"Why doesn't God save everybody?" by Todd Friel (here)
In this youtube video Todd Friel answers a question from a person in which the above question is discussed. The questions this person asked of Friel pertained to God's justice in damning people who never had a chance to be saved, who never heard the gospel or know the bible. I agree with how Friel answered this person but I thought after hearing it about how different our Hardshell brothers would have responded to the questions. I thought about how many Hardshells would agree with this person rather than with Friel. Listen and see what you think. It is not that long. Also, Friel has a lot of other good videos that are worth watching.
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
White Horse Of The Apocalypse IX
"The horse is prepared for the day of battle, But victory belongs to the LORD." (Proverbs 21:31)
Seiss in "The Apocalypse" wrote these words about the white horse rider of Rev. 6:2:
"Who has not felt a check of awe upon his heart, when contemplating that magnificent description in the book of Job?
“Hast thou given the horse strength? Hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? The glory of his nostrils is terrible. He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength. He goeth on to meet the armed men. He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither turneth he back from the sword. The quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield. He swalloweth the ground with fierceness and rage: neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet. He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains and the shouting.” (Job 39:19-25.)
Put upon that animal now the rider of the text, crowned with sovereign power, and rushing forth to conquest unceasing; and say whether this is the sort of picture which represents a Gospel preacher, or the slow working of the message of grace among human hearts, the great mass of which, in every age, reject and despise it.
Zechariah says, “I saw by night, and behold a man riding upon a red horse, and he stood among the myrtle trees that were in the bottom; and behind him were red horses, speckled, and white. Then said I, O my lord. what are these? And the angel that talked with me said unto me, I will show thee what these be. And the man that stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, These are they whom the Lord hath sent to walk to and fro through the earth.” (Zechariah 1:8-11.)
Were these the ministers of grace and evangelic overture? Were they not rather the powers of God’s providence and government of the world? Hear further: “And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass. In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses; and in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grizzled and bay horses. Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord? And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four Spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth.” (Zechariah 6:8.) And when Elisha prayed that his servant’s eyes might be opened to behold the mighty powers of God, by which he protects his people, and inflicts judgment upon their enemies, what did he see? Let the sacred word itself tell us: “And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha,” and the hosts of Syria were smitten, and hurled back whence they came. (2 Kings 6:15-18.)
Is it difficult then to divine, what horses signify in connection with the Divine government and administrations? Is not the whole idea that of swift and irresistible power? What then are we to see in these horsemen, but earthly images of the swift, invisible, resistless power of God, going forth upon the proud, guilty, and unbelieving world?"
I agree with this fully. However, I do see Christ personally connected with this agency of justice under the white horse.
Note that Seiss (a Dispensationalist) does not believe that the white horse rider is Antichrist. Nor does he see the awful destruction under the red, black, and pale horses as coming from the Antichrist, but rightly as judgments coming upon the wicked world from heaven. He sees nothing counterfeit in the symbolism of purity and righteousness in the white horse rider.
Seiss continued:
"It must be borne in mind, in dealing with these seal openings, that we are dealing with the scenes of the judgment. They relate to “the day of the Lord.” Anticipatory fulfilments have occurred, but the proper breaking of these seals, and whatever is connected with their opening, belongs to the future, and to that momentous period, now at hand, which is to close up the entire order of things now existing. The whole scene presents the action of the judgment throne in heaven, toward those then living upon the earth."
"I have shown that horses, in prophetic vision, are images of God’s swift, invisible, resistless power for the defence of his people, especially in its going forth upon the proud, guilty, and unbelieving world. It was so in the case of those seen by Elisha’s servant, and in the case of those mentioned by Zechariah."
"In these four different horses and horsemen, we are to see four different forms of the coming forth of the judicial power of God upon the inhabitants of the earth, looking to the breaking up of the dominion of wickedness, the punishment and casting out of transgression, and the consummation of that long-pending revolution whose accomplishment is at once the fulfilment of all prophecy and all prayer."
Again, I heartily agree. The first rider inaugurates the coming of wrath, vengeance, and righteous judgment.
Seiss continued:
"We are not to suppose, however, that the action of one ceases entirely, before the other comes into play. They are consecutive in their incoming, in the main stress of them, and in some of their more marked circumstances, but they are all, in a measure, contemporaneous. The action of the first horseman certainly is continuous; for he goes forth in conquest unto conquest, which terminates only in the complete victory in which the opening of the seals ends. His career, therefore, runs on through that of his three successors, and through all the remaining seals. No such intense continuity is expressed with reference to the action of the other horsemen; and the nature of their work is such as not likely to extend itself so far. But there is an inner and natural relationship between the things adumbrated, which renders it quite evident that their several careers overlap each other, and that the doings of the one run side by side with the doings of the other."
This may be true in regard to the four horsemen and the first four seals, but it is not true of the remaining seals, nor of the trumpets associated with the seventh seal. When the events of those seals transpire, the record is clear that the events occur not in an overlapping manner, but in a sequence, so that one series ends before the next begins.
The opening of the scroll is an act of redemption but, as an act of redemption, it also entails the idea of what the Redeemer, acting as a kinsman avenger, will do to murderers and destroyers of family members. Avenging is one of the roles of a "redeemer" (Hebrew 'goel'). He was to avenge the blood of his slain kinsman on the slayer. (Deut. 19:12) "The elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the (Goel) avenger of blood, that he may die."
The Lord Avenger
Notice these verses on the Lord being "avenger," and this as part of his duty as a kinsman redeemer.
"And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. " (Luke 18:7)
"That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified." (I Thess. 4:6)
By "avenger" (εκδικος — ekdikos) is meant one who a "righter" of wrongs, or who "sets things right." An avenger is a vindicator, an executor of justice and righteous vengeance. He brings retribution by arresting and bringing to trial, a just retaliation. Inflicting punishment is the duty of the just avenger, and such is the "kinsman redeemer."
Moses testified:
"Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people." (Deuteronomy 32:43)
"Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you." (Isa. 35:4 KJV)
Joel 3 ends with Yahweh saying, “I will avenge their blood, blood I have not avenged.”
As part of the judgment of the Apocalypse, we see the fulfillment of these primitive prophecies.
"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." (Rev. 18:20 KJV)
"For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." (Rev. 19:2 KJV)
Paul saw the Apocalypse of Christ as a time when Christ acts as the avenging redeemer. He wrote:
"Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (II Thess. 1:6-9 kjv)
Notice those words "recompense tribulation." He executes "vengeance" and sees that the enemies of his people "get their reward," or "get what's coming to them." He sees to it that the guilty are "punished." All this occurs as the function of Christ being Redeemer, Lord, and Judge; And, it is all connected with his being "revealed from heaven with his mighty angels," with the time of his Apocalypse and second coming.
Redeemer's Garments of Vengeance
"For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke." (Isa.59:17 KJV)
Barnes' Notes on the Bible says this about these words of the prophet:
For he put on righteousness - That is, God the Redeemer. The prophet here introduces him as going forth to vindicate his people clad like an ancient warrior. In the declaration that he 'put on righteousness,' the essential idea is, that he was pure and holy. The same image is used by the prophet in another figure in Isaiah 11:5
The statement that he was clad in the garments of vengeance means, that he would go forth to vindicate his people, and to take vengeance on his foes. It would not be for mere defense that he would be thus armed for battle; but he would go forth for aggressive movements, in subduing his enemies and delivering his people (compare Isaiah 63:1-6).
John Gill in his Commentary wrote:
For he put on righteousness as a breastplate,...Here the Lord is represented as a warrior clothed with armour, and as Christ is, and as he will appear in the latter day on the behalf of his people, and against their enemies, who is called faithful and true, and in righteousness will make war, Revelation 19:11, he will proceed according to justice and equity in righting the wrongs and avenging the injuries of his people; and both in saving them, and destroying their enemies, he will secure the honour of his faithfulness and justice, and the credit of his name and character; which will be preserved by his conduct, as the breast and inward parts are by the breastplate:
and an helmet of salvation upon his head; the salvation he will work out for his people will be very conspicuous; it will be seen by all, as the helmet on the head; and he will have the glory of it, on whose head are many crowns, Revelation 19:12. The apostle has borrowed these phrases from hence, and applied them to the Christian armour, Ephesians 6:14,
and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing; or, "he clothed himself with vengeance as a garment" (k); he wrapped himself in it, and resolved to execute it on his and his people's enemies; the time being come to avenge the blood of his servants, by shedding the blood of their adversaries, with which his garments will be stained; and therefore is represented as having on a vesture dipped in blood, Revelation 19:13,
and was clad with zeal as a cloak; with zeal for his own glory, and the interest of his people, and against antichrist, and all antichristian worship and doctrine; and therefore his eyes are said to be as a flame of fire, Revelation 19:12.
When Christ returns and the Apocalypse occurs, Christ will assume the duties of his function as Redeemer, Judge, and Savior. He will be attired as a warrior, as an avenger, clothed in the "garments of vengeance." This is the way Christ is seen in the Apocalypse. The "day of redemption" is connected with "the day of vengeance" and executing justice is an act of redemption. This is seen in verses like Isaiah 63: 4 - "For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come."
Seiss in "The Apocalypse" wrote these words about the white horse rider of Rev. 6:2:
"Who has not felt a check of awe upon his heart, when contemplating that magnificent description in the book of Job?
“Hast thou given the horse strength? Hast thou clothed his neck with thunder? Canst thou make him afraid as a grasshopper? The glory of his nostrils is terrible. He paweth in the valley, and rejoiceth in his strength. He goeth on to meet the armed men. He mocketh at fear, and is not affrighted; neither turneth he back from the sword. The quiver rattleth against him, the glittering spear and the shield. He swalloweth the ground with fierceness and rage: neither believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet. He saith among the trumpets, Ha, ha; and he smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the captains and the shouting.” (Job 39:19-25.)
Put upon that animal now the rider of the text, crowned with sovereign power, and rushing forth to conquest unceasing; and say whether this is the sort of picture which represents a Gospel preacher, or the slow working of the message of grace among human hearts, the great mass of which, in every age, reject and despise it.
Zechariah says, “I saw by night, and behold a man riding upon a red horse, and he stood among the myrtle trees that were in the bottom; and behind him were red horses, speckled, and white. Then said I, O my lord. what are these? And the angel that talked with me said unto me, I will show thee what these be. And the man that stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, These are they whom the Lord hath sent to walk to and fro through the earth.” (Zechariah 1:8-11.)
Were these the ministers of grace and evangelic overture? Were they not rather the powers of God’s providence and government of the world? Hear further: “And I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came four chariots out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass. In the first chariot were red horses; and in the second chariot black horses; and in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot grizzled and bay horses. Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord? And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four Spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth.” (Zechariah 6:8.) And when Elisha prayed that his servant’s eyes might be opened to behold the mighty powers of God, by which he protects his people, and inflicts judgment upon their enemies, what did he see? Let the sacred word itself tell us: “And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha,” and the hosts of Syria were smitten, and hurled back whence they came. (2 Kings 6:15-18.)
Is it difficult then to divine, what horses signify in connection with the Divine government and administrations? Is not the whole idea that of swift and irresistible power? What then are we to see in these horsemen, but earthly images of the swift, invisible, resistless power of God, going forth upon the proud, guilty, and unbelieving world?"
I agree with this fully. However, I do see Christ personally connected with this agency of justice under the white horse.
Note that Seiss (a Dispensationalist) does not believe that the white horse rider is Antichrist. Nor does he see the awful destruction under the red, black, and pale horses as coming from the Antichrist, but rightly as judgments coming upon the wicked world from heaven. He sees nothing counterfeit in the symbolism of purity and righteousness in the white horse rider.
Seiss continued:
"It must be borne in mind, in dealing with these seal openings, that we are dealing with the scenes of the judgment. They relate to “the day of the Lord.” Anticipatory fulfilments have occurred, but the proper breaking of these seals, and whatever is connected with their opening, belongs to the future, and to that momentous period, now at hand, which is to close up the entire order of things now existing. The whole scene presents the action of the judgment throne in heaven, toward those then living upon the earth."
"I have shown that horses, in prophetic vision, are images of God’s swift, invisible, resistless power for the defence of his people, especially in its going forth upon the proud, guilty, and unbelieving world. It was so in the case of those seen by Elisha’s servant, and in the case of those mentioned by Zechariah."
"In these four different horses and horsemen, we are to see four different forms of the coming forth of the judicial power of God upon the inhabitants of the earth, looking to the breaking up of the dominion of wickedness, the punishment and casting out of transgression, and the consummation of that long-pending revolution whose accomplishment is at once the fulfilment of all prophecy and all prayer."
Again, I heartily agree. The first rider inaugurates the coming of wrath, vengeance, and righteous judgment.
Seiss continued:
"We are not to suppose, however, that the action of one ceases entirely, before the other comes into play. They are consecutive in their incoming, in the main stress of them, and in some of their more marked circumstances, but they are all, in a measure, contemporaneous. The action of the first horseman certainly is continuous; for he goes forth in conquest unto conquest, which terminates only in the complete victory in which the opening of the seals ends. His career, therefore, runs on through that of his three successors, and through all the remaining seals. No such intense continuity is expressed with reference to the action of the other horsemen; and the nature of their work is such as not likely to extend itself so far. But there is an inner and natural relationship between the things adumbrated, which renders it quite evident that their several careers overlap each other, and that the doings of the one run side by side with the doings of the other."
This may be true in regard to the four horsemen and the first four seals, but it is not true of the remaining seals, nor of the trumpets associated with the seventh seal. When the events of those seals transpire, the record is clear that the events occur not in an overlapping manner, but in a sequence, so that one series ends before the next begins.
The opening of the scroll is an act of redemption but, as an act of redemption, it also entails the idea of what the Redeemer, acting as a kinsman avenger, will do to murderers and destroyers of family members. Avenging is one of the roles of a "redeemer" (Hebrew 'goel'). He was to avenge the blood of his slain kinsman on the slayer. (Deut. 19:12) "The elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the (Goel) avenger of blood, that he may die."
The Lord Avenger
Notice these verses on the Lord being "avenger," and this as part of his duty as a kinsman redeemer.
"That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified." (I Thess. 4:6)
By "avenger" (εκδικος — ekdikos) is meant one who a "righter" of wrongs, or who "sets things right." An avenger is a vindicator, an executor of justice and righteous vengeance. He brings retribution by arresting and bringing to trial, a just retaliation. Inflicting punishment is the duty of the just avenger, and such is the "kinsman redeemer."
Moses testified:
"Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people." (Deuteronomy 32:43)
"Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you." (Isa. 35:4 KJV)
Joel 3 ends with Yahweh saying, “I will avenge their blood, blood I have not avenged.”
"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." (Rev. 18:20 KJV)
"For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand." (Rev. 19:2 KJV)
Paul saw the Apocalypse of Christ as a time when Christ acts as the avenging redeemer. He wrote:
"Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (II Thess. 1:6-9 kjv)
Notice those words "recompense tribulation." He executes "vengeance" and sees that the enemies of his people "get their reward," or "get what's coming to them." He sees to it that the guilty are "punished." All this occurs as the function of Christ being Redeemer, Lord, and Judge; And, it is all connected with his being "revealed from heaven with his mighty angels," with the time of his Apocalypse and second coming.
Redeemer's Garments of Vengeance
"For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke." (Isa.59:17 KJV)
Barnes' Notes on the Bible says this about these words of the prophet:
For he put on righteousness - That is, God the Redeemer. The prophet here introduces him as going forth to vindicate his people clad like an ancient warrior. In the declaration that he 'put on righteousness,' the essential idea is, that he was pure and holy. The same image is used by the prophet in another figure in Isaiah 11:5
The statement that he was clad in the garments of vengeance means, that he would go forth to vindicate his people, and to take vengeance on his foes. It would not be for mere defense that he would be thus armed for battle; but he would go forth for aggressive movements, in subduing his enemies and delivering his people (compare Isaiah 63:1-6).
John Gill in his Commentary wrote:
For he put on righteousness as a breastplate,...Here the Lord is represented as a warrior clothed with armour, and as Christ is, and as he will appear in the latter day on the behalf of his people, and against their enemies, who is called faithful and true, and in righteousness will make war, Revelation 19:11, he will proceed according to justice and equity in righting the wrongs and avenging the injuries of his people; and both in saving them, and destroying their enemies, he will secure the honour of his faithfulness and justice, and the credit of his name and character; which will be preserved by his conduct, as the breast and inward parts are by the breastplate:
and an helmet of salvation upon his head; the salvation he will work out for his people will be very conspicuous; it will be seen by all, as the helmet on the head; and he will have the glory of it, on whose head are many crowns, Revelation 19:12. The apostle has borrowed these phrases from hence, and applied them to the Christian armour, Ephesians 6:14,
and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing; or, "he clothed himself with vengeance as a garment" (k); he wrapped himself in it, and resolved to execute it on his and his people's enemies; the time being come to avenge the blood of his servants, by shedding the blood of their adversaries, with which his garments will be stained; and therefore is represented as having on a vesture dipped in blood, Revelation 19:13,
and was clad with zeal as a cloak; with zeal for his own glory, and the interest of his people, and against antichrist, and all antichristian worship and doctrine; and therefore his eyes are said to be as a flame of fire, Revelation 19:12.
When Christ returns and the Apocalypse occurs, Christ will assume the duties of his function as Redeemer, Judge, and Savior. He will be attired as a warrior, as an avenger, clothed in the "garments of vengeance." This is the way Christ is seen in the Apocalypse. The "day of redemption" is connected with "the day of vengeance" and executing justice is an act of redemption. This is seen in verses like Isaiah 63: 4 - "For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come."
White Horse Of The Apocalypse VIII
Here are questions that must be answered in regard to the white horse rider having a "toxon" or "bow."
1. Is the "bow" an archer's bow or some other kind?
2. What is the meaning of "toxon"?
3. Does "toxon" denote an empty bow (empty bow)?
4. If there are arrows, for what purpose and against whom?
5. If the bow has no arrows (an empty bow), why empty? Significance?
6. Why did Strong say of "toxon" - 'apparently as the simplest fabric'?
7. How does "tikto" (root of 'toxon') relate to the idea of a "bow"?
8. Is "toxon" a "ribbon" (as some affirm).
Scholars On "Toxon"
The Greek word translated "bow" is from "toxon." The etymology of this word has not been clearly discernible. The Greek word "toxon" gives us our English word "toxic" (poisonous). Rev. 6:2 is the only time the word is used in the NT. Strong defines "toxon" as: "From the base of G5088; a bow (apparently as the simplest fabric):—bow"
Strong on G5088 (τίκτω tikto):
1) to bring forth, bear, produce (fruit from the seed)
1a) of a woman giving birth
1b) of the earth bringing forth its fruits
1c) metaph. to bear, bring forth
There is some mystery surrounding the meaning of this unique Greek word. Confusion is added when one reads Strong's definition as somehow involving a "simplest fabric." There seems to be some unneeded speculation as to the significance of "toxon."
From my research I see the basic root "tox" as meaning a curve. The suffix, whether "on" or some other, says something about what is curved. An archer's bow is curved. The rainbow is curved. A man curves his body when he "bows" to another. Etc.
I offer my own speculation about how "simplest fabric" and "giving birth to" (tikto) or "producing" may be involved and yet the main idea of an archer's bow remains foremost.
So, how did the archer put the poison on the tips of arrows? Not with his fingers, for the poison would kill the archer. So, he would use some instrument to apply the poison to the arrows unless he merely dipped each arrow in the liquid poison. Application of poison to the arrows could easily be done with a piece of cheap cloth also. Further, who knows but that the bow or some part of the arrows were not of some kind of fabric? Further, a quiver being implied, though not mentioned, it could well be that the quiver was made of "fabric." Perhaps too the feathers on the arrows were of some kind of fabric material. But, these are just speculations. But, so too are the things said by those who make "toxon" to mean "ribbon," "rainbow," etc.
Also, as far as "bringing forth" being the root for "toxon" we could speculate that the reason is due to the fact that analogously the bow brings forth, or shoots forth, arrows. Children in the OT were viewed as "arrows" in a father's "quiver." (Psalms 127: 4-5)
We cannot allow the idea of fabric or birth to become the prominent ideas in "toxon," which is rather a bow with poisoned arrows.
The "toxon" cannot mean "rainbow" (though some teach this) for "rainbow" has its own Greek word. Two times in Revelation it is from the Greek word "iris." Though the same Hebrew word for "bow" was used for both rainbows and for archery bows in the Old Testament, it is different in the Greek New Testament.
Those who say that the "toxon" is the rainbow will use this idea to jump to the idea that the rider has some kind of connection with a covenant. But, this is all false. The rider on the white horse is not carrying a symbol of a covenant (as the rainbow is). The rider is a mighty warrior on a war steed.
Toxon in the Septuagint
Toxon is the Greek word used in the Septuagint for the Hebrew word "qesheth" (translated "bow" in Old Testament). It is used first in regard to the rainbow.
"I do set my bow (toxon) in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth." (Gen. 9:13 and vs. 14 & 16; Exe. 1:28)
Remembering that the basic root of "toxon" simply means "curved" we can see why the rainbow is such. In fact we could translate as "I do set my curve in the cloud." A curve is an arch. But rainbow is not the primary usage of "qesheth" in the OT. It is chiefly used of a man bowing down, or to an archer's bow, used either for hunting or for warfare, or both. Let us look at some OT verses where the Hebrew word "qesheth" ('toxon' in Greek Septuagint) is used and the reference is to a weapon of war.
"And of Benjamin; Eliada a mighty man of valour, and with him armed men with bow and shield two hundred thousand." (2Ch 17:17)
Notice in the words "armed men with bow" that there is no mention of arrows. Does that mean that they are not with the warriors? If we use the same logic that many apply to Rev. 6:2 and the supposed absence of arrows there, then we will have to say that they were "armed" with a bow but with no arrows! Is that not absurd? Does it not show how illogical is the argumentation on the supposed absence of arrows in Rev. 6:2? Just as arrows are implied In the words "armed with toxon" so too are they implied in the statement that the white horse rider of 6:2 has a "toxon." Don't you see?
"Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow." (Isa. 41:2)
Again, there is no mention of arrows in this text. Does that mean we are to assume that there are none? Of course not. When the text says "driven stubble to his bow" we know that it does not mean his empty bow! The arrows are implied though they are not specifically mentioned. Further, to exclude the presence of arrows because they are not specifically mentioned is just plain nonsense. A bow is mentioned 78 times in 75 verses in the bible and over 50 times it is mentioned without arrows; And, in none of them is the bow to be assumed as being empty or without arrows!
In Zechariah 9:10 and 10:4 "the battle toxon/bow" is mentioned. It would be foolish to imagine that this battle toxon excluded poisoned arrows! The very word "toxon" carries with it the idea of poisoned arrows. It is from this Greek word that we get our English words "toxic" and "intoxicated."
"The British publisher defines the adjective toxic as “poisonous.” The word first appeared in English in the 1650s. It came from the Latin word toxicus, meaning “poisoned.”
The Latin word itself actually came from the Greek term toxon, meaning “bow.” In ancient Greece, fighters with bows would put poison on the points of their arrows." (here)
On the word "intoxicate" Webster says:
"Etymology: from Latin intoxicatus, past participle of intoxicare "to poison," from earlier in- "put into" and toxicum "poison," from Greek toxikon "arrow poison," from toxon "bow, arrow" --related to TOXIC, TOXIN.
Word History The Greek word toxon means "bow" or "arrow." From this came the Greek toxikon, meaning "a poison in which arrows are dipped." Toxikon was borrowed into Latin as toxicum, which gave rise to the Latin verb intoxicare, "to poison." The English word intoxicate comes from this Latin verb. Intoxicate originally meant "to poison" in English, but now it is almost never used with this meaning. It is related to the words toxic, meaning "poisonous," and toxin, meaning "a poison." Both of these words can also be traced to the Greek toxon." (here)
Notice then that the Greek word "toxon" includes the idea of arrows that are dipped in poison. Therefore those teachers who argue for an empty bow for the white horse rider of 6:2 are simply ignorant it seems of these plain facts.
Wrote one writer about one of the constellations:
"The Greeks called this constellation Toxeutes, the Archer, from Toxon, bow. Modern archers are known as toxophilites or 'bow lovers', toxophily is the sport of archery. The word Taxus, the yew genus and the Latin word for yew, is of the same origin as Greek toxon, bow. In Europe bows were mostly made from yew, and English bows in particular were invariably cut from yew trees. Greek toxicon, neuter of the adjective toxicos, means 'arrow poison' and poisons smeared on arrows were fired from bows (toxa or toxon) derived from the yew-tree. Our verb intoxicate originally meant 'to poison'. The 17th century herbalist Nicolas Culpepper said of Yew toxins: "it is the most active vegetable poison known in the whole world, for in a small dose it instantly induces death." (here)
Hercules wielded an oversized club, a vaunted bow, and poison-tipped arrows.
Can there be any doubt then that the righteous and victorious white horse rider of 6:2 has a bow with poisoned arrows?
Poisoned Arrows
"For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me." (Job 6: 4)
Here God is pictured as an archer with poisoned arrows. Where is Satan or the Antichrist ever pictured as an archer? That he may in some respects be such, as all men are who shoot forth evil words (as we will see), their words being compared to poisonous arrows, it is not that which is generally characteristic of him in holy scripture. However, God and his Son are pictured in numerous places as not only wielding a sword, but as an archer shooting arrows. But, of that we will enlarge upon in upcoming posts.
Empty Bow?
I think we have shown how those who argue for an empty bow are in error. But, why do so many of today's Dispensational theorists not only insist that the bow is empty, without arrows, but that such a supposed fact is significant, denoting "bloodless conquests," a symbol of peace being brought?
As stated in earlier postings the idea of bringing immediate peace is not the chief idea connected with a warrior on a mounted warhorse with crown and toxon, but is conquest by means of the bow. Peace will come as the effect of the work of the white horse rider (in ridding the world of all the wicked, both of men and spirits, and that happens after Rev. 19). In fact, as we see the next three riders bringing death and destruction, peace is not brought but rather "taken from" the world. It is the peace that God has been giving but which he takes away in the day of wrath. In fact, all through the day of wrath and tribulation men are losing peace! "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked." (Isa. 48: 22) And, since the rider on the white horse in 6:2 is leading the charge of the horses that follow, we see anything but "bloodless" conquering.
1. Is the "bow" an archer's bow or some other kind?
2. What is the meaning of "toxon"?
3. Does "toxon" denote an empty bow (empty bow)?
4. If there are arrows, for what purpose and against whom?
5. If the bow has no arrows (an empty bow), why empty? Significance?
6. Why did Strong say of "toxon" - 'apparently as the simplest fabric'?
7. How does "tikto" (root of 'toxon') relate to the idea of a "bow"?
8. Is "toxon" a "ribbon" (as some affirm).
Scholars On "Toxon"
The Greek word translated "bow" is from "toxon." The etymology of this word has not been clearly discernible. The Greek word "toxon" gives us our English word "toxic" (poisonous). Rev. 6:2 is the only time the word is used in the NT. Strong defines "toxon" as: "From the base of G5088; a bow (apparently as the simplest fabric):—bow"
Strong on G5088 (τίκτω tikto):
1) to bring forth, bear, produce (fruit from the seed)
1a) of a woman giving birth
1b) of the earth bringing forth its fruits
1c) metaph. to bear, bring forth
There is some mystery surrounding the meaning of this unique Greek word. Confusion is added when one reads Strong's definition as somehow involving a "simplest fabric." There seems to be some unneeded speculation as to the significance of "toxon."
From my research I see the basic root "tox" as meaning a curve. The suffix, whether "on" or some other, says something about what is curved. An archer's bow is curved. The rainbow is curved. A man curves his body when he "bows" to another. Etc.
I offer my own speculation about how "simplest fabric" and "giving birth to" (tikto) or "producing" may be involved and yet the main idea of an archer's bow remains foremost.
So, how did the archer put the poison on the tips of arrows? Not with his fingers, for the poison would kill the archer. So, he would use some instrument to apply the poison to the arrows unless he merely dipped each arrow in the liquid poison. Application of poison to the arrows could easily be done with a piece of cheap cloth also. Further, who knows but that the bow or some part of the arrows were not of some kind of fabric? Further, a quiver being implied, though not mentioned, it could well be that the quiver was made of "fabric." Perhaps too the feathers on the arrows were of some kind of fabric material. But, these are just speculations. But, so too are the things said by those who make "toxon" to mean "ribbon," "rainbow," etc.
Also, as far as "bringing forth" being the root for "toxon" we could speculate that the reason is due to the fact that analogously the bow brings forth, or shoots forth, arrows. Children in the OT were viewed as "arrows" in a father's "quiver." (Psalms 127: 4-5)
We cannot allow the idea of fabric or birth to become the prominent ideas in "toxon," which is rather a bow with poisoned arrows.
The "toxon" cannot mean "rainbow" (though some teach this) for "rainbow" has its own Greek word. Two times in Revelation it is from the Greek word "iris." Though the same Hebrew word for "bow" was used for both rainbows and for archery bows in the Old Testament, it is different in the Greek New Testament.
Those who say that the "toxon" is the rainbow will use this idea to jump to the idea that the rider has some kind of connection with a covenant. But, this is all false. The rider on the white horse is not carrying a symbol of a covenant (as the rainbow is). The rider is a mighty warrior on a war steed.
Toxon in the Septuagint
Toxon is the Greek word used in the Septuagint for the Hebrew word "qesheth" (translated "bow" in Old Testament). It is used first in regard to the rainbow.
"I do set my bow (toxon) in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth." (Gen. 9:13 and vs. 14 & 16; Exe. 1:28)
Remembering that the basic root of "toxon" simply means "curved" we can see why the rainbow is such. In fact we could translate as "I do set my curve in the cloud." A curve is an arch. But rainbow is not the primary usage of "qesheth" in the OT. It is chiefly used of a man bowing down, or to an archer's bow, used either for hunting or for warfare, or both. Let us look at some OT verses where the Hebrew word "qesheth" ('toxon' in Greek Septuagint) is used and the reference is to a weapon of war.
"And of Benjamin; Eliada a mighty man of valour, and with him armed men with bow and shield two hundred thousand." (2Ch 17:17)
Notice in the words "armed men with bow" that there is no mention of arrows. Does that mean that they are not with the warriors? If we use the same logic that many apply to Rev. 6:2 and the supposed absence of arrows there, then we will have to say that they were "armed" with a bow but with no arrows! Is that not absurd? Does it not show how illogical is the argumentation on the supposed absence of arrows in Rev. 6:2? Just as arrows are implied In the words "armed with toxon" so too are they implied in the statement that the white horse rider of 6:2 has a "toxon." Don't you see?
"Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow." (Isa. 41:2)
Again, there is no mention of arrows in this text. Does that mean we are to assume that there are none? Of course not. When the text says "driven stubble to his bow" we know that it does not mean his empty bow! The arrows are implied though they are not specifically mentioned. Further, to exclude the presence of arrows because they are not specifically mentioned is just plain nonsense. A bow is mentioned 78 times in 75 verses in the bible and over 50 times it is mentioned without arrows; And, in none of them is the bow to be assumed as being empty or without arrows!
In Zechariah 9:10 and 10:4 "the battle toxon/bow" is mentioned. It would be foolish to imagine that this battle toxon excluded poisoned arrows! The very word "toxon" carries with it the idea of poisoned arrows. It is from this Greek word that we get our English words "toxic" and "intoxicated."
"The British publisher defines the adjective toxic as “poisonous.” The word first appeared in English in the 1650s. It came from the Latin word toxicus, meaning “poisoned.”
The Latin word itself actually came from the Greek term toxon, meaning “bow.” In ancient Greece, fighters with bows would put poison on the points of their arrows." (here)
On the word "intoxicate" Webster says:
"Etymology: from Latin intoxicatus, past participle of intoxicare "to poison," from earlier in- "put into" and toxicum "poison," from Greek toxikon "arrow poison," from toxon "bow, arrow" --related to TOXIC, TOXIN.
Word History The Greek word toxon means "bow" or "arrow." From this came the Greek toxikon, meaning "a poison in which arrows are dipped." Toxikon was borrowed into Latin as toxicum, which gave rise to the Latin verb intoxicare, "to poison." The English word intoxicate comes from this Latin verb. Intoxicate originally meant "to poison" in English, but now it is almost never used with this meaning. It is related to the words toxic, meaning "poisonous," and toxin, meaning "a poison." Both of these words can also be traced to the Greek toxon." (here)
Notice then that the Greek word "toxon" includes the idea of arrows that are dipped in poison. Therefore those teachers who argue for an empty bow for the white horse rider of 6:2 are simply ignorant it seems of these plain facts.
Wrote one writer about one of the constellations:
"The Greeks called this constellation Toxeutes, the Archer, from Toxon, bow. Modern archers are known as toxophilites or 'bow lovers', toxophily is the sport of archery. The word Taxus, the yew genus and the Latin word for yew, is of the same origin as Greek toxon, bow. In Europe bows were mostly made from yew, and English bows in particular were invariably cut from yew trees. Greek toxicon, neuter of the adjective toxicos, means 'arrow poison' and poisons smeared on arrows were fired from bows (toxa or toxon) derived from the yew-tree. Our verb intoxicate originally meant 'to poison'. The 17th century herbalist Nicolas Culpepper said of Yew toxins: "it is the most active vegetable poison known in the whole world, for in a small dose it instantly induces death." (here)
Hercules wielded an oversized club, a vaunted bow, and poison-tipped arrows.
Can there be any doubt then that the righteous and victorious white horse rider of 6:2 has a bow with poisoned arrows?
Poisoned Arrows
"For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me." (Job 6: 4)
Here God is pictured as an archer with poisoned arrows. Where is Satan or the Antichrist ever pictured as an archer? That he may in some respects be such, as all men are who shoot forth evil words (as we will see), their words being compared to poisonous arrows, it is not that which is generally characteristic of him in holy scripture. However, God and his Son are pictured in numerous places as not only wielding a sword, but as an archer shooting arrows. But, of that we will enlarge upon in upcoming posts.
Empty Bow?
I think we have shown how those who argue for an empty bow are in error. But, why do so many of today's Dispensational theorists not only insist that the bow is empty, without arrows, but that such a supposed fact is significant, denoting "bloodless conquests," a symbol of peace being brought?
As stated in earlier postings the idea of bringing immediate peace is not the chief idea connected with a warrior on a mounted warhorse with crown and toxon, but is conquest by means of the bow. Peace will come as the effect of the work of the white horse rider (in ridding the world of all the wicked, both of men and spirits, and that happens after Rev. 19). In fact, as we see the next three riders bringing death and destruction, peace is not brought but rather "taken from" the world. It is the peace that God has been giving but which he takes away in the day of wrath. In fact, all through the day of wrath and tribulation men are losing peace! "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked." (Isa. 48: 22) And, since the rider on the white horse in 6:2 is leading the charge of the horses that follow, we see anything but "bloodless" conquering.
Friday, April 17, 2020
White Horse Of The Apocalypse VII
Mistaken Identity
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (II Thess. 2: 3-4)
Who comes first, Christ or Antichrist? Obviously, according to these words of Paul, Antichrist comes first. When Christ comes, Antichrist is already present. Said Paul further:
"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." (vs. 8)
Christ destroys the Antichrist when he comes, thus Antichrist comes before Christ.
If Christ comes in Rev. 19, then Antichrist does appear first. Antichrist appears in Rev. 11 (or even earlier if in 6: 2 the rider is Antichrist) where he kills the Lord's "two witnesses."
If Christ comes in the rapture in Rev. 4:1 (believed by many), then Christ comes in the rapture before Antichrist. If Christ's coming is in two stages, the first will precede the Antichrist and the latter follow.
So, just when in the Apocalypse does the "man of lawlessness," or "son of perdition," or "Antichrist," first show up on the scene?
The rider on the white horse in 6:2 cannot be Antichrist because he does not appear on the scene till the opening of the sixth seal, where he kills the two witness prophets.
Rev. 11: 7 says:
"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them."
But, if the beast is in the abyss, or bottomless pit, until the the time when the pit is opened under the seventh seal and the fifth angel blows his trumpet, then he could not be the one who comes on the scene in 6:2. The pit is not yet opened in Rev. 6:2.
It is a reading into the text of 6: 2 the idea of Antichrist, for there is nothing in the context to indicate it is the vision of a false Christ.
The arguments that the white horse rider cannot be Christ in 6:2 were all based primarily on the fact that there are certain things different about the description of the rider in 6:2 with 19:11-15; And as I have shown, they are not cogent or sound. They are so baseless that one must stand bewildered with those modern interpreters who insist on seeing the Antichrist in the rider of 6:2. This insistence exists and persists in spite of the fact that there is no contextual reason at all for doing so and is also against the prima facie case for it being Christ, as I have been demonstrating.
But, there is another argument used by those who insist on making the white horse rider to be Antichrist. It argues that the rider cannot be Christ because of the evils that follow under the red, black, and pale horses. Such things, they argue, would not follow the appearance of Christ on the white horse (as in Rev. 19) and ergo the 6:2 rider must be a counterfeit, i.e., the Antichrist.
Those who argue this way will be easy prey to the interpretation that the Antichrist will give for the things that will have occurred under the previous seals and trumpets. He will no doubt argue that the true God and the true Christ are not causing these things (judgments on the world up to Rev. 11:7) but an evil God/Christ; And that the world must unite around him in order to save themselves from further judgment coming from the heavens.
Further, it seems strange to me that any bible teacher who would make such an argument for it plainly shows ignorance of the scriptures. The opening of the seals begins the day of wrath and judgment. And, vengeance and awful tribulation and death and suffering are connected with the end of the age. The coming of the Lord Jesus is described as coming to bring retribution as well as restoration.
This rider knows no defeat
How then can it be Antichrist?
This appearance of the white horse rider with his "toxon" (bow) and victor's crown going forth in repeated victory at the opening of the first of the seven seals is not the second coming of Christ but that which marks his inauguration of it. It is the beginning of "that day" as viewed from heaven. He does not fully arrive in the clouds of the lower air, nor set his feet upon sea and land, until all the seals have been opened and the trumpets have all sounded. At that time his being seen on the white horse will by the inhabitants of earth.
Obviously the rider's arrows precede the rider! The red, black, and pale horse riders may be viewed as poisoned arrows shot from the Almighty victor's bow at the "beginning of the end" of the day of judgment.
Or, by another figure, they may be viewed as things "conquered" by the rider on the white horse. Those killed under these three horses are enemies of God and righteousness, and enemies of his people, both among Jews and Christians, and God comes to kill them as he promised to do in the day of wrath and vengeance.
If the work and purpose of the red, black, and pale horse riders is to kill wicked people (and it is) then he is successful or victorious in that conquest.
The movement of the white horse rider (from the words "go" and "see") represents his first advance towards our world.
To me it is a case of "identity theft" to make the victorious rider on the white horse to be Antichrist.
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (II Thess. 2: 3-4)
Who comes first, Christ or Antichrist? Obviously, according to these words of Paul, Antichrist comes first. When Christ comes, Antichrist is already present. Said Paul further:
"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." (vs. 8)
Christ destroys the Antichrist when he comes, thus Antichrist comes before Christ.
If Christ comes in Rev. 19, then Antichrist does appear first. Antichrist appears in Rev. 11 (or even earlier if in 6: 2 the rider is Antichrist) where he kills the Lord's "two witnesses."
If Christ comes in the rapture in Rev. 4:1 (believed by many), then Christ comes in the rapture before Antichrist. If Christ's coming is in two stages, the first will precede the Antichrist and the latter follow.
So, just when in the Apocalypse does the "man of lawlessness," or "son of perdition," or "Antichrist," first show up on the scene?
The rider on the white horse in 6:2 cannot be Antichrist because he does not appear on the scene till the opening of the sixth seal, where he kills the two witness prophets.
Rev. 11: 7 says:
"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them."
But, if the beast is in the abyss, or bottomless pit, until the the time when the pit is opened under the seventh seal and the fifth angel blows his trumpet, then he could not be the one who comes on the scene in 6:2. The pit is not yet opened in Rev. 6:2.
It is a reading into the text of 6: 2 the idea of Antichrist, for there is nothing in the context to indicate it is the vision of a false Christ.
The arguments that the white horse rider cannot be Christ in 6:2 were all based primarily on the fact that there are certain things different about the description of the rider in 6:2 with 19:11-15; And as I have shown, they are not cogent or sound. They are so baseless that one must stand bewildered with those modern interpreters who insist on seeing the Antichrist in the rider of 6:2. This insistence exists and persists in spite of the fact that there is no contextual reason at all for doing so and is also against the prima facie case for it being Christ, as I have been demonstrating.
But, there is another argument used by those who insist on making the white horse rider to be Antichrist. It argues that the rider cannot be Christ because of the evils that follow under the red, black, and pale horses. Such things, they argue, would not follow the appearance of Christ on the white horse (as in Rev. 19) and ergo the 6:2 rider must be a counterfeit, i.e., the Antichrist.
Those who argue this way will be easy prey to the interpretation that the Antichrist will give for the things that will have occurred under the previous seals and trumpets. He will no doubt argue that the true God and the true Christ are not causing these things (judgments on the world up to Rev. 11:7) but an evil God/Christ; And that the world must unite around him in order to save themselves from further judgment coming from the heavens.
Further, it seems strange to me that any bible teacher who would make such an argument for it plainly shows ignorance of the scriptures. The opening of the seals begins the day of wrath and judgment. And, vengeance and awful tribulation and death and suffering are connected with the end of the age. The coming of the Lord Jesus is described as coming to bring retribution as well as restoration.
This rider knows no defeat
How then can it be Antichrist?
This appearance of the white horse rider with his "toxon" (bow) and victor's crown going forth in repeated victory at the opening of the first of the seven seals is not the second coming of Christ but that which marks his inauguration of it. It is the beginning of "that day" as viewed from heaven. He does not fully arrive in the clouds of the lower air, nor set his feet upon sea and land, until all the seals have been opened and the trumpets have all sounded. At that time his being seen on the white horse will by the inhabitants of earth.
Obviously the rider's arrows precede the rider! The red, black, and pale horse riders may be viewed as poisoned arrows shot from the Almighty victor's bow at the "beginning of the end" of the day of judgment.
Or, by another figure, they may be viewed as things "conquered" by the rider on the white horse. Those killed under these three horses are enemies of God and righteousness, and enemies of his people, both among Jews and Christians, and God comes to kill them as he promised to do in the day of wrath and vengeance.
If the work and purpose of the red, black, and pale horse riders is to kill wicked people (and it is) then he is successful or victorious in that conquest.
The movement of the white horse rider (from the words "go" and "see") represents his first advance towards our world.
To me it is a case of "identity theft" to make the victorious rider on the white horse to be Antichrist.
Thursday, April 16, 2020
Ready For The Return Of Christ?
"Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." (Matt. 24:44)
Christian, are you ready?
Unbeliever, are you ready?
World, are you ready?
What is meant by being "ready" for the Lord? What is the fate of those "servants" who are not watching and not ready?
"Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (45-51)
Notice that Christ will find both "faithful and wise" and "evil" servants when he returns and that the latter shall suffer the fate of the hypocrites, in the place where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth." From the above text, what are the differences between these two servants?
The good servant is "faithful," "wise," not slothful (working only when the master is around), and always on the lookout for the master's return. He wants to be "ready" for that day.
The evil servant is not wise nor faithful, and his cry is "my lord delays his coming."
And, for what reason does he "smite (attack) his fellowservants"? Is this not what scoffers of preaching on the second coming (and prophecy and the book of Revelation) do? When someone begins to stir up Christians, because of signs occurring, is he not often ridiculed by other Christians who call such heralds of the soon coming of Jesus by such words as "fanatic date setters," "Chicken Little preachers," "alarmists," etc.?
Why do so many Christians make a merit of not understanding unfulfilled bible prophecy or the book of Revelation? Why do so many think it unimportant to know about the second coming of Christ? Are there not many in our day who, like those of old, "put far off the evil day" (Amos 6:3)?
It seems clear to me that it is those Christians who are in love with this world (hypocrites) who do not want to hear about the second coming. To think about such things makes them too uncomfortable while in their state of worldly comfort and so, they put it out of their minds, a way for them to deal with this cognitive dissonance.
"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (I John 2:28)
"Abide in him" is the way to be ready for the return of the Lord. Any who are not abiding in Christ at the time of the Lord's return will be "ashamed" (or disgraced) "before him at his coming." Those who are watching and anticipating the return of the Lord, and abiding in him, and "occupying till he come" (Luke 19:13), will have "confidence" in that day. Warned Jesus:
"And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth." (Luk 21:34-35)
"That day" will catch the nominal hypocritical Christian (one who is such in name only) "unawares" just like it will upon those who never professed the name of Christ. He warns them against worldliness, secularism, hedonism, and a carnal lifestyle. So many Christians are today caught up in the Laodicean spirit and are so comfortable in their lives ("at ease in Zion"), just like those in Noah's day, that they do not want to hear about the Lord coming and bringing on the awful day of judgment.
Christian, are you ready?
Unbeliever, are you ready?
World, are you ready?
What is meant by being "ready" for the Lord? What is the fate of those "servants" who are not watching and not ready?
"Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (45-51)
Notice that Christ will find both "faithful and wise" and "evil" servants when he returns and that the latter shall suffer the fate of the hypocrites, in the place where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth." From the above text, what are the differences between these two servants?
The good servant is "faithful," "wise," not slothful (working only when the master is around), and always on the lookout for the master's return. He wants to be "ready" for that day.
The evil servant is not wise nor faithful, and his cry is "my lord delays his coming."
And, for what reason does he "smite (attack) his fellowservants"? Is this not what scoffers of preaching on the second coming (and prophecy and the book of Revelation) do? When someone begins to stir up Christians, because of signs occurring, is he not often ridiculed by other Christians who call such heralds of the soon coming of Jesus by such words as "fanatic date setters," "Chicken Little preachers," "alarmists," etc.?
Why do so many Christians make a merit of not understanding unfulfilled bible prophecy or the book of Revelation? Why do so many think it unimportant to know about the second coming of Christ? Are there not many in our day who, like those of old, "put far off the evil day" (Amos 6:3)?
It seems clear to me that it is those Christians who are in love with this world (hypocrites) who do not want to hear about the second coming. To think about such things makes them too uncomfortable while in their state of worldly comfort and so, they put it out of their minds, a way for them to deal with this cognitive dissonance.
"And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." (I John 2:28)
"Abide in him" is the way to be ready for the return of the Lord. Any who are not abiding in Christ at the time of the Lord's return will be "ashamed" (or disgraced) "before him at his coming." Those who are watching and anticipating the return of the Lord, and abiding in him, and "occupying till he come" (Luke 19:13), will have "confidence" in that day. Warned Jesus:
"And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth." (Luk 21:34-35)
"That day" will catch the nominal hypocritical Christian (one who is such in name only) "unawares" just like it will upon those who never professed the name of Christ. He warns them against worldliness, secularism, hedonism, and a carnal lifestyle. So many Christians are today caught up in the Laodicean spirit and are so comfortable in their lives ("at ease in Zion"), just like those in Noah's day, that they do not want to hear about the Lord coming and bringing on the awful day of judgment.
Dr. John Piper on Post Tribulation Coming
In a very recent sermon by Dr. John Piper titled "The Second Coming: Not Before the ‘Man of Lawlessness’" (here), John Piper gave a powerful defense of the Post Tribulation view of the rapture and return of the Lord Jesus Christ as held to by those espousing "Historic Premillenianlism" (rather than "Dispensationalism"). I was very much blessed to listen to his sound exegesis of II Thess. 2.
I wrote a series in favor of the Post Tribulation viewpoint many years ago, and in those series I overthrew the argumentation of those espousing a Pre-Tribulation view. The opening chapter is here. The other postings in that series are in the archives for The Baptist Gadfly for December 2012.
See also his sermon titled "What Is the Rapture?" (here)
I wrote a series in favor of the Post Tribulation viewpoint many years ago, and in those series I overthrew the argumentation of those espousing a Pre-Tribulation view. The opening chapter is here. The other postings in that series are in the archives for The Baptist Gadfly for December 2012.
See also his sermon titled "What Is the Rapture?" (here)
Thursday, April 9, 2020
White Horse Of The Apocalypse VI
"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." (Rev. 19: 11-15)
From this passage we now look at --
Other Additions in Rev. 19
(as compared with 6:2)
1. Rider is named and has a written title on him
Rather than this being a proof that the rider is different from that in Rev. 6:2, there are some good reasons why it is given in the latter appearance of the rider than in the first appearance.
Since the coming of the Lord is an "apocalypse" (unveiling, disclosure, revelation), and an "epiphany" (appearing) and "parousia" (coming, arrival, or presence), we may well see how that visualization will be progressive (like when an army is approaching and one sees more and more details of that army and of the leader of it). Armies see each other from afar before they see each other up close. As they get closer, and when they actually begin the battle, more they will see of each other. Also, as they get closer their weapons will change. As stated previously, it was natural to begin with the bow (long range) and to end with a sword (close range).
Men may question, in the outset of the day of trial and judgment, who it is that is bringing such calamities on the whole world, but by the end of that day they will know his name. That is what I see of the significance of the absence of the name in 6:2 and its presence in 19:11-15.
2. Rider's eyes and clothing are mentioned
Again, this added description in 17:11 should not force us to conclude that the riders are different. As I have shown, this is not a necessary inference nor the only reasonable interpretation for the reason behind the difference. Many of the things said in answer to the above question apply in answer to this question.
There was nothing said about the "eyes" of the white horse rider in 6:2. Does that mean he didn't have eyes? Or, that the failure to mention the eyes in 6: 2 somehow proves that he cannot be the rider in 19? No doubt the attention of John is called to the eyes of the white horse rider in chapter 19 because they are now a "flame of fire." If one studies the battles occurring between 6:2 and 19:11-15 he will easily see why his eyes are at the end a burning flame.
Again, though the archer in 6:2 has no attire mentioned, while the latter in 19:11 does ("clothed with a vesture dipped in blood"), we cannot assume that he had none. What is different is the fact that the later vision of chapter 19 has his clothing "dipped in blood," no doubt from the killing he has been doing since 6:2.
3. Rider is not alone (as is the case, seemingly, in 6:2)
but with heaven's armies
But the fact that the rider in 6:2 appears alone, while the rider in 19:11-15 does not, is no proof that the two riders cannot be the same person. Other reasons are quite possible.
It is natural to think of the commander of heaven's armies and forces should first appear at the head, or vanguard, of those forces. At the head of a military is the general, leading into battle. He has forces behind him, who will all come in their ordered ranks to execute their orders. And this is what we see occurring after Rev. 6:2 and up until the scene in chapter 19. He will, however, not only lead the charge of heaven's brigades, but will "fire the first shot" with his bow and toxic arrows.
4. The enemies are named
No enemies are mentioned in 6:2 but in chapter 19 the enemies of the rider are "the nations," who he will "smite" with his verbal sword. including kings, captains, mighty military men, etc. But, does this fact prove that the riders are different? Is that a logical necessity? Of course not.
The enemy is implied in 6:2 however. What else would a righteous heroic leader be fighting but the enemies of righteousness and justice? Why would such a mounted warrior not fight against all the enemies of truth, especially of evangelical truth? Why would such a pure leader not arise to rid the world of all impurity?
5. The type of conquering or making war is described
It is true that the kind of conquering in 6:2 ("he went forth conquering and to conquer") is not specifically mentioned. It is for this reason that many commentators have come up with several different kinds of conquests, such as political, social, military, etc. It is also true that the kind of conquering of the rider in chapter 19 is alluded to, such as the slaughter of the followers of Antichrist and the obtaining of their various territories and sovereignties. But, this difference in description and scene does not in the least prove that these two riders are not the same.
Does the context of 6:2 give any hint as to the type of conquest and victory the rider obtains? Again, since he is a bringer of truth, righteousness, and justice, of which the color white is a symbol, it would seem to necessarily imply that the things to be conquered are some enemy, or some evil, surely something unrighteous and unjust.
From what follows the entrance of the white horse rider in 6:2 we see who the enemies are. It is wicked and unrepentant man, with an evil world, with the Antichrist, and finally with death itself.
Some argue that the fact that the first white horse rider has a singular crown while the second has "many crowns" ("and on his head were many crowns") proves that they are not the same rider. But, again this is just not reasonable. It is not a necessary inference. I argued the same with regard to the difference in the type of crown on the head of each. Some argue that the rider on the white horse in 6:2 cannot be Christ because he has the "stephanos" crown while the rider in chapter 19 has many diadems. I showed how that was false. However, I did not add this scripture, right in the Apocalypse, that shows Christ clearly with a stephanos crown.
"And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown (stephanos), and in his hand a sharp sickle." (Rev. 14:14)
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Revelation 6:2. All the figures of this verse are those of victory,—the horse and its whiteness, the crown, and the distinct statement at the close of the verse (comp. chap. Revelation 19:11; Revelation 19:14). The bow expresses the fact that the Conqueror sees and strikes down His enemies from afar.
The great question is, Who is this rider? On the one hand it might seem as if it cannot be the Lord Himself, for how in that case shall we preserve a perfect parallelism between the first vision and the three that follow it? Can Christ be named in the same category with War, Famine, and Pestilence? On the other hand, if it be not the Lord, how shall we draw a line of distinction between the first and the second vision? Both will symbolize war. Besides which, the last words of the verse to conquer so clearly point to complete and permanent victory that it is difficult to limit them to any lower object than the triumphant Saviour."
I agree.
"In the Old Testament, too, the judgments of God are three, not four, in number, ‘the sword, the famine, and the pestilence’ (Ezekiel 6:11, etc.), exactly those found in the three following riders. We are thus led to see here our Lord in His cause and kingdom ‘riding prosperously (as in Psalms 45), because of truth and meekness and righteousness, His arrows sharp in the heart of His enemies, and His right hand teaching them terrible things.’ It is His kingdom, first in Himself and then in His people, who are one with Him and in Him, that passes before the Seer’s eye,—a kingdom which shall yet prevail over every adversary. By looking at the matter in this light we preserve the analogy of the four riders, not one of whom is strictly speaking a person, while at the same time we render full justice to each part of the figure. ‘Wars’ and ‘famines and pestilences’ are foretold in the same order by our Lord in Matthew 24:6-7."
I totally agree. But, more on this in the next posting.
From this passage we now look at --
Other Additions in Rev. 19
(as compared with 6:2)
1. Rider is named and has a written title on him
Rather than this being a proof that the rider is different from that in Rev. 6:2, there are some good reasons why it is given in the latter appearance of the rider than in the first appearance.
Since the coming of the Lord is an "apocalypse" (unveiling, disclosure, revelation), and an "epiphany" (appearing) and "parousia" (coming, arrival, or presence), we may well see how that visualization will be progressive (like when an army is approaching and one sees more and more details of that army and of the leader of it). Armies see each other from afar before they see each other up close. As they get closer, and when they actually begin the battle, more they will see of each other. Also, as they get closer their weapons will change. As stated previously, it was natural to begin with the bow (long range) and to end with a sword (close range).
Men may question, in the outset of the day of trial and judgment, who it is that is bringing such calamities on the whole world, but by the end of that day they will know his name. That is what I see of the significance of the absence of the name in 6:2 and its presence in 19:11-15.
2. Rider's eyes and clothing are mentioned
Again, this added description in 17:11 should not force us to conclude that the riders are different. As I have shown, this is not a necessary inference nor the only reasonable interpretation for the reason behind the difference. Many of the things said in answer to the above question apply in answer to this question.
There was nothing said about the "eyes" of the white horse rider in 6:2. Does that mean he didn't have eyes? Or, that the failure to mention the eyes in 6: 2 somehow proves that he cannot be the rider in 19? No doubt the attention of John is called to the eyes of the white horse rider in chapter 19 because they are now a "flame of fire." If one studies the battles occurring between 6:2 and 19:11-15 he will easily see why his eyes are at the end a burning flame.
Again, though the archer in 6:2 has no attire mentioned, while the latter in 19:11 does ("clothed with a vesture dipped in blood"), we cannot assume that he had none. What is different is the fact that the later vision of chapter 19 has his clothing "dipped in blood," no doubt from the killing he has been doing since 6:2.
3. Rider is not alone (as is the case, seemingly, in 6:2)
but with heaven's armies
But the fact that the rider in 6:2 appears alone, while the rider in 19:11-15 does not, is no proof that the two riders cannot be the same person. Other reasons are quite possible.
It is natural to think of the commander of heaven's armies and forces should first appear at the head, or vanguard, of those forces. At the head of a military is the general, leading into battle. He has forces behind him, who will all come in their ordered ranks to execute their orders. And this is what we see occurring after Rev. 6:2 and up until the scene in chapter 19. He will, however, not only lead the charge of heaven's brigades, but will "fire the first shot" with his bow and toxic arrows.
4. The enemies are named
No enemies are mentioned in 6:2 but in chapter 19 the enemies of the rider are "the nations," who he will "smite" with his verbal sword. including kings, captains, mighty military men, etc. But, does this fact prove that the riders are different? Is that a logical necessity? Of course not.
The enemy is implied in 6:2 however. What else would a righteous heroic leader be fighting but the enemies of righteousness and justice? Why would such a mounted warrior not fight against all the enemies of truth, especially of evangelical truth? Why would such a pure leader not arise to rid the world of all impurity?
5. The type of conquering or making war is described
It is true that the kind of conquering in 6:2 ("he went forth conquering and to conquer") is not specifically mentioned. It is for this reason that many commentators have come up with several different kinds of conquests, such as political, social, military, etc. It is also true that the kind of conquering of the rider in chapter 19 is alluded to, such as the slaughter of the followers of Antichrist and the obtaining of their various territories and sovereignties. But, this difference in description and scene does not in the least prove that these two riders are not the same.
Does the context of 6:2 give any hint as to the type of conquest and victory the rider obtains? Again, since he is a bringer of truth, righteousness, and justice, of which the color white is a symbol, it would seem to necessarily imply that the things to be conquered are some enemy, or some evil, surely something unrighteous and unjust.
From what follows the entrance of the white horse rider in 6:2 we see who the enemies are. It is wicked and unrepentant man, with an evil world, with the Antichrist, and finally with death itself.
Some argue that the fact that the first white horse rider has a singular crown while the second has "many crowns" ("and on his head were many crowns") proves that they are not the same rider. But, again this is just not reasonable. It is not a necessary inference. I argued the same with regard to the difference in the type of crown on the head of each. Some argue that the rider on the white horse in 6:2 cannot be Christ because he has the "stephanos" crown while the rider in chapter 19 has many diadems. I showed how that was false. However, I did not add this scripture, right in the Apocalypse, that shows Christ clearly with a stephanos crown.
"And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown (stephanos), and in his hand a sharp sickle." (Rev. 14:14)
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Revelation 6:2. All the figures of this verse are those of victory,—the horse and its whiteness, the crown, and the distinct statement at the close of the verse (comp. chap. Revelation 19:11; Revelation 19:14). The bow expresses the fact that the Conqueror sees and strikes down His enemies from afar.
The great question is, Who is this rider? On the one hand it might seem as if it cannot be the Lord Himself, for how in that case shall we preserve a perfect parallelism between the first vision and the three that follow it? Can Christ be named in the same category with War, Famine, and Pestilence? On the other hand, if it be not the Lord, how shall we draw a line of distinction between the first and the second vision? Both will symbolize war. Besides which, the last words of the verse to conquer so clearly point to complete and permanent victory that it is difficult to limit them to any lower object than the triumphant Saviour."
I agree.
"In the Old Testament, too, the judgments of God are three, not four, in number, ‘the sword, the famine, and the pestilence’ (Ezekiel 6:11, etc.), exactly those found in the three following riders. We are thus led to see here our Lord in His cause and kingdom ‘riding prosperously (as in Psalms 45), because of truth and meekness and righteousness, His arrows sharp in the heart of His enemies, and His right hand teaching them terrible things.’ It is His kingdom, first in Himself and then in His people, who are one with Him and in Him, that passes before the Seer’s eye,—a kingdom which shall yet prevail over every adversary. By looking at the matter in this light we preserve the analogy of the four riders, not one of whom is strictly speaking a person, while at the same time we render full justice to each part of the figure. ‘Wars’ and ‘famines and pestilences’ are foretold in the same order by our Lord in Matthew 24:6-7."
I totally agree. But, more on this in the next posting.
White Horse Of The Apocalypse V
Arguments Of The Antichrist Position
(on Rev. 6:2) (cont.)
Reply
It is argued by those of the Antichrist view (which denies that Christ is the Archer) that the first rider brings peace, and that the second rider (red) "takes peace from the earth" and these two facts prove that Christ cannot be the rider on the white horse, since, say they, "no one can take away the peace which Christ gives." It also is said that these two facts prove that the peace of the rider on the white horse must be worldly, false, and imaginary. In reply to this we say:
1) The idea that the rider mounted on white steed going off to victory is a symbol of peace (absence of conflict on earth), is not the chief idea expressed by the symbolism of the mounted warrior.
Yes, this rider will finally bring peace but it will be the result of the battle (as in Rev. chpts. 19-21).
In Rev. 19 it says that "in righteousness he judges and makes war" and all this in connection with his being mounted on his white horse. Peace on earth comes when the day of trial, tribulation, and judgment is ended, just as we see in the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles as well as in the Apocalypse.
2) The rider on the red horse therefore does not take away the peace that Christ will ultimately bring to earth when once he has finished his predestined judgments on a guilty and depraved world.
3) The predominant idea of the color white is that of justice, righteousness, and purity, foremost, and the idea of peace is only tertiary. Especially is this so in the Apocalypse.
Therefore, I cannot accept the reasoning that the white horse rider cannot be Christ because the second rider takes peace from the earth.
Other Observations
There is, of course, a kind of "peace" on earth at the time the second seal is removed and the red horse rider "takes peace from the earth." What peace is this that is taken away from the earth among men? I will discuss that question when we examine the effects of the commissioning of the red horse. The point emphasized now, however, is that the argument that says that the first rider gives a peace that is taken away by the rider on the red horse is not a good argument.
The idea of battle and conflict is the picture of the white horse rider, who is leader of the armies of justice and righteousness. This rider is a supreme warrior, a hero who, like Hercules, has won the victory over numerous foes, with no defeats. He represents the triumph of justice.
"Going forth conquering (overcoming, or gaining victories)" is a picture of Christ, in the day of judgment, in mighty power and swiftness, carrying out "the judgment written" against every enemy of God and his people. What a mighty warrior is the Lord Jesus Christ! He is described as such throughout the scriptures. Notice these:
"The LORD is a warrior; The LORD is His name." (Exodus 15:3)
"The LORD will go forth like a warrior ("man of war" kjv), He will arouse His zeal like a man of war He will utter a shout, yes, He will raise a war cry. He will prevail against His enemies." (Isaiah 42:13)
Or "The LORD will march out like a champion, like a warrior he will stir up his zeal."
"Who is this King of Glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle." (Psalm 24:8)
"But The Lord is with me like a mighty warrior; so my persecutors will stumble and not prevail. They will fail and be thoroughly disgraced; their dishonor will never be forgotten." (Jeremiah 20:11)
"The LORD your God is with you, the Mighty Warrior who saves." (Zephaniah 3:17)
"The great day of the LORD is near – near and coming quickly. The cry on the day of the LORD is bitter; the Mighty Warrior shouts his battle cry." (Zephaniah 1:14)
"He will punish you with a warrior's sharp arrows, with burning coals of the broom bush." (Psalms 120:4)
Thus, the picture given of Christ in 6:2 at the start of the opening of the seals certainly does fit this description.
He is coming both to save and to destroy. He will save his elect and destroy every unbeliever who has "the wrath of God abiding on him." (John 3:36) His coming forth at heaven's command begins the day of his wrath. In fact, when the 6th seal is broken and destruction is experienced by the wicked and unbelieving inhabitants of the earth, then people cry "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (6:17) The "day of his wrath" began with the opening of the scroll.
5. Christ cannot logically be both the sender of the rider and the rider
Reply
"I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw..."
The words "come and see" are addressed to John, not to the horse and rider. There is nothing in the text that says or suggests that Christ is sending anything other than arrows. Yes, the word "come" may be translated as "go," but still the words seem addressed to John, not to the rider. Further, I hardly see how the "saying" of "come and see" by "one of the four beasts" makes that one beast the sender of the rider. It very well could be that the words "come and see," uttered with the "noise of thunder," from the singular speaking beast, are simply words of announcement. In this case it is not the beast that is commissioning the rider but who is simply announcing the commission of heaven's throne. Thus, this argument is very weak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)