Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!
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".
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?
This is what AI has:
In the Book of Revelation, the Pale Rider (often associated with the fourth horseman) is depicted with a bow but no arrows, which is generally interpreted as symbolizing a "bloodless" victory or conquest achieved through deception, famine, or disease, rather than direct, violent warfare;the lack of arrows signifies that the destruction will be widespread and pervasive without the need for overt combat.
Key points about this interpretation:
Symbolic meaning of the bow:
A bow is often used as a symbol of power and ability to strike from a distance, representing the subtle and widespread nature of the devastation brought by the Pale Rider.
Absence of arrows signifies lack of direct violence:
Without arrows, the bow is rendered ineffective in a traditional sense, suggesting that the Pale Rider's conquest will not be through overt warfare but through more insidious means like disease or famine.
Good post, @Kaatje. I think those who try to make something out of the fact that arrows aren't mentioned miss the point. A bow symbolized military might; the stephanos crown represented victory. They are simply symbols portraying the fact that the rider will be both a military leader and a conqueror. It's a mistake to try and stretch a metaphor beyond it's obvious meaning.
When I read about the rider on the White horse I understand that when the AC arrives on the scene it will be with authority and the promise of peace (peace through strength). That quickly changes, however, when the next seal is broken. Satan won't be wasting much time with the peace business, he prefers to kill and destroy.
This is what AI has:
In the Book of Revelation, the Pale Rider (often associated with the fourth horseman) is depicted with a bow but no arrows, which is generally interpreted as symbolizing a "bloodless" victory or conquest achieved through deception, famine, or disease, rather than direct, violent warfare;the lack of arrows signifies that the destruction will be widespread and pervasive without the need for overt combat.
Key points about this interpretation:
Symbolic meaning of the bow:
A bow is often used as a symbol of power and ability to strike from a distance, representing the subtle and widespread nature of the devastation brought by the Pale Rider.
Absence of arrows signifies lack of direct violence:
Without arrows, the bow is rendered ineffective in a traditional sense, suggesting that the Pale Rider's conquest will not be through overt warfare but through more insidious means like disease or famine.
It sounds a little like AI confused the 1st seal with the 4th. I've heard some commentators suggest all the 4 seals are simultanously represented in the 4th. This view relates similar mentions in Ezekiel to all the four horsemen. Ez 14:21-23:
21 For this is what the Lord God says: “How much more when I send My four [h]severe judgments against Jerusalem: sword, famine, vicious animals, and plague to eliminate human and animal life from it! 22 Yet, behold, survivors will be left in it who will be brought out, both sons and daughters. Behold, they are going to come out to you, and you will see their conduct and actions; then you will be comforted for the disaster which I have brought against Jerusalem for everything which I have brought upon it. 23 Then they will comfort you when you see their conduct and actions, for you will know that I have not done without reason whatever I did [j]to it,” declares the Lord God.
But I believe this is more likely in reference to Ez 24's destruction of the temple. In which great detail in Lamentations documents this prophecy. Seeing this kind of what looks to fit the four horsemen but have their own arena of prophesy I would see similar to how Zechariah details the 4 chariots. I would not see that as matching Revelation. No doubt prophecy is extremely challenging.
In Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture the first 700 years of commentary in the early church would see the idea of bow as Pastor Adrian stated, I believe. Like it be presumed that "a bow" just means the weapon as a whole (which would likely include arrows). At least this would be the early church understanding. What might be trustworthy in that is that we would get early commentary on how they understood the use of bow in general. The arrows are presumed. But in the early church the 1st seal was always thought to be Chist, or the church, or the apostles. They would see the arrows as the gospel. Pretty different than from today...lol. It is intriguing though brother to see how AI might weigh in on something like this. Blessings.
I've heard some commentators suggest all the 4 seals are simultanously represented in the 4th. This view relates similar mentions in Ezekiel to all the four horsemen. Ez 14:21-23:
Ezekiel saw things, that were explained in greater detail by John on Patmos.
And in Rev. 6 It is stated clearly that the 4 horsemen are coming one after the other.
AI's "thoughts" come from the large language model that is the AI... AI is going to dupe/mislead a lot of weak people I'm afraid, people who won't read the Word of God for themselves in Spirit and in Truth.
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".
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.
Thanks for replying so late into the eve Kaatje. Get some rest dear sister. Always look forward to what God may bring through you And being where things got to now...i can kind of literally say that...lol. Blessings.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I don't know if this answers your questions, but maybe it helps:
As I see it, the Book of Revelation is both chronological and concentric.
Meaning, that is going forward (one seal, bowl etc. after an other),
But also concentric. God's wrath deepens, and there are flashbacks too.
So, not everything is like dominos falling one after the other.
How that pans out with the A/C and Beast, we'll have to see.
I used to think I had the whole book pat, but now I know that I know so little....
Re. misunderstanding Scripture.
Let's read: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; (Isa.61:1,2)
And compare: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book (Luke 4:18-20)
You see? Jesus stopped reading before mentioning the wrath of God.
Both, the readers of Isaiah's time and the contemporaries of Jesus, could never have guessed that there would be a 2000 year gap between the "acceptable year of the Lord" and the "day of vengeance of our God".
There was no way for them to understand that.
Likewise, the Church through the centuries, saw nothing of God's promises that He would restore Israel in their Homeland. Even though Ezekiel tells about it in no uncertain terms in Ez. 36, where God comforts the mountains and tells them the people will return.
And after that, in Ez. 37, we read about the valley of the dry bones. Who could have guessed that WW2 would bring such devastation to the Jews. That they would rise from the graves in Sobibor and Treblinka, and return to the Promised Land?
To me, that is the one and only reason why the Church allegorized God's promises, and swapped them from Israel to the Church. Because they could not see the marvellous things God would do.
And even that had God foreseen. He even made it so.
We read in Daniel: But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Dan. 12:4)
Now that we live in the end, we can see those things shaping up. May 14 1948 was pivotal in all Bible Prophecy.
We know more, and we see more, and even for us, it is quite difficult to make out more than the contours.
I believe that God has more surprises for us (and Israel!) in store, and only with 20/20 hindsight we will be able to say: "Yes, of course, how could we have missed that? It was plain from the beginning, only our brain couldn't cope."
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.
There were a LOT of deviations from the earliest teachings that happened in the first 700 years, let alone the years afterwards.
Which early church fathers are you drawing from? By the end of the second century and start of the third the church had already lost a lot of it's earlier teachings in favour of growing apostasy including replacement theology.
Ken Johnson summarizes the earliest of the church fathers teachings The End Times by The Ancient Church Fathers, and he and Lee Brainard both have pointed out that Irenaus, Ephrem and Hippolytus taught things very much as we understand them today from the Pre Trib Rapture to the progression of events. Lee has been involved in translating some previously untranslated and ignored passages by Ephrem which firmly establish a Pre Trib Rapture as taught in the first and second century. That was long denied by people whose theological positions were based on that position.
It's like science- if your entire career is built on a theory it's hard to accept proof that you might have been wrong. I don't fault them, it's a tough position to be in. But some in the anti pre trib camp have had this pointed out clearly and still hold to their error and continue to teach that pre trib didn't exist before Darby. This is suppressing the truth - and it's bad.
By the time of Hippolytus who lived 170-235 the drift was starting towards replacement theology, and this would continue into a lot of the bad teaching of the medieval church, becoming fossilized into the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
The fight for truth is a long and difficult journey.
As for the 1st Seal position being that of anyone but the antichrist, it's important to see a couple of things in the text in Revelation.
1: Chapter 4 starts with a break in the text- AFTER THIS says John. After what? well that would be chapter 3 which finishes with the command Come up here. So there is a time stamp, a break from discussing the 7 churches (the things which are) in the 3 divisions of Revelation that Jesus gives and now we are viewing the things to come.
(Jesus breaks it into 3 parts in Rev 1:19 - the things which you see - Jesus, the things which are - the church in it's 7 divisions, and the things which shall be hereafter- after the come up here at the end of ch 3 and the beginning of ch 4)
2: The church in Chapter 4 is immediately seen in heaven thru the representatives of the church - the 24 elders.
We know they are the church because they wear crowns of gold and white robes in Rev 4:4 and they cast those crowns at Jesus feet in Rev 4:10.
PLUS in Rev 5:9-10 they sing a song that ONLY THE CHURCH CAN SING.
9 And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”
We are the redeemed out of EVERY TRIBE AND NATION (this is separate from the Jews, this includes Jews AND GENTILES out of every tribe, tongue, people and nation)
AND THEN THE KICKER --- Made US kings and priests to our God and WE shall reign on the earth!
Who else is the group that is redeemed by His blood, out of every tribe and nation, who are made kings and priests to God, who will reign on the earth????
Israel from the time of Jacob split the roles of priest (Levi) and kings (Judah) until Jesus who fulfilled both offices. before Jacob, the order of Melchizedek ruled as king and priest (Abraham gave tithes to him as Paul points out, and Jesus IS the perfect Melchizedek priest who supercedes the priests of Levi and reigns forever as King).
So this isn't Israel. The martyrs of the Fifth Seal don't arrive till later at the 5th Seal. Rev 6:9-11 and they don't wear crowns. They do have white robes though. There is a distinct difference. If these martyrs were martyred in the Church age, they would have their crowns of rewards. These martyrs don't. They are AFTER the church is raptured. They are martyred between the Rapture and the time of the 5th Seal.
So
The 24 elders are the church. They wear crowns that they cast at Jesus fee, they sing about being redeemed by His blood out of every tribe and nation and they are made kings AND priests. 1 Pet 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, ...
Only Jesus and the church are both kings AND priests.
So long way to say we see the church in Revelation before the opening of the Seals. The person opening the Seals is Jesus, He is not simultaneously opening the Seals and riding out as the first rider. And the Church is present to witness the opening of the Seals.
I don't know if this answers your questions, but maybe it helps:
As I see it, the Book of Revelation is both chronological and concentric.
Meaning, that is going forward (one seal, bowl etc. after an other),
But also concentric. God's wrath deepens, and there are flashbacks too.
So, not everything is like dominos falling one after the other.
How that pans out with the A/C and Beast, we'll have to see.
I used to think I had the whole book pat, but now I know that I know so little....
Re. misunderstanding Scripture.
Let's read: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; (Isa.61:1,2)
And compare: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book (Luke 4:18-20)
You see? Jesus stopped reading before mentioning the wrath of God.
Both, the readers of Isaiah's time and the contemporaries of Jesus, could never have guessed that there would be a 2000 year gap between the "acceptable year of the Lord" and the "day of vengeance of our God".
There was no way for them to understand that.
Likewise, the Church through the centuries, saw nothing of God's promises that He would restore Israel in their Homeland. Even though Ezekiel tells about it in no uncertain terms in Ez. 36, where God comforts the mountains and tells them the people will return.
And after that, in Ez. 37, we read about the valley of the dry bones. Who could have guessed that WW2 would bring such devastation to the Jews. That they would rise from the graves in Sobibor and Treblinka, and return to the Promised Land?
To me, that is the one and only reason why the Church allegorized God's promises, and swapped them from Israel to the Church. Because they could not see the marvellous things God would do.
And even that had God foreseen. He even made it so.
We read in Daniel: But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Dan. 12:4)
Now that we live in the end, we can see those things shaping up. May 14 1948 was pivotal in all Bible Prophecy.
We know more, and we see more, and even for us, it is quite difficult to make out more than the contours.
I believe that God has more surprises for us (and Israel!) in store, and only with 20/20 hindsight we will be able to say: "Yes, of course, how could we have missed that? It was plain from the beginning, only our brain couldn't cope."
Amen sister. 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.
So here is the short cut to my otherwise long post as to why discussion on the matter I believe matters. Sure to land on "only God knows," is always where we will land. But in discussion on the finer point -- which in His image we have been created to be -- the answer there I don't believe is "as much" that only God knows. Because He wrote what He did for us to know Him. That we will be wrong all over the place is a given. Where we might see His majesty more in it...is for kings and queens in Him (Prov 25:2): "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." And although the end of everyman is the inability of discovery of eternity in the heart, God affirms in His own word it doth not only endeth with, "only He knows."
MY OTHER POST IN A NUTSHELL
Staying for the movie we are actually watching is worth the time spent being there. And being there sometimes means being active in that moment. As it serves potentially the same ends the movie playing affords as well.
. . . . .
PS -- I agree with your lovely take on Revelation. I took writing courses some time ago. That most difficult form of writing to me was modular narrative. It is writing that centers on subject and is not linear. We have seen this in Hollywood many times. And although it is not linear, it tends to often be incorporated as semi-linear. This was a very counterintuitive way to write in, I admit. But once seen, opens up incredible genre. Modular narrative did not come on the scene until the 1800s. I imagine, like the book of Daniel not written in leaner sequntial fashion due to perhaps Judaic poetic form in their era, there might be more Judiac poetic form in Revelation than modular narrative. But it would make sense Revelation be written in the literary form for the age it targets most. And in that it would seem very steeped in this literary device. But, the downside for the 1st seal being AC in Revelation is that I attest that when using modular narrative principles (of which I posted far more deeply about on JDF back in the day), it starts to become clear how the 1st seal is very likely not the AC at all. Based on honest modular narrative format, using those principles faithfully, It would seem far more to be the bang zone of the rapture. Honestly. Just saying...lol. And modular narrative agrees 100% with how you just described Reveltion to be written (flash forwards etc). Blessings.
PPS -- I am not affirming God told me anything here...lol. But on the above note, here is a thought that for the first time just occurred to me as a potential. We see the 1st seal as a judgement. And when we think judgement and tribulation...we think about the horrors associated with what sin deserves. And we see how bad the other 20 judements are to this very end, amen. But what tends to escape even a sliver of thought is that these judgements are for the whole world. Yes. But it is also escorted into a judgement for the whole world via the 70th week. And at its most precious entrance point, it might be afforded to consider that in as much as poetic flare is with the One who created all langauge, there might be something extremely poetically in operation with the start of that which underscores the 70th week (in terms of its judgement also upon the world). And that could be what pertains to the 70th week "as the 70th week" perhaps brighter than all the remaining judgements in cycle. If this be a thing (not saying it is but a sliver of thought on it), then would it not be of most profound judgement upon Israel that the one who made her jealous just got raptured?
For us the rapture is "our blessed hope." For unbelieving Israel it would be the utmost wrong outcome. And in this sense of "making Israel jealous" it would seem the epitome of that sentiment be a gentile church that raptures...leaving them...to their 70th week. By this I am not saying that 1st seal judgement is the rapture. lol. Said no one ever. But if we look at things more according to Israel's place in prophetic compus aligning, it does not seem that far outside the sphere to view upon scripture sentiments that align with how things look in the bigger discussion upon Israel than just what we might see through a church without her history. If that makes sense? In any case, yeah thought I'd go there for a second...just for the sense upon how viewing things through an epicentric unbelieving Israel Ez 38/39 chapters seem to take center stage over other version of what we might tend to otherwise see. Me thinks. Just a thought. Ok. Done...lol. Double Blessings.
MY OTHER POST IN A NUTSHELL
Staying for the movie we are actually watching is worth the time spent being there. And being there sometimes means being active in that moment. As it serves potentially the same ends the movie playing affords as well.
Watching and waiting. And studying the Bible while we watch and wait.
This is what makes Bible Prophecy so very exiting.
And even more, it makes the time we live in super exiting.
I am sitting on the edge of my seat, looking out for what God has in store.
And waiting with abated breath for the closing of the Age of Grace.
It can't be long anymore. Maranatha.
Watching and waiting. And studying the Bible while we watch and wait.
This is what makes Bible Prophecy so very exiting.
And even more, it makes the time we live in super exiting.
I am sitting on the edge of my seat, looking out for what God has in store.
And waiting with abated breath for the closing of the Age of Grace.
It can't be long anymore. Maranatha.
Amen. My leaning is 2026/27. But with how things are flying off the shelf, maybe its this year. Some indicators. Nevertheless...yeah...seat holding is kind of in fashion right now...lol. Amen. Blessings.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
en.m.wikipedia.org
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.
