According to the first view the way of the kings of the east began to be prepared by the shrinking of the Ottoman Empire (see above on “dried up”). According to the second view the “way” will be “prepared” by the withdrawal of human support from mystical Babylon (see on vs. 1, 12, 14, 17). According to the first view this preparation is of a geographic and military character; according to the second, it is of a moral and spiritual character.

 Literally, kings from the [sun] rising (see on ch. 7:2). In harmony with the geographical significance that they attribute to “the great river Euphrates,” those who hold the first view understand the “kings of the east” in a geographical sense, as denoting nations situated to the east of the Mesopotamian valley.

 According to the second view “the kings of the east” represent Christ and those accompanying Him. This view bases the term “kings of the east,” like the other symbolic expressions of Rev. 16:12, on the historical incident of Cyrus conquering Babylon and later releasing God’s people, the Jews, to return to their native land.

 Gr. hodos, “road,” “highway.” In the setting of vs. 12-16 this is the way by which the kings and their armies pass through the Euphrates to join battle with their opponents. According to the first view this “way” would be geographically through the Mesopotamian valley, formerly the territory of the Ottoman Empire. According to the second view, way is figurative—the “way” by which the situation on earth is prepared for Christ and the armies of heaven to triumph over Babylon (v. 19) and “the kings of the earth” (v. 14).

The form of the verb in the Greek denotes as an accomplished fact the act of drying up. According to the first view the drying up of the river Euphrates here referred to began to meet its fulfillment in the gradual shrinking of the Ottoman Empire, with the complete fulfillment of this prophetic feature still future.

 According to the second view the drying up of the waters of the Euphrates refers to the withdrawal of human support from mystical Babylon in connection with the sixth plague (see above on “great river Euphrates”; see on Rev. 16:14, 16, 17, 19; cf. Isa. 44:26 to 45:2). Proponents of this view find the results of the drying up described symbolically in Rev. 16:18, 19; 17:15-18, and literally in GC 654-656.

 See on ch. 17:1, 15.

 See p. 724; see on ch. 9:14. Proponents of both the first and the second views agree that John does not here refer to the literal river as a river, or to the drying up of its literal waters. There is also general agreement that the waters of the river Euphrates here represent human beings (cf. ch. 17:15). According to the first view, however, the Euphrates represents the former Ottoman Empire, through which this river flowed, and since the fall of that empire at the end of World War I, its modern successor, Turkey. This view assumes that the term Euphrates, while not referring to the literal river as a river, nevertheless retains a measure of literal geographical significance, to the extent of being a designation for the geographical area traversed by the river, the Mesopotamian valley. For more than 1,000 years this area was administered by the Saracens and the Turks, and more recently by the government of Iraq.

 According to the second view the significance of the term Euphrates is to be ascertained from the context which reveals that the term Babylon is used exclusively as a symbol of apostate Christianity (see on chs. 14:8; 17:5). Historically and geographically the literal river Euphrates was the river literal Babylon (Jer. 51:12, 13, 63, 64). As the river of mystical Babylon, that great city (see on Rev. 17:18), the Euphrates would here be dissociated altogether from its former literal, geographical significance and be understood in terms of its companion symbol, mystical Babylon. The waters of the Euphrates would thus be the “many waters” of ch. 17:1-3, 15 on which mystical Babylon sits, the “inhabitants of the earth,” whom she makes “drunk with the wine of her fornication” (ch. 17:2; cf. ch. 13:3, 4, 7, 8, 14-16).

 Generally speaking, Adventist expositors have set forth one or the other of two interpretations of vs. 12-16. According to the first interpretation the “great river Euphrates” represents the Ottoman Empire; the drying up of its waters, the gradual dissolution of that empire; the kings of the east, the nations of the Orient; and Armageddon, the literal valley of Megiddo in northern Palestine. Thus, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire is seen as preparing the way for Oriental nations to join battle with those of the West in the valley of Megiddo.

According to the second interpretation the Euphrates represents the people over whom mystical Babylon holds sway; the drying up of its waters, the withdrawal of their support from Babylon; the kings of the east, Christ and those accompanying Him; and Armageddon, the last battle of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, fought out on the battlefield of this earth. Thus, the withdrawal of human support from mystical Babylon is seen as the removal of the last barrier to her ultimate defeat and punishment.

According to the first view the battle of Armageddon begins as essentially a political conflict and comes to a climax with the appearance of Christ and the armies of heaven. According to the second view the battle of Armageddon begins when the united religious and political powers of earth open their final attack on God’s remnant people.

Though these two views appear to be mutually exclusive, they actually have much in common.

Proponents of both views on Armageddon are generally agreed on the following points:

1. That it is the last great battle of earth’s history and that it is still future.

 2. That it is the battle of that great day of God (v. 14).

3. That “the great river Euphrates” is symbolic of human beings.

 4. That the three “unclean spirits” (v. 13) represent the papacy, apostate Protestantism, and spiritism (or paganism).

5. That these three spirits constitute the agencies that will summon the nations to battle.

6. That the gathering agencies—three unclean spirits—are religious in nature and that the forces gathered are political and military.

7. That preparations for the battle take place under the sixth plague, but that the battle itself is fought under the seventh plague.

8. That in one phase it will be a real battle between real people employing real weapons.

9. That there will be bloodshed on an unprecedented scale.

10. That all the nations of earth will be involved.

11. That eventually Christ and the armies of heaven intervene and bring the battle to a close.

12. That the living saints witness the battle, but not as direct participants.

 The fundamental difference between the two views consists in whether the three terms, Euphrates, “kings of the east,” and Armageddon, retain a measure of literal, geographical significance, or whether they are to be interpreted in a completely figurative sense. The first view assumes that these terms retain geographical significance. The second view affirms that they are to be interpreted altogether figuratively, in terms of the context of chs. 13 to 19. For further comment on the various points of similarity and difference between the two views see on vs. 12-19. Compare on Dan. 11:36-40.

As might be expected, variations and modifications of these two major views are held by some Adventist expositors. However, space limits prevent exploring these. For an earlier discussion of the view that the battle of Armageddon is the battle between Christ and the wicked nations at the second advent, see James White in The Review and Herald, Jan. 21, 1862, p. 61. For a formal presentation of the view that the battle of Armageddon involves also a political and military gathering of the nations of earth in Palestine, see Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation (1944), pp. 691-701.