White Horse Of The Apocalypse IV

Arguments Of The Antichrist Position

(on Rev. 6:2)

1. Weapons are different and ergo, the persons are different

Reply

We have already responded to this argument and shown it to be no argument at all.

But, if Christ is the rider in 6:2, why is there a bow with the first and a sword with the second (17:11-15)? Consider these reasons:

1) The bow was generally a long range weapon whereas the sword was short range.

2) When going out to meet an enemy in battle, you fired your long range weapons first, and this represents the beginning of the battle.

3) The sword is the final weapon used to kill the enemy when you are face to face with him.

4) The possession of the bow makes perfect sense for the opening first seal (inaugurating the day of judgment or start of the battle) and possession of the sword makes perfect sense for the opening of the seventh seal (completing the day of battle). Those not killed by the arrows of divine justice will be killed by its sword.

2. Crowns are different and ergo, the persons are different

Reply

We have already responded to this argument and shown it to be no argument at all.

But, if Christ is the rider in 6:2, why is there a stephanos crown connected with the first and a diadem crown with the second (17:11-15)? Consider these reasons:

1) The Stephanos crown is the fruit of his first coming and of his victory over sin and Satan via his sacrificial death and payment of the price of redemption, and by his resurrection from the dead.

2) The Diadema crown is the fruit of his second coming and of his final victory over sin and Satan via his judicial administrations at that time.

Observations

Those who argue that the two passages (6:2 & 19:11) cannot be the same rider because of the difference in crown will sometimes argue that "stephanos" is not applicable to Christ. But, that argument is overthrown by considering the new testament scriptures.

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Heb. 2:9)

The Greek word for "crowned" is "stephanoō" (verb form of the noun). Thus this text says that Christ, after his resurrection and ascension, got his stephanos crown. This text also intimates as much.

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Rev. 3:21)

"Overcame" is from the verb "nikaō" (from when we get our work "Nike" as in the shoe company) and denotes a victor. Further, the same word is used in 6:2 two times by the words "conquer" and "conquering."

Now, in 6:2, the rider is at first view already seen in possession of horse and bow. Unlike the crown, there is no mention of the horse and bow being "given" to the rider. The crown is given to the mounted rider. But, who gave it? And, is the identity of the giver important? What would be the significance for both who gave it and when it was given?

The possibilities for the giver of the crown are: 1) God the Father 2) people of God 3) "crown-bearer" (some kingly servant who keeps the crown while the king has it not on his head).

I believe that the Father rewarded Christ by his overcoming, "crowned him with glory and honor," giving him the victor's or overcomer's crown, after his resurrection. He has had that crown in his possession for now almost two thousand years.

Interesting is the fact that the "crown of thorns" that he wore to the cross was a stephanos crown. Our Lord may well put on that very crown when he begins his first judicial administrations in that great day. But, though he was given that crown two thousand years ago by his Father, that does not mean that he has had it on his head all that time. No doubt it is entrusted to some heavenly crown bearer and keeper. When the Lord Jesus Christ mounts his steed armed with bows and arrows, he will then call for that crown and have it placed upon his head.

If the rider is Antichrist, then we must ask the same questions. Who gave this victor's crown to him? The general masses of the population at that time?

"Law Of Double Reference"

I referred to the concept of "dual fulfillment" in a recent posting (see here), what others call "law of double reference. In "Things To Come" Pentecost (page 46-47) wrote:

"The law of double reference. Few laws are more important to observe in the interpretation of prophetic Scriptures than the law of double reference. Two events, widely separated as to the time of their fulfillment, may be brought together into the scope of one prophecy. This was done because the prophet had a message for his own day as well as for a future time. By bringing two widely separated events into the scope of the prophecy both purposes could be fulfilled. Horne says:

The same prophecies frequently have a double meaning, and refer to different events, the one near, the other remote; the one temporal, the other spiritual or perhaps eternal. The prophets thus having several events in view, their expressions may be partly applicable to one, and partly to another, and it is not always easy to make the transitions. What has not been fulfilled in the first, we must apply to the second; and what has already been fulfilled, may often be considered as typical of what remains to be accomplished."

There are many examples in scripture that prove that some prophecies have a dual or multi fulfillment in events separated in time but which were viewed as happening in a singular event by the prophet.

Interpreting Bible Prophecy Literally

In his book "Things To Come," Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost wrote these excellent words (page 10-11 - see here - emphasis mine):

"Inasmuch as God gave the Word of God as a revelation to men, it would be expected that His revelation would be given in such exact and specific terms that His thoughts would be accurately conveyed and understood when interpreted according to the laws of grammar and speech. Such presumptive evidence favors the literal interpretation, for an allegorical method of interpretation would cloud the meaning of the message delivered by God to men. The fact that the Scriptures continually point to literal interpretations of what was formerly written adds evidence as to the method to be employed in interpreting the Word. Perhaps one of the strongest evidences for the literal method is the use the New Testament makes of the Old Testament. When the Old Testament is used in the New it is used only in a literal sense. One need only study the prophecies which were fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, in His life, His ministry, and His death, to establish that fact. No prophecy which has been completely fulfilled has been fulfilled any way but literally. Though a prophecy may be cited in the New Testament to show that a certain event is a partial fulfillment of that prophecy (as was done in Matthew 2:17-18), or to show that an event is in harmony with God's established program (as was done in Acts 15), it does not necessitate a non-literal fulfillment or deny a future complete fulfillment, for such applications of prophecy do not exhaust the fulfillment of it. Therefore such references to prophecy do not argue for a non-literal method."

These are excellent words in regard to how to interpret prophecy.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse III

"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 to him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer." (Rev. 6: 1-2 kjv)

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." (19:11-15)

Points To Consider

1. Should presume that the rider on the white horse in Rev. 6:2 is Christ since

a) he is clearly Christ in Rev. 19:11, and thus presumption goes with the rider being the same (in other words, the "burden of proof" is on those who believe that the rider of 6:2 is Antichrist, a counterfeit Christ).

b) Generally the picture of a white horse rider with weapons and a crown of victory signifies a strong and righteous leader, not a wicked ruler.

2. Thus, presumption is clearly in favor of the view that says the rider is the conquering Lord, Jesus Christ the Nazarene. In order for an interpreter to take the Antichrist view, he must give proof for taking such a view, that is, he must give exegetical, logical, or textual reasons for such an interpretation. And, as we have seen thus far, the "proof" that those of that view make, based upon the differences in descriptions of the two texts (6:2 and 19:11), are baseless and meager.

3. If the differences in type of weapons and crowns between the riders in 6:2 and 19:11 give credence to the opinion that the riders are different, then why, by the same reasoning, can it not be affirmed that the likenesses or similarities prove that they are the same person? Don't you see?

Arguments Of The Antichrist Position

1. Weapons are different and ergo, the persons are different
2. Crowns are different and ergo, the persons are different
3. Red horse rider takes away the peace given by the white horse rider
4. Christ cannot logically be the opener of the seal and the white horse rider
5. Christ cannot logically be both the sender of the rider and the rider

Bow Versus Sword

1. Is God or the Messiah pictured in scripture as an archer shooting arrows?
2. Is the Devil pictured in scripture as an archer shooting arrows?
3. Are there any other weapons the God or Messiah uses?
4. What kind of bow is intended in Rev. 6:2?
5. Is there any significance to the fact that there is no mention of arrows?
6. Is the bow an "empty bow"?
7. If empty, why?
8. If not empty, why?
9. If a long range bow, what is the significance of that, if any?
10. What poisonous arrows will Christ or Antichrist shoot during the Tribulation?
11. If the same rider, why a sword in 19: 11?
12. If the same rider, why begin with bow and end with sword?

Stephanos Versus Diadema

1. Does Christ have one or the other or both?
2. Does Antichrist have one or the other or both?
3. If the same rider, why begin with Stephanos and end with Diadema?
4. Why is the Stephanos "given" to the rider Christ?
5. Who gave the Stephanos to Christ?
6. Who gave the Stephanos to Antichrist?
7. Why was it given to Antichrist?
6. What is the significance of the rider already having horse and bow but being crowned later?
7. If the same rider, why begin with a singular crown and end with Diadems?

In the next posting we will begin to answer these questions.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse II

Question

1. Is the rider on the white horse a person? Or, an impersonal power or agency?

Answer

I think it is a representation of Christ in the beginning of the day of judgment. I will enlarge later.

Question

 2. If the rider on the red, black, and pale horses are not persons (general view), is it reasonable to assume that the first rider is likewise not a person?

Answer

I used to incline to the view that if the red, black, and pale horse riders were not persons, but powers in operation, then likewise it seems reasonable to assume that the white horse rider is not a person but an executive  power. But, now, I see this as really no argument. Why must all the riders be alike in this respect? Why is it not plausible to think that the white horse rider could be a person though the other three are not? In fact, I can think of reasons why the first rider is to be understood as signifying a person while the other three would be mere personifications. But, again, I will enlarge upon this later.

But consider also that the only ones who can legitimately argue "as one (horse) so all," in respect to the person-hood of the four riders, are they who see the white horse as a symbolic personification of the progress of the power of the gospel. But, even among those who hold to this view, many acknowledge that this progress of the gospel in "conquering" sinners (to salvation) is all the same as Christ himself doing the conquering by the preaching of the gospel. So, really, it is only a minority who argue that all four riders must either be all persons or all impersonal agencies. Those holding to the white horse rider being Christ, and those holding to the white horse rider being Antichrist, likewise see this rider as a person and thus it is probably the majority view that sees the white horse rider as a person exercising some power towards earth and its inhabitants.

Question

3. If the white horse rider is a person, is it Christ (one view) or Antichrist (another view)?

Answer

I have struggled over this issue for many years. Sometimes I have leaned towards the view that the white horse rider was Antichrist. Today however I lean strongly towards the view that the rider is Christ. But, I will give the reasons for this view in upcoming posts. Further, there is a sense in which the rider may typify both. But, again, more on that later.

Question

4. What about the arguments of those who favor each of the several views?

Answer

The view that the white horse rider and his conquests represent Christ who, during the time between his two comings, goes forth conquering the hearts of sinners, through gospel preaching, has been held by many Christians over the centuries. The reasons why I reject this view are these:

1) So far as the preaching of the gospel "conquering" hearts we must say that it has conquered relatively few. Most people have since the beginning rejected God and the gospel of his Son. The text implies that the white horse rider continues to conquer with easy success. But this has not been the history of the effects of gospel preaching for the past 2000 years.

2) To make the white horse rider to refer to what has been taking place in gospel preaching (starting after Pentecost) places the opening of the first seal of the scroll prior to that starting point. That is totally out of context. The opening of the seven seals on the scroll (the scroll of redemption) pertains to the "day of the Lord," to the Lord's own second "Apocalypse," to the "day of his wrath," the "day of vengeance," etc. Therefore it is what the Lamb will do in inaugurating that day. The breaking of that first seal is the first planned event in bringing about redemption and judgment, for both sinful man and for "the whole creation." (Rom. 8)

Since therefore the first seal has not yet been broken on the scroll, the coming of this rider has not yet occurred. This fact makes untenable the view that says that the symbol of the white horse represents the success of gospel preaching in the world. The context deals with the second coming and with the work of Christ in judging and redeeming "the quick and the dead."

Question

5. Is it likely or unlikely that the white horse writer of 6:2 is the same as Rev. chpt. 19?

Answer

I think it is far more likely that the riders and horses are the same.

Question

6. If the same rider, why the differences in description?

Answer

We cannot focus only on the differences in the two descriptions, but must focus on the likenesses as well. Both are riding white horses and have crowns and weapons and both are victorious. We cannot logically say that the few differences in descriptions unquestionably means that the two riders are not the same. There are other possible reasons why the two descriptions are different. I will enlarge upon this later in this series. But consider this retort against the argument that affirms that the differences must cause us to believe that they are not the same person:

There are several visions and descriptions of the Lord Jesus Christ in the apocalyptic scenes. Not all these pictures are the same. But, who will argue that this proves that it is not the same person in this case?

Question

7. Do the differences show that the two white horse riders are not the same?

Answer

See above answer. We cannot assume that the differences mean that the two riders cannot be the same person. In upcoming posts we will look closely at the differences and give alternate explanations for why the descriptions are not exactly the same and yet show how nevertheless it is the same rider.

Question

8. Is it significant that the 6:2 rider has a "stephanos" crown rather than a "diadema" as in chpt. 19?

Answer

Yes, it is significant. But of what? Does the difference in the type of crown force us to interpret that to mean that the rider cannot possibly be the same person? That would be illogical. Such a difference does not prove that the riders are different persons. If I was seen in one picture with one hat on my head, and then seen in another picture with a different hat on my head, how would that prove that I was not the same person? Don't you see? But, I will give my thinking on why there is a difference in the kind of crown the rider wears at the opening of the first seal versus what crown he wears at the final opening in upcoming posts.

Question

9. Does this difference in the type of crown prove that the two writers cannot be the same?

Answer

See answer above. It would be a false inference to say that the difference in crowns proves that the riders cannot be the same.

Question

10. Is there significance in the fact that there is no quiver or arrows mentioned in 6:2?

Answer

The seeming absence of arrows, or quiver, or any other article in archery, and the absence of any other weapons, such as spear or sword, cannot be used as proof that the rider of 6:2 is not the same rider of chapter 19. There are other alternative reasons, as with the difference in crown type, why the weapons described in both visions are different. I will enlarge upon this in upcoming posts.

White Horse Of The Apocalypse

"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 to him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer." (Rev. 6: 1-2 kjv)

I have been studying on this passage for many years. I have been thinking upon it again. I have read many commentators on the passage. Here are some questions I have after all these years of research into it.

Questions

1. Is the rider on the white horse a person? Or, a power or agency?

2. If the rider on the red, black, and pale horses are not persons (general view), is it reasonable to assume that the first rider is likewise not a person?

3. If the white horse rider is a person, is it Christ (one view) or Antichrist (another view)?

4. What about the arguments of those who favor each of the several views?

5. Is it likely or unlikely that the white horse writer of 6:2 is the same as Rev. chpt. 19?

6. If the same rider, why the differences in description?

7. Do the differences show that the two white horse riders are not the same?

8. Is it significant that the 6:2 rider has a "stephanos" crown rather than a "diadema" as in chpt. 19?

9. Does this difference in the type of crown prove that the two riders cannot be the same?

10. Is there significance in the fact that there is no quiver or arrows mentioned in 6:2?

The Several Views

1. A symbol of the progress of gospel evangelism from the time of the apostles till the 2nd coming.

2. A symbol of a time of global peace, safety, and prosperity.

3. A symbol of the coming of Antichrist who comes as a false Messiah.

4. A symbol of the coming of Christ in some way.

In the next several postings I will give my present interpretation of the passage.

Sinners Must Get Divorce First

The following excerpt is from my article "Winslett & Marriage To Christ" (here).

Paul in Romans, as respects our coming to be united to Christ, in marital covenant, said that we must first get freed from our first union, our first husband, and end our former marriage, before we can become married to the Lord Jesus. Wrote Paul:

"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." (Rom. 7: 1-4 KJV)

In this text the union of believers with Christ is described by the marriage metaphor. There are two marital unions, and two husbands, but only one wife. Clearly the second husband is Christ to whom the believer is joined by faith. The first husband many take to be the law, and in some sense this is true. But, it fails to identify the real husband of the sinner. "The law" is identified as the power that creates and maintains the union between the wife and her first husband. That law cannot be broken or set aside. The law cannot be put to death. But, the law that binds the two spouses together becomes no longer applicable nor enforceable when one of the spouses dies. This frees the wife to be lawfully married to another man.

Who then is our first husband? To whom are we joined before our conversion? Are we not joined to several husbands, as the woman at the well in John 4? Are sinners not married to themselves, to their own egos, lusts, and passions? To their laws and ways? To the evil world system? To Satan and evil spirits? Did not God say of Ephraim of old that he is "married to his idols"? (Hosea 4: 17) Do sinners not need, like Ephraim, to obtain a valid divorce or severance of the bond that binds them to idols before they can be married to Christ? The first husband of sinners must be separated from (to use one metaphor), or else the Lord must kill those husbands. When the Lord destroys the idols that are set up in the heart, then the sinner is made ready to be joined to the Lord.

In order for us to become "joined unto the Lord" and be "one spirit" (I Cor. 6: 17) with him, we must first become free from the bond of union that keeps us "joined" to idols, self, lust, pleasures of sin, etc. We must become divorced from our self righteousness too.

One is either married to his sin, and to the world, or he is married to Christ. He cannot have two husbands in the same way that he cannot serve two masters. To whom are you married, dear reader?

"Regenerated" but not "Born"?

Or "Regenerated" but not "Converted"?

The following excerpt is from "Chpt. 115 - Mediate or Immediate?" (here)

Jesus also spoke of the birth process in these words:

"A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world." (John 16: 21)

Surely to be "born into the world" means to have existence in the world.  Birth brings a person into being in the ordered world.  So, likewise does spiritual birth bring one into being in the ordered world of grace and of the kingdom of God.  When does one enter the spiritual world?  Is it not after being delivered from the womb, when the birth process is finished?

What are the consequences to the belief that there is a gap in time between regeneration (see implantation and germination) and birth?  What are the consequences for making spiritual birth to be, in every way, exactly like physical birth?

The most absurd and unscriptural consequence is that it redefines the nature of regeneration.  First, it affirms that a person is "regenerate" who is not "born," and this in spite of the fact that regenerate means the same thing as reborn.  It creates a difference where there is no difference.

Second, it affirms that a man is "regenerate" who is yet unsanctified and unjustified, for sanctification and justification, in scripture, are said to be "by faith."  (See Acts 26: 18 & Rom. 5: 1)

Third, it affirms that a man is regenerate, has a changed heart and new nature, but who is yet an unbeliever and impenitent in heart, and who still is condemned and has the wrath of God abiding upon him.  (See John 3: 18, 36)

Fourth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet taken possession of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is "received" (active voice) through faith via the gospel.  (Gal. 3: 2;  Rom. 8: 15) 

Fifth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not been forgiven of sins, for forgiveness comes by faith.  (See Acts 26: 18)

Sixth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet in darkness (in the womb) and has not come into the light, whereas the scriptures define the regeneration experience as involving enlightenment. (See II Cor. 4: 6)

Seventh, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unwashed and unclean, for cleansing is "by the word."  (See Eph. 5: 26)

Eighth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet unconverted, for conversion is by faith.  (See Acts 3: 19)

Ninth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet saved, for men are saved by faith.  (See Eph. 2: 8)

Tenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet "received (active voice - by faith) the atonement."  (See Rom. 5: 11)

Eleventh, it affirms that regeneration precedes justification whereas the scriptures are clear that justification is logically first.  (See Col. 2: 13)

Twelfth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet under the power and dominion of Satan.  (See Acts 26: 18)

Thirteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not a child and heir of God.  (the Greek word "teknon" - becoming children involves birth - tek - See Rom. 8: 17)

Fourteenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is yet not liberated, for being yet in the womb the infant is still confined.  (See Rom. 6: 18)

Fifteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who is not yet united to Christ, which is by faith.  (See I Cor. 6: 19)

Sixteen, it affirms that a man is regenerate who has not yet had his person and garments washed in the blood of the Lamb.  (See Rev. 7: 14 - active voice in Greek)

Seventeenth, it affirms that a man is regenerate whose sins have not been propitiated.  (See Rom. 3: 25 where propitiation is "through faith")

Needless to say, there are other absurd consequences, but these should be sufficient to show the untenable theory of those who divorce regeneration from birth, and from faith and conversion.