Baptism and Following Jesus.

Question #1:

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your article on water-baptism and Holy Spirit Baptism. You confirmed my conclusions. I do not sense, and have not sensed, that the Holy Spirit is telling me to get water-baptized. I confirmed that water-baptism was not a requirement of salvation, but I also strongly felt, based solely on Scripture, that it was not required at all. Any idea why this is such a difficult issue?

Thanks! In Christ.

PS I am trying to find a biblical church that emphasizes Justification by faith in Christ, the infallible and inerrant Word of God, God's Grace, God's love, confession of sins, and following God, rather than entertainment, psychology, sports activities, denominational de-railings, the opinions of the preacher, guilt, intimidation, and money-grubbing.

This is not easy to do! Any ideas?

Response #1:

Glad to hear that you have found these materials helpful. True baptism of the Spirit versus ritual water baptism has been a thorny issue in the Church since the apostles, as we see from 1st Corinthians and the Book of Acts. By the time of the so-called "apostolic fathers", there were already many strange practices developing around water baptism (cf. some of things mentioned in "The Shepherd of Hermes"), a good indication of the fact that the first of the seven Church ages to follow the ministry of the great apostles of the Lamb (i.e., Ephesus; see the link: “Ephesus, the Era of Transition”) was weak in the area of putting the Word of God first (resulting in problems ever since). It also shows how sentimental activities become established rituals, and then are elevated to the status of doctrines, even though they have little or nothing to do with scripture.

The reformers are responsible for part of the problem as well, although they can hardly be blamed, at least vociferously. To a certain extent they had no choice but to define themselves and their teachings in opposition to Rome, and in Roman doctrine water baptism is "big medicine", essentially “magic” without which you can't get into God's grace. Protestants went basically two ways, either reducing water baptism again to a ritual for infants (although they never completely "de-mythologized" it), or making it an important rite of passage for adults who had personally believed in Christ. Both of these approaches, while better than what the Roman church teaches, have their problems, the former skewing church practice away from learning the truth of scripture and back toward empty ritual (or at least anchoring it there), while the latter has tended, in a sort of backwards way, to make water baptism seem even more important for those who believe in the truth of being born again by grace through faith - because it is a ritual that an informed adult undertakes (so there's lots of room for guilt and fear to work their will here).

Thus water baptism is one of the many "ball-and-chains" that elements of the church visible have been dragging along for centuries and have sought to place around the ankles of good hearted believers. The best that can be said for it is that most genuine believers over the years have either been water-baptized without their knowledge as infants, or as relatively new believers in relative ignorance and under group pressure. And once it's over, it's over. However, believing water baptism to be important is a problem. For one thing, as your e-mail suggests, it obscures the importance of the baptism of the Spirit and has also been responsible for many mis-understandings about that key doctrine.

A person with absolutely no prior contact with Christianity who spent a good deal of time trying to figure this issue out from the scriptures alone would almost certainly come to balance out the more difficult to interpret passages of the book of Acts with the fact that John and then Jesus focus on the coming baptism of the Spirit as what is really important, and that this is also the key focus of all the New Testament epistles (where water baptism is only mentioned negatively: 1Cor.1:10-17; 15:29; and 1Pet.3:21). The last passage mentioned is frequently misunderstood (see the link: “The Baptism which now Saves You”), but it shows that throughout the apostles' ministry they were having to de-emphasize the water baptism that was still going on (i.e., "symbolizes" = not water [which is not in the text], contra NIV et al.). These and all the other epistle-baptism passages show what one would have to conclude with careful, unbiased exegesis anyway, that the words "baptism/baptize" in the epistles invariably refer to the baptism of the Spirit. And how would this not be true? John foretold it as the next phase (Matt.3:12). Jesus promised it as the empowerment to come (Jn.14:15ff.; 16:5ff.). Pentecost revealed the power and importance of it for the gospel beyond any doubt (Acts 2:1-13). And the things that makes the Church as it is preached and described in the epistles stand out are the power, the gifts, the enlightenment of the Spirit - not a water ritual. It is really no great leap then, when reading the scriptures without bias and preconceptions, to understand Matthew 28:18-20 in the same way. After all, how could water baptism put us "into the Name/Person" of the Trinity - unless it really were magic, something few Bible-oriented Christians are even willing to entertain (see the link: “Baptism and Salvation”).

The essential thing is this: the baptism of John was a water ritual "of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mk.1:4). Nowhere in the New Testament is another kind of water baptism described other than John's water baptism, and that is critical. How many people who preach/teach that water baptism is necessary are talking about John's baptism? No, they invariably use the "formula" of Matthew 28:19, and have it mean something mysterious (and confusing). The problem is that the idea of eis to onoma that verse meaning "under the authority of" instead of “into the Person of” is dubious when reading the Greek text, unparalleled elsewhere, and, well, what exactly would that mean? If it is "into", then it's magic, but the Spirit’s uniting of every new believer with Christ, a doctrine well-known from the New Testament epistles. If it is "under the authority of", then what precisely does this new water baptism purport to achieve or effect? On the other hand, if Jesus is talking about the Spirit, as He invariably is everywhere else, then what we have here is the apostles acting as intermediaries of the gospel (as they do and are commanded to everywhere else), the result of which is the baptism of the Spirit (just as it happened to Cornelius and his household: Acts 10:27-48). It took time for Peter and Paul to see that there was no need for the water at all (if we receive the Spirit, then of course we have turned to the Lord in repentance and believed), but that is certainly not unparalleled either: the book Acts is filled with examples of the Church learning what this new gift and new age meant and how to handle things as a result.

I suppose to answer your question a bit more succinctly, the reason this issue has been so difficult is, in a nutshell, guilt and manipulation. And I believe there is also much in your observation about the "stumbling stone". There are many things in scripture which are not as clear in an initial reading as we should prefer. But then, if it were too easy, we wouldn't need teachers (so authority would be lost), and we wouldn't need much faith. Getting to the truth of the Word of God takes discipline, effort, preparation, dedication . . . and a lot of faith. But we find that not only is our faith built up thereby, but our hope and our love as well. We find that by persistence in something that is not easy we become better Christians in every way, growing closer to God day by day, and learning what our Lord is really like. He taught in parables for just this reason after all, to separate those who were truly dedicated to following Him from those who were just interested in entertainment. We should all aspire to . . .

"Justification by faith in Christ, the infallible and inerrant Word of God,
God's Grace, God's love, confession of sins, and following God"

VERSUS

"Entertainment, psychology, sports activities, denominational derailings,
the opinions of the preacher, guilt, intimidation, and money-grubbing"

. . . . . as you so crisply put it! My prayers go out for you that you may find a church that emphasizes all the right things and eschews all the wrong things. As you say, it's not easy to find. Trying to help answer this last question of yours was the genesis for this ministry many years ago - I didn't know of any churches that fit the bill, so at least I wanted to be able to point to a source of spiritual food that would contribute to spiritual growth (even it wasn't contained within four walls). I am glad to hear that this ministry is at least contributing to your good efforts in that direction.

Yours in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob Luginbill

Question #2:

Hi. I was reading the Q and A about, re *Is water baptism required for Christians today? I followed along the reply with interest. I have many comments but as this email may I be so bold as to say/ask, " As Christians, Jesus is the Way the Truth and The life, so we should follow Him and DO as He has done. Jesus was baptized and so should we be and in the same way." Is there a chat/forum on your site? Cheers.

Response #2:

There is no chat/forum at Ichthys, but I am happy to respond to your comment.

I entirely agree that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. We are indeed as Christians supposed to follow His example, to walk in His footsteps as He gave us an example. But, clearly, that does not mean that we can or even should take this principle so literally as to do everything in exactly the same way He did - that is not what scripture means.

To take but a few of many examples, first of all, Jesus was celibate and never married. Are we required to follow Him in this? That would be a good thing in many ways if we were all capable of it, but scripture allows that this is not possible for most of us (1Cor.7:1-2). Surely we can take from His example of self-sacrifice in this regard the principle of considering God and the kingdom of God and the work pertaining thereto to be more important than our own concerns, but forgoing marriage is not meant to be the way that most of us demonstrate our commitment. Now there are some people/organizations who over-react on this point (one thinks of the prohibition for Catholic priests). For those who follow Jesus, spiritually celibacy, staying away from spiritual unfaithfulness, is even more important than material celibacy.

Secondly, Jesus went to the cross to die for our sins; He was crucified for us. Now we are to "take up our cross daily" and follow Him (Lk.9:23), and in some instances this may mean martyrdom (or even crucifixion - that, at any rate, is one tradition about the way that Peter died, though there is no biblical evidence for it). But even if it is our lot to die for the Lord, we could never ever die as He did - He is the only One who was ever qualified to atone for the sins of the world. Impossible to follow Him here in a literal sense (and unnecessary too - His death for us was efficacious for the forgiveness of all sins). Now there are some people/organizations who over-react on this point (one thinks of the recent trend in South America to hang oneself on a cross - though as far as I know no one who has done this has yet expired in the process, let alone done anything that God would ever consider a propitiation for sin). So I think that our "losing of our lives" for the Lord is spiritual rather than physical - we put Him and the kingdom first (Matt.16:25).

Thirdly, Jesus performed many miracles, of every sort. As far as I recall, though the apostles duplicated many of His miracles, He was the only One who ever gave sight to the blind. In any case, though I am not sure what your position is on the working of miracles, few people would proclaim that they are capable of doing all of the miracles that Jesus did, or to the degree that He did them. We can only function as members of His Body, the Church, according to the specific gifts we have received from the Spirit (cf. 1Cor.12:1-11). Now there are some people/organizations who over-react on this point (one thinks of any number of groups who make great claims to miraculous activities), but it seems to me that the "greater things than these" we are meant to do are in the spiritual rather than the material realm (Jn.5:20).

One could go on, but I think the point is fairly obvious: following Him spiritually rather than literally is what is important. For our Lord Jesus is clearly different from us in many ways. He is Savior of the world; we are the saved. He is the Head; we are the Body. He is the Bridegroom; we are the Bride. He and His life were unique in every way, and because of Him we have been born again into a new life, and eternal life.

And His baptism was unique too. He is the only One whom John tried to prevent from being baptized. Why? Because John knew full well that Jesus was "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" (Jn.1:29). Jesus had no sin, but the baptism of John was a baptism "of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mk.1:4; Lk.3:3). Jesus had no need of repentance, for He had no sin. Beyond all argument, therefore, what the baptism of John meant for Jesus was different from what it meant for everyone else. Jesus went down into the water where the sins of the world had been symbolically washed off, and took them symbolically upon Himself. And when He came up (a picture of the resurrection just as the baptism was a picture of the cross), the Spirit descended upon Him and the Father proclaimed His good pleasure with the Son and His work (Matt.3:16-17; a preview of the ascension and session). It is impossible for us to duplicate the symbolism of Jesus' water baptism by our own water baptism, because His water baptism presaged His death for us on the cross. That is why He says prior to His suffering “I have a baptism to undergo”, speaking of His sacrifice on the cross (Lk.12:50; cf. Mk.10:38).

This last point about John's baptism is important from another perspective as well. John's baptism was, as quoted above, "for repentance and forgiveness" and his ministry had the purpose "to prepare a people ready for the Lord" (Lk.1:17). In other words, John's baptism was looking forward to the ministry of the Messiah and to the cross. Now that the Messiah has come and the cross is a reality, it does beg the question of why we now do not have to do exclusively with the baptism of the Spirit, for John said that he baptized with water for repentance, but the Messiah would baptize "with the Spirit" - and indeed this has been the case since Pentecost (Matt.3:11).

My point here is that the only water baptism in scripture is the baptism of John. But I have never heard of a group that water-baptizes that has that symbolism clear, i.e., water washes away sins as the coming sacrifice of the Messiah would do (and that is that). Inevitably, some other non-biblical symbolism is always present in the way water baptism is used and represented by all groups I am aware of who practice it, so that ipso facto it must be being used in a scripturally inappropriate way. One searches the scriptures in vain for any other water baptism - the New Testament epistles are filled instead with a non-water baptism: the baptism of the Spirit.

Really, its not a question of "doing what Jesus did" when it comes to water baptism. Instead, it's a case of "doing what we've always done just because we’ve always done it". I have no problem with that - when it is biblical. Up until Augustine's day, the Church was still squabbling over whether to baptize babies, when baptism should take place, what it meant, etc. And that is still the case today. I have to believe that if the case for the need for a new post-cross water baptism was that clear, there would never have been, could never have been such confusion.

As it is in fact, the true picture that scripture gives is clear: of a single water baptism for preparation, that of John, which is entirely symbolic, followed by a very real baptism with lasting effects: the baptism of the Spirit given as a gift for the Messiah's victory (His baptism of the cross), a powerful and real event for every believer when they believe (with the book of Acts documenting the transition from ritual to reality: Acts 19:1-7; cf. Acts 10:44-48).

We should not really even be asking “what would Jesus do?”, but “what does Jesus want me to do?” That is what our Lord always did in following the will of His Father and ours at all times. Jesus wants us to follow Him in truth (cf. Jn.17:15-19). And the only way I know to do that is to learn what is really true according to the Bible, believe it, and live it (and help others do likewise).

Please see also the following links:

Is water baptism required for Christians today?

Foot-washing, Bitter Herbs, Baptism, and Borrowed Faith.

The baptism of the Holy Spirit as distinct from speaking in tongues.

An Extended Conversation about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Sin, Baptism, and the Book of Revelation.

Does baptism play a role in being born again?

How important is baptism?

In the One who is the only way, the truth, and the life, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob Luginbill

For more: e-mails at Ichthys.com

Where is Armageddon?

Question:

Where is Armageddon?

Response:

The subject of the battle of Armageddon, our Lord's victorious conquest of the armies of antichrist at His second advent, will be covered in detail in the forthcoming part 5 of the Coming Tribulation series. This installment is due out later this year. Here is the section of that yet unpublished installment which deals with the identification of "Armageddon" in Revelation 16:16 (please note that the Hebrew font is not embedded):

Armageddon: Armageddon is the scene of the last battle of the Tribulation, the place where our Lord will destroy the massive armies of antichrist on the “great day of God the Almighty” just as they are on the point of destroying Israel and all who have recently sought shelter within her borders. Contrary to popular belief, Armageddon has nothing to do with “Megiddo”, an ancient city located in the north of what today is the state of Israel. Armageddon is, rather, a prophetical name for Jerusalem, the place where the unbelieving rebels and the saints recently escaped from Babylon make what appears to be their “last stand”.

The popular (and misinformed) association of Armageddon with Megiddo rests entirely upon the similarity in spelling between these two proper names. This is not an unreasonable place to begin a consideration of what scripture means by the name “Armageddon” (a word that occurs only here in Revelation 16:16), but further investigation will show that, while the perceived etymological connection is illusory, scripture leaves us in no doubt whatsoever about the fact that, just as we ought to have expected, it is at Jerusalem that the final battle of the Tribulation will occur (while, on the other hand, the Bible is entirely silent about Megiddo on this score; cf. Ps.2:1-6; Is.4:3; 22:1-14; 25:6-7; 31:9; 33:3-5; 33:10-22; 40:1-2; 40:9-10; 52:1-8; 60:1-3; 62:11; Joel 3:1-2; Zeph.3:14-17; Rom.11:26):

(1) Woe to you, Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped (i.e., Jerusalem)! Add year to year, let your festivals run their course, (2) but I will besiege Ariel so that there will be mourning and lamentation, and she will become to Me like an “Ariel” (lit., “God’s [sacrificial] altar”). (3) For I will beleaguer round about with palisades, and surround you with siege works. (4) You will be brought low and speak from the ground, and from the dust your speech will be humbled. Your voice will come ghost-like from the earth, and your speech will come muttering from the dust. (5) But the multitude of your enemies will become like pulverized powder, even like chaff sweeping away [on the wind] that multitude ruthless [enemies]. And it will come to past in an instant that (6) you will experience visitation from the Lord of Hosts [Himself], with thunder and quaking [of the earth] and a loud voice, with tempest and whirlwind and devouring flames of fire. (7) And the hordes of the nations mustering against Ariel will become like [just] a dream in the visions of the night, even all those who camp against her and her fortress and besiege her. (8) And it will be as when a hungry man dreams he is eating, but when he awakes his appetite remains unfulfilled, or as when a thirsty man dreams he is drinking, but when he awakes his thirst remains. This is how it will be for the multitude of all the nations who are going to marshal themselves against Mount Zion. Isaiah 29:1-8

(9) Break forth [in song] and rejoice altogether, O ruins of Jerusalem! For the Lord has had compassion on His people. He has redeemed Jerusalem. (10) The Lord has uncovered His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God! Isaiah 52:9-10

(18) As they have done, so He will repay them, wrath to His adversaries and recompense to His enemies. Even unto the islands (i.e., the remotest lands of the west) He will repay the recompense [due them], (19) so that they will fear the Name of the Lord in the west, and His glory from the rising of the sun (i.e., the east). For although the enemy (i.e., antichrist) will attack like the River (i.e., the great Nile or Euphrates; cf. Dan.11:22; 11:26), the Spirit of the Lord will put him to flight. (20) For the Redeemer will come to Zion, even to those in Jacob who turn away from their transgression. Isaiah 59:18-20

(30) For I will display wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. (31) The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the Day of the Lord, that great and terrible [day]. (32) And it will come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance as the Lord has said, even among the survivors whom the Lord calls. Joel 2:30-32

(12) Let the nations be roused [from their places], and let them come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat (i.e., the valley of “the Lord judges”). For there I will sit in judgment over all the nations on every side. (13) Send forth the sickle for the harvest is ripe! Come down into the winepress for it is full and the vats overflow. For great is their wickedness. (14) Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of doom! For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of doom. (15) The sun and moon will darken, and the stars will gather up their light. (16) Then the Lord will roar from Zion, and from Jerusalem He will let sound His voice, and the heavens and the earth will quake. Joel 3:12-16

(15) For the day of the Lord is near against all the nations. Just as you have done, it will be done to you, and your recompense will return on your own head. (16) For just as you have drunk on My holy mountain, so all the nations will drink continually. They will drink and swallow down [the Lord’s cup of wrath] and will be as if they never were. (17) But on Mount Zion there will be deliverance. Obadiah 1:15-17a

(2) For behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup of reeling for all the nations round about. And Judah also and Jerusalem will be besieged. (3) And it will come to pass on that day that I will make Jerusalem a burdensome rock for all the nations. Everyone who tries to lift it will surely be injured. For against her (i.e., Jerusalem) will be gathered all the nations of the earth. Zechariah 12:2-3

And it will come to pass on that day that I will make it My purpose to destroy all the nations which are attacking Jerusalem. Zechariah 12:9

And this is the plague with which the Lord will smite all the peoples who marshal themselves against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot even as they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths. Zechariah 14:12

Thus the precise place where our Lord was crucified and resurrected, and to which He is prophesied to return, is where this final battle of the Tribulation will take place (cf. Acts 1:11):

(1) The Lord said to My Lord, “Sit down at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” (2) From Zion the Lord will send forth your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies! (3) Your people will volunteer on the day of your valour[ous victory]. In the holy chambers, from the womb of the dawn, your young [troops] will [come] to you like the dew. (4) The Lord has sworn and He will not recant, “You are a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek.” (5) The Lord is at your right hand. He will crush [those] kings on the day of His wrath. (6) He will render judgment on the nations. He will crush [their] head (cf. Gen.3:15) broadly throughout the land filled with corpses [as a result]. (7) [But as to His troops], they will drink from a brook beside the way. Therefore He will lift up their head. Psalm 110:1-7

Thus says the Lord: I will return to Zion and dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. And Jerusalem will be called "the City of Truth", and "the Mountain of the Lord, the Mountain of Holiness". Zechariah 8:3

Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion. Shout [for joy], daughter of Jerusalem. Behold, your King will come to you. Righteous and victorious He is; humble and riding on a donkey, even on a colt, a donkey's foal. Zechariah 9:9

(2) For I shall gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against her. The city will be captured, its houses will be sacked, and its women will be ravished. (3) Half of the city will be taken away captive, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the Lord will go forth, and He will fight against those nations as when He fights on a day of battle. (4) For His feet will stand on that day on the Mount of Olives which lies before Jerusalem on the east. Zechariah 14:2-4a

And I looked, and behold, the Lamb stood upon Mount Zion, and with Him were the 144,000, having His Name and the Name of His Father written upon their foreheads. Revelation 14:1

Given the overwhelming testimony of scripture to the fact that Jerusalem will be the focal point of the final battle of the Tribulation, it is indeed strange that the name “Armageddon”, a hapax legomenon occurring only here at Revelation 16:16, has had such a profound (and negative) influence on the interpretation of these events. A few words about the true etymology of this word are, therefore, in order here. The first thing to notice is that the similarity between “Megiddo” and “Armageddon” is primarily one of correspondence between the Septuagint’s most common transliteration of Megiddo (at e.g., Josh.12:21) and what we find here at Revelation 16:16 (i.e., Magedwn versus ‘Armagedwn). However, a number of other transliterations are attested in the LXX (i.e., Megeddw, Mageddwn, Mageddw, Magedw, Mageddwr, Makedw, Magdw, Magedawn, Mageddwd, Makeddw, Mageddei), with this variety of renderings sufficient to show that at least some degree of care should be taken before seizing upon the Megiddo-Armageddon identification. In the preceding list, the first alternate transliteration given, Megeddw, is, for our purposes here, the most interesting. For the Hebrew word for this place (vDgm, Megiddo), is really best reflected by this first rendering Megeddw / Megeddo.FN1 But our English rendering of this place name, “Megiddo”, is in fact a more accurate transliteration of the Hebrew than any of the Septuagint’s attempts. Using this information then, it is easy to see the disparities between the two names: Megiddo versus Har-Mageddon. The pre-formative “a” in the latter, its medial “e” versus the “i” of the first form, and the addition of the letter “n” at the end are not insignificant differences. Alone, they would invite us to seek a more plausible etymology for “Armageddon”, and this is especially the case since John under the Spirit’s influence comments that this is “a place called in Hebrew, ‘Armageddon’”. Therefore it is to the Hebrew that we must look for our etymological clues, not Greek transliterations in the LXX version.

Most interpreters agree that the Har- of Armageddon (the “h” sound present in the Greek being commonly if unfortunately left out in the traditional transliteration of this name) is the Hebrew word for “mountain” (and it should be noted in passing that the most common geographical feature that has recommended Megiddo to exegetes has been its extensive plain rather than any “mountain”). This leaves us to explore the second part of this compound place name, -Mageddon. First in this respect it is best to take the Ma as a pre-formative mem used here in the locative sense, i.e, “Mountain-which-is-a-place of _________”. The use of the letter “m” as a prefix indicating “place of” whatever root it is attached to is a well-attested phenomenon in Semitic languages.FN2 This leaves us to derive -geddon from either the “double ayin” root gdd (ddg), or the hollow root gud (dvg). The distinction is largely academic here, as both roots have the same essential meaning in BH: “attack, cut, go in troops or throngs”. Given that the most commonly attested substantive from either root, ghedhudh (dvdg), generally refers to military formations, the most likely meaning of Armageddon is “Mountain of Troops” or “Mountain of [mustering] Troops”. As such, it is a very clear reference to the assembly from the world over of all the forces of antichrist to Jerusalem. Here they will assemble, at Jerusalem called here prophetically and appropriately “the Mountain of [Assembly of] Troops”,FN3 for here all of the beast’s worldly armies will be annihilated by our Lord. Indeed, it is for this very purpose that they will be so assembled:

And it will be as when a hungry man dreams he is eating, but when he awakes his appetite remains unfulfilled, or as when a thirsty man dreams he is drinking, but when he awakes his thirst remains. This is how it will be for the multitude of all the nations who are going to marshal themselves against Mount Zion. Isaiah 29:8

(2) For behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup of reeling for all the nations round about. And Judah also and Jerusalem will be besieged. (3) And it will come to pass on that day that I will make Jerusalem a burdensome rock for all the nations. Everyone who tries to lift it will surely be injured. For against her will be gathered all the nations of the earth. Zechariah 12:2-3

And this is the plague with which the Lord will smite all the peoples who marshal themselves against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot even as they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths. Zechariah 14:12

Understood in this way, we can then see in Micah 5:1-5a the locus classicus, for “Armageddon”, that is, the passage which John under the guidance of the Spirit had in mind when coining this prophetic name. In Micah 5:1-5a, we see that this predominantly second advent passage also brings in testimony about our Lord’s first advent, weaving the two events together in a wonderful, poetic way, a common phenomenon in Hebrew prophecy as we have seen:

(1) But now marshal your [own] troops (

FN1: Only once out of twelve occurrences do we find this form concluded with the Hebrew letter “n” or nun (]vDgm, Megiddon). That is at Zechariah 12:11 where it is entirely possible that the reference there is not to “Megiddo” at all (the LXX, for example, certainly does not see “Megiddo” at Zech.12:11).

FN2: See S. Moscati et al., An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (Wiesbaden 1969) 80-81. What we have here is most likely a maqtil “ground form” on the order of machshelah (hlwkm), “a ruin” or “a place of falling”, from chashal (lwk), “to fall or stumble”. See Gensenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch (Oxford 1980) 237.

FN3: See Alan Johnston “Revelation” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary ed. F.E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids 1981) v.12, p. 552.

For more: e-mails at Ichthys.com