Rev. 6:1,2
And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard,
as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow;
and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
Many Bible prophecy teachers zoom in on the fact that the rider on the white horse has a bow but no arrows.
They say he would bring peace through strength, and lean mostly on diplomacy and fear.
But is this true?
The original Greek word used is: "toxin".
The modern terms "toxic" and "toxin" derive from the ancient Greek word for "bow",
toxon, from Old Persian
*taxa-, "an arrow".
en.m.wikipedia.org
In our laguages, we recognise that word, in words like toxic, and they have to do with poison.
Appearently in the old days of warefare the tips of the arrows were dipped in poison, to harm the enemy better.
It seems that the word "toxin" became the word for the complete package of a "bow-with-poisoned-arrows".
So, the rider who has a "toxin", is not a man without fire-power, but a mighty warrior like Nimrod, going out conquering, and to conquer.
What do you think?
Does it make a difference whether the rider has a bow or not?
Very good Kattje. This seems to fair with Pastor Adrian's concept of bow meaning the weapon package. The sense of conquering and going out to conquer would in the early church mind certainly posses also the sense that the bow is used for this conquer. Or that it would be reference to the weapon as a whole. We know when the AC comes he will defer to the (g)of of fortresses. In this there would seem to be some exegetical potential for match.
THE FIRST STRONGER THING
For me though on this point, I would consider two things. One I believe stronger than the other. One is the strength that the AC, as I understand it, is scheduled to rule for 42 months. Not 7 years. And in aligning the 1st seal with AC, in my view, it would seem we have gotten used to over time that the AC will be ruling the whole time. In this I believe the most profound sense of the 70th week is God's 70th week with Israel. But by assigning the AC to the 1st seal we inadvertently seem to some degree make it his 70th week. Or so it would seem like this to me. For example, John Barnett, who I like (he used to be on John Macarthur's Master Seminary staff) on some levels has broken ranks with his customary American Reformed roots in being a very strong advocate for Ez 38 being on our very horizon. In American reformed perspectives vary, but generally see Gog and magog as a war at the end of the 1,000 year reign and have no interest in Ez 38 being potentially on our doorstep. Yet John Barnett has many videos about this. And I am really proud of him to see that. He is a very interesting teacher to watch. I like his style and many of his views. But where I would differ is no the 1st seal.
John Barnett is a solid advocate for the 1st seal being the AC conquering the world. And false peace and all. Although I really appreciate this man's ministry, I don't side with this view of the 1st seal. Because, to me, in the way I understand scripture, the AC does make a covenant with the many that literally kicks off the tribulation. But I don't correlate that with the 1st seal. It could be. But then it tends to make the AC a grand ruler over the earth from the beginning of the tribulstion. And although the AC will be a powerful player...it would seem from some arenas of Daniel that he will have fights to go through. We see this portrayed as well in Revaltion 13, that people come to see him conquer over time. To a degree where we understand he seems to come back to life (is one interpretation I would side with). And the whole world says, "Who can war with the beast." Which to me suggests he conquers over time. Not at the beginning. But this is the predominant view in evangelicalism. So you are in good company dear sister.
THE SECOND LESS STRONG THING
The other point is less strong. And I would imagine severaly controversial. Acts 17:28 is perhaps the best example of this sort of thing I can find: 28 "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring." In a way what this somewhat demonstrates is that a people that come to an understanding in their day, can in ways, be a way in which prophesy might be better reaized. In other words, the way the Greeks were thinking about gentiles from some of their own poets would be more accurate in contrast to how Israel as a nation would consider. For Isreal was banished for not honoring prophesies from the Old Testament regarding the eventual inclusion of gentiles. And even before God opened up the floodgates for gentiles to come into the church, the Jews rejected their own Messiah when Jesus came for the House of Israel. So in this sense, there is a sense when a modern thought or idea or a way of understanding something might be closer to what God's word had in mind than perhaps more conventional religious understandings of this might be.
Now what I cannot find in scripture is how God might use misunderstanding of things during an age to somewhat to some degree actually be somewhat of an hermetic. I agree that I cannot find prophesy to work this way in scripture. We can find where God makes his word more clear than conventional understanding. But we cannot find where how people misunderstand things might be an indicator of how to interpret something. For example, if people think today that a bow mentioned in Rev 6:2 means conquer by peace without arrows because there are no arrows mentioned, then perhaps even if that view is not traditionally accurate, might God provide in His prophetic way, how the generation it is for be a better way to understand it? Like if God in His word through the apostle John wrote "bow" to mean in his day "the whole of that weapon," but knew later in the 21st century it would mean to many "peace having no arrows," might prophecy work that way? I cannot say it does. For I am not aware of prophecy ever working that way. So I confess a great weakness and void of strength this argument I put forth has.
In some ways I believe there might be a potential where contemporary thought (of the time the prophecy is made) is more in how to interpret perhaps than how they thought of it when it was originally given. For example, I believe we are operating though on this very principle when we see the 1st seal as AC. Because in the 1st century + 1700 years, the church had understood the 1st seal to mean Christ, or the church, or the gospel. Not AC. But our age sees AC. And that view is only 200 years old. So if we think prophecy cannot be more about how the people of the age it is for think about it, then we kind of ommit it being AC. If we go strictly go by how the concepts were thought of it at the time the prophesy was spoken. Although it is true, as Pastor Adrain affirms, that the bow would represent the entire weapon (and this seems to be very accurate) that it would have to imply the whole of the weaponary described, (something the early church would affirm but in reference to Christ), applying Rev 6:2 to the AC is still a convention of the 19th century, something it did not mean for the church for 1800 years. And the difference of opinion there was not on the weapon not being whole, but on whose weapon it was.
So to see Rev 6:2 as AC, no matter how we slice it, is a sense we would have to conclude that God uses prophecy at times for the generation it is for (at times). In the case of Rev 6:2 being AC, it would have to mean that. And if we permit God to use prophecy in this way, that kind of also opens the door for how the misconception of a stand alone bow to also imply it to be representative of a weapon of peace. That the absence of arrows might also imply conquer through peace, because it is an understanding also of our contemporary moment. The logical fallacy that would be up for observation would be whichever one is called: Sticking to prophecy meaning at the time of its original meaning understood while ignoring the greater ramifications of what that ultimately says about changes our own culture has made of it along the way. That originaly to the cultures of 1800 years it meant Christ. Or the curch. In that I am not arguing for that. I am not arguing it to mean it is Christ. Or the church. Or the word. I am only suggesting that originally understood context can be a two edged sword. But today we give permission for contemporary views of our day to be the correct way to see Rev 6:2. And by virtue of doing that, we suggest that God tells prophecy at times not strictly according to how it is understood the day it is spoken. But in the age it is for. That much could be honestly said by virtue of how we hold our view on Rev 6:2 to be AC.
Now on that point I would also confess I see license for that. Not that I can find other areas of scripture where prophecy came to pass more along the lines of some future generation's understanding of it. Although I would be fascinated to see if there is such a find. But that by virtue of making Rev 6:2 the AC, we are doing that. And if doing that is ok, then this same poetic license could also be extended perhaps in the way I am thinking upon it too in ways, maybe...lol. Where I would lock, stock, and barrel, believe God uses prophesy at times for the age in which it is for is in the very way the book of Revelation is written. Although there could be much said about ways in which Jewish literary style existed in the first century. And its use. Modular narrative was not a known writing style until the modern age--the 1800s. And its most commonly understood use today is in Holleywood. Far be it from Christianity to say that a prime hermeneutic in how to understand the book of Revelation was written be from the contemporary genre in which movie scripts are written (modular narrative in great part). But it would seem that Revelation was written in genre of the day it would be better understood. And that would be modular narrative. What we have today. For sure a hard concept to grab. But nevertheless it would seem to hold literarily true to some reasonable degree. And in that way I would share with the concept that prophecy could absoletly be more for the time it is written than for getting all the exegesis merely from what it meant to the culture at the time it was written in antiquity.
But to do that would mean that the concept and notion of believing a bow without arrows could refer to peace. For even we see false peace with the AC. In that way it might resonate. Although typically we would go with (g)of of fortresses more so in general. So as wild as what I share here might sound, we are kind of already doing that to make Rev 6:2 the AC. So what is it I am doing here?
Just this, that to me, it would seem that the first seal represent one who conquers by peace. Treaty, or covenant, or diplomacy, or economy. I believe that could be implied. The exegesis being that unlike the 4th seal, there are no exploits of war stated. And in this case a bow could represent not just conquer by peace, but also peace through strength. Which would be ultimately a very concept belonging to the 21st century. In this the whole of weapon be counted for and the reason peace can conquer because it does not carry the bow in vain. I believe it would let the measure of contemporary employment that we use to inform us of Rev 6:2 as AC. Therefore that being the case, we can also permit our contemporary moment to suggest it is something else. Whatever it is it would have to be (in my view) something noticed. Something loud. Something perhaps overly obvious. For license in the bringing of contemporary thought as to how a prophesy be seen (one made in antiquity) primarily understood in and of the day it is for. It would have to afford other views by nature of using "the contemporary" notions of our day to also suggest it may be someithing other than AC. If that makes sense? lol. Well thanks for reading all that if you did. Its not easy to convey. But is it wrong to see this too? Blessings.
As I back track to this post of yours I guess I would refer to my other recent one I posted. Is it enough to say, "We will know when we know?" Sure. At the end of the day it's not about what we think we know or even that we know, I believe. Because what is will be. Amen.
