rev.
who
as the final battle
Perhaps the popular understanding of Armageddon
where the "baddies" fight it out amongst themselves may not be so
far
removed
from
John's
perspective
after
all.