Armageddon ...

What is Armageddon and why do you seem to only hear about it in the context of the “end of the world”? A singular text in Revelations chapter 16 verse 16 states … “and He gathered them together in a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.” Mind you, this verse appears in the middle of a description of the last plagues to hit planet earth. So perhaps with all the rest of the destruction going on at the time, a war to be waged with the name Armageddon seems plausible. Some believe it has something to do with the rapture, but there is nothing in scripture to indicate this. Some believe it is a final battle between the forces of good and evil, but the actual final battle is described later in Revelations and ends with evil being deposited into the lake of fire. So why is this simple Hebrew name, the cause for such alarm within the Christian community?

Perhaps we fear most what we understand least. In my own study of Biblical prophecy I have encountered things that could be interpreted more than one way, and still hold to correctness. The letters to the seven churches in the first few chapters of Revelations for instance, or the seven candlesticks, are actual letters of advice to real people, in a real place, suffering from real problems. The churches in those locations needed the council they were given. But beyond the here and now, the churches also seem to represent periods defined in history where the prevailing attitude within the church matches the description in Revelations perfectly. Prophecy interpreted in its own day, and in ours, and relevant in both, a trademark of the God business.

So when I consider how to interpret prophecies surrounding so little mentioned a thing as Armageddon, I wonder if more than one interpretation could again be correct. Perhaps it is indeed the harbinger of a final earthly battle between forces in the Middle East. Traditional thinking places these forces as centered on support for the state of Israel and those who oppose its existence. But if this were true, then we would have already had 2 Armageddon’s since the state was first created. And in both instances Israel fought alone to defend itself, winning huge land territory in the process. Besides, God has shown little interest in insuring the continuing land rights of the Jewish people over the years. They have been scattered to the four corners of the earth, since before Christ even came the first time. And not much has really changed since Abraham himself was a wanderer searching for home.

So if Armageddon is a human conflict perhaps the location and politics of pro or anti-Israel is only a catalyst to launch a far greater war for control over the planet. Perhaps this is a war designed to promote one form of government over another – say democracy over totalitarianism. But if that were true, Israel’s involvement does not aid the cause. And presently China or North Korea would seem to pose a much greater threat to democracy’s quest for dominance than any mid-eastern nation state. A religious war perhaps; but then Islam against Christianity could hardly be described as a world ending event. In theory we serve the same Father God, and the Quran talks very highly about Christ. So having Muslims launch this would make less sense.

The more plausible argument I have heard about Armageddon is that it is a spiritual warfare between God and Satan, or perhaps between those who refuse to abandon the God of the Bible and those who have chosen to worship the false Christ you can see and touch (Satan as an angel of light). But even this conflict would appear vastly one sided. The Bible refers to the group who hold on to God despite everything, as the “remnant” or “all that remains.” The wicked would so vastly outnumber the righteous who carry a motto of non-violence; it would not be a war, it would be a slaughter. This too seems less likely.

I believe the reason why Armageddon has played so prominently in Christian interpretations of prophecy is that due to its limited context, it can be used to justify anything. Christians make the mistake of applying current world events to their limited understanding of scripture of the topic of Armageddon. Consequently they adjust it to fit whatever is going on right here and right now. In short, Armageddon means whatever world event is most threatening to our way of life. In the 1940’s we could have called it Hitler’s ideas. In the late 60’s and early 70’s we could have called it Vietnam. Harder to figure when the wall comes down and communism fails. The fundamental problem with this approach is trying to shoehorn the Bible to fit the news, instead the other way around. It is more an approach of telling the setting what is being said, rather than listening to God to see if any current events fit the texts and moving on from there.

Perhaps Armageddon should be studied more as a location, or to be pluralistic, a state of mind. Perhaps God allows men to follow their own wisdom (i.e. folly) to such a degree that only a worldwide plague such as the Earthquakes that follow, and the catastrophic extreme hail that follows that, would be enough to convince the survivors that God does exist after all. The anti-Christ can do nothing to save the people from the wrath of God in these plagues. He must therefore assume ownership of them, and continue to report that they will persist until all the hold-outs who cling to the Bible have been killed. Perhaps Armageddon is the only habitable place left in the area where men of any kind could gather after the catastrophes that befall the earth prior to this. Perhaps men entrenched in their own mistaken ideology are led to this place to witness what is yet to come.

In any case, I see so little scripture on the topic of Armageddon as illustrating its relative importance to us. Little data equals little effort expended to interpret. I believe our thoughts will be occupied by something even more frightening to us than our physical survival in these last times. Perhaps we should channel fear into something that is legitimate to worry about, so that we can fix our problems, rather than simply propagate fear tied to a term in a singular text, in a rough section of the scriptures.