Theology for the Masses

The first of the two prophetic oracles initiates the interpreter into the enthronement ritual. Here the prophet announces that Yahweh has extended to the king a position of prestige at his right hand. This imagery is incomparable; in the Psalter a king is regularly represented as sitting (bvy) before God’s face (ynEåp.li),[1] but rarely at His right hand (ynI+ymiyli(). This subtle shift and its similarities with Egyptian symbolism has led some scholars to suggest that the image is “imported from Egypt, as an invitation for the king to ‘dwell’ rather than ‘sit’ at the right hand of God.”[2] The imperative (bveî) is not merely a command but an invitation which permits the king to inhabit Yahweh’s presence.[3]

Yahweh’s invitation has three implications. First, the authority of kingship and the victory over enemies is entirely derivative. The enthronement ceremony involves an “actual transferral of authority,”[4] which occurs by divine decree (~aun>) spoken by a prophet, but God is the real King and the earthly ruler rules “as a co-regent and representative, deriving his authority from his divine counterpart.”[5]

Second, the summons assumes the king shares in the life and actions of the divine King. The king has dominion over his foes, not as a passive agent,[6] but as a sovereign who subjugates enemies in a manner that concedes he is deriving his power from and participating in the larger purposes of the God of Israel. Yahweh will make his enemies a footstool for his feet.[7] Subdued enemies becomes the theme of vs. 2 in explanation of the extent of the king’s authority which expands from Zion[8] right into the midst of his enemies (br<q<åB.). The metaphor employed here is an extended scepter (hJ,m;), an emblem of world dominance, martial authority, and national glory (Jer. 48:17).[9] The phrase dealing with world dominance is controlled by an imperative (hdEªr>÷) that involves an element of promise: the prophet assures the king that the vanquishing of his rivals will most certainly take place in the future.[10]

Finally, the transmission of authority and the promises of world dominance and divine protection are intimately connected in history and ritual with the king’s divine Sonship: an idea which speaks nothing of ontological realities, but rather of status and adoption. In the ceremony of conferral of authority, the prophet enacts a legal transmission whereby the king is declared the adopted son of God.[11] The designation of divine sonship finds its roots in Ps. 2:7, the parallel text to 110:3.  110:3 has long been deemed “mysterious”[12] and the “most obscure verse in the whole Psalter.”[13] Understanding the verse entails considering a fair amount of textual alteration and thus this text has fashioned numerous scholastic constructions and explanations. The factors are numerous but here are a few. First, the verse contains two nominal clauses which offer the interpreter no indication of time. Second, a textual variant in 3b might be rendered either “holy majesty” (MT) or the minority reading, “on the holy mountains.” Here I will retain the MT reading primarily because the majority rendering of vd<qoß-yrEd>h;B. provides a fitting transition between the discussion of kingship and the discussion of priesthood. Third, due to the corruption of the Hebrew text and its lack of verbs, the LXX offers the most likely route for interpretation by inserting evxege,nnhsa,. This makes the most sense, especially in light of Ps. 2:7. Fourth, a hapax legomenon (rx’v.mi) occurs in the second phrase creating the usual interpretive difficulties associated with such an anomaly.[14]

Verse 3 begins with the imagery of the king’s subjects eagerly offering themselves to his military service, then moves to a three line description of the king’s Sonship which occurs in mixed-metaphor. The first metaphor, as already noted, has two possible Hebrew constructions. The majority reading used here portrays the king as “arrayed in holy splendor (Ps. 29:2).” The word vd,qo places his kingly majesty in a cultic context and creates a nice transition into vs. 4.[15]

The metaphor shifts at this point into two lines describing how the king was begotten of God “from the womb of the dawn (rx”+v.mi ~x,r<äme).”[16] Employing the LXX reading, which provides the word evxege,nnhsa,, the final line carries the metaphor of birth by asserting that Yahweh is the progenitor of the king. The king is the son of God through divine decree and a decisive transformation “of the kings essential nature (Ps. 2:7)”[17] through the set of legal acts previously footnoted[18] This proclamation legitimizes the kings rule. By the time of the Psalter’s compilation, this psalm had clearly taken on messianic, eschatological significance, but at the time this particular psalm was written, it would have served the political ideologies of “that segment of society (urban elite) who benefited from a centralized government”[19] because of its exaltation of the king to the status of sharing in divine glory and receiving divine power with Yahweh’s “unconditional commitment to protect and prosper Israel.”[20] Centralizing political power into one figure is now accompanied by centralizing religious power in the same figure.

—————————————————————————————–

[2] Bvy can mean both “to sit” and “to dwell.” Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 263. Keel provides other evidence for this suggestion by citing the fact that certain reconstructive models of the temple have placed the royal palace on the right side of the temple, threshold to threshold with God’s dwelling place. The other option is that the ark may have been processed into the Gihon spring and the throne of the king placed beside it. Allen, 80.

[3] Bill T. Arnold & John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 63.

[4] Kraus, 112.

[5] Allen, 86.

[6] Some scholars have suggested that the psalm is so Yahweh-centered that it depicts the king as a relatively passive agent who sits protected as Yahweh goes to war for him. While this is largely true, the psalm is concerned primarily with Yahweh’s actions, it misses the evidence of verse 3 where the king has troops who offer themselves as free will offerings as they rally around the king for battle.

[7] Such imagery has parallels in ancient Egpyt. Certain iconographic archeological discoveries depict adversaries situated underneath the feet of Egyptian rulers. At times the imagery in these discoveries depicted other deities being dominated by the superior, Egyptian deities. (Keel, 255) The implications of such a reading for Ps. 110 are staggering. Yahweh subdues the enemies of Israel, not merely as secular enemies but as enemies which are such because they have devoted themselves to false deities who are also defeated and possess no authority of their own.Greg Boyd, God at War. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 243. Aside from the possible Egyptian parallels, the Old Testament uses the footstool metaphor repeatedly in reference to Davidic kings and Yahweh’s defeat of their enemies (I Kings 5:3).

[8] The place of the kings coronation according to Ps. 2.  “It is the city of Jerusalem in its political and historical existence, particularly in the realm of cultic language and thus religious thought: it is concerned with the city of Yahweh. Zion in the place where Yahweh dwells or at least may be reached.” Randy G. Haney, Text and Concept Analysis in Royal Psalms. (New York: Peter Lang Publishers, 2002), 123.

[9] Allen, 86. Furthermore, it seems possible that the hJ,m; is reference back to the Exodus where Yahweh rescued Isreal from Egypt with a shepherds staff.

[10] The action itself is still dependent upon Yahweh’s prior actions because such ends lie “outside the power of the [king].” Arnold & Choi, 64.

[11]Referring to Ps. 2:7, Kraus notes, “The prophetic and procedural declaration, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you,’ is disclosed as a creative word that establishes new existence. The divine choice is reflected in adoption. The chosen king is placed at god’s side by adoption. He is elevated to the position of representative of God’s sovereignty and of heir to his power. Thus it is that in the Old Testament the king was not “son of God” by nature, nor did he by his ascending the throne necessarily enter into the sphere of the divine, but by a decision of Israel’s God he was declared to be son at his entry into the office of king.” Kraus, 113.

[12] Ibid., 114.

[13] Allen, 80.

[14]Some have seen here a reference to the Canaanite deity Shahar in the word rx’v.mi, but this is entirely unlikely because the imagery in this verse is one of giving birth and Shahar was a male, not a female, deity. Also, Isaiah 14:12 describes the king of Babylon as rx;v’_-!B, (a son of the dawn), which seems to be a clearer connection with that Shahar.  Robert Davidson, The Vitality of Worship. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Col, 1998), 365. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004), 64.

[15]If the minority text is employed, “on the holy mountains,” the phrase would then describe “the location and process of begetting to the heavenly sphere. The king comes forth from heights beyond the world, from the world of God…Thus in Ps. 110:3 on the day when the ruler ascends the throne he is ascribed miraculous origin from on high and the hope of a dawning light, birth from the ‘heavenly world.’” This, of course, would flow nicely with the following assertion of divine sonship in the last two lines of this verse and the reference to the morning dew. Kraus, 114.

[16] The other attractive option at this point in this terribly difficult verse, is that the writer continues to speak of those who volunteered for the kings military service. The metaphor of the dew describes the vast number of warriors at the kings disposal. In this reading the entire army of Israel is dressed in holy attire, not just the king. Haney, 124.

[17] Kraus, 113.

[18]Taken in the larger military context of this passage, it seems plausible that Yahweh’s begetting of the king in the womb of the dawn is an indication that the king is Yahweh’s tool for helping Israel in her time of need, events often associated with the morning (Ps. 46:5-6). Such a reading also places this assistance nicely within the immediate context of the king having a zealous army at his side .Again, however, it should be remembered that the kings military might is derived from Yahweh not his own strength or military prowess.

[19] Brueggemann, 606.

[20] Brueggeman, 606.

The following is written by Jon Zens, a prolific Reformed writer and authority on New Covenant Theology:

First, 1 Cor.7:1-5 is the only place in the NT where the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) is used with reference to marriage. But it is not the authority of the husband over the wife, or vice versa, that is in view, but rather a mutual authority over each other’s body. 1 Corinthians 7:4 states that the wife has authority over her husband’s body. One would think that this would be a hard pill to swallow for those who see “authority” as resting only in the husband’s headship.

Second, Paul states that a couple cannot separate from one another physically unless there is mutual consent (Greek, symphonou). Both parties must agree to the separation or it doesn’t happen. The husband cannot override the wife’s differing viewpoint.

John Piper suggests that “mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance” (p.32). The problem with a dogmatic statement like this is that it will allow for no exceptions. But 1 Corinthians 7:5 contradicts Piper’s maxim. If the wife disagrees with a physical separation, the husband cannot overrule his wife with the “final choice” (p.33). Such separation can occur only if both husband and wife are in “symphony” (unity) about such an action.

Now if mutual consent applies in an important issue like physical separation from one another for a period of time, wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad model for decision-making in a healthy marriage? Piper feels that “in a good marriage decision-making is focused on the husband, but is not unilateral” (p.32). In light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 I would suggest that decision-making should focus on finding the Lord’s mind together. Over the years the good ideas, solutions to problems and answers to dilemmas will flow from both husband and the wife as they seek the Lord as a couple for “symphony.”

1 Corinthians 7:5 throws a wrench into the works for those who would include the husband’s “final say” in male headship. Paul teaches that unless the couple can agree on a course of action, it cannot be executed. I suggest that this revelation invites us to re-examine what the husband’s headship really entails (cf. Gordon D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1-7 Revisited,” Paul & the Corinthians: Studies On A Community in Conflict, Trevor J. Burke/J. Keith Elliott, eds., Brill, 2003, pp.197-213).

A few days ago, I posted a picture which I thought demonstrated the relationship between Modernism, Foundationalism, Fundamentalism, and Christianity.  I’d like to clarify what I am talking about there, here.

By Modernism, I mean the paradigm(s) of thought which owe their intellectual roots in the Enlightenment.  Essential traits of Modernism are as follows:

1. The elevation of reason as the ultimate standard.
2. The elevation of science as the ultimate measure truth.
3. The elevation of the observable as the only source of evidence.

A lot more could be said here, but those are the features I want to highlight.

Foundationalism is a modernistic epistemological framework which attempts to build a solid foundation of undeniable and fully provable (often by the criteria listed above) truth propositions upon which all other forms of knowledge are built.

Many, if not most, evangelical groups subscribe to a Foundationalist framework for building knowledge.  They all assert the absolute truth of the Bible, but, because of their unnoticed acceptance of the modernist and foundationalist framework, they  feel as though they must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the foundation that is the Bible.  Once this is proved, then and only then can they proceed to demonstrate how the next piece of theology can be added upon the firm foundation that is the Bible.  Once added, then they can logically and rationally add the next brick. 

And so on.

And so on. 

After a while, you can build a nice systematic theology which is rigid and impenetrable.

…

Unless one of the bricks falls out.

Now you have a hole in your wall.  The bricks above now come a tumbling.  Suddenly, most of your wall has fallen down and you are standing there looking a fool holding a bunch of spiritual propositions (or laws).

You are very invested in making sure not a single brick ever moves.

After all, you have constructed theology.  Nay, you have constructed The Theology.  The truth.  It has set you free (to play within its walls, of course). 

…

Unless one of your scientific premises about the Bible, its accuracy (as you conceive it) and historicity (as you want it to be) is proven wrong by science, history, or any other endeavor.  Once you have proven the Bible, it and everything you build upon it suffers the same fear as one of the above bricks.

You see, the Bible is not prime in your endeavor, the scientific demonstration of the Bible’s authenticity is prime.

Because Foundationalists have capitulated to Modernism’s demands of knowledge and truth, we find ourselves arguing that the world is really a few thousand years old. 

We need to move beyond Foundationalism, beyond Modernism.

We need to grasp the edges of the scientific/historical/literary/modernist/foundationalist tablecloth and yank it out from under the Bible.

When we do, we will find that the Spirit of the Living God does just fine on his own.  Instead of needing justified, he justifies.  Instead of being an objective (i.e. scientific) description of reality/history/science, we find that the Spirit speaking through the Bible is the most objective thing in the universe because it describes the world as God wills it to be.

The scary thing is that we have to leave modernism behind.  Any such task is fought with fear because this necessarily means that we have to be postmodern.

This is not as scary as it seems on the surface or in Christian chain-emails.  In fact, though the road is dangerous, steep, and rocky, it allows us so much more.

… and Postmodernism did not give us relativism.  Modernism did.

But I’ll get to that in the next post.

Upcoming: How a post-modern framework might help us in our construction of Theology.  How Foundationalists often mistake the bricks for the foundation.

This is what I have been reading lately:

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Rev Exp. IVP Academic, 2006.

I’ve had this book for a few years, it is really the best comprehensive work on hermeneutics around.  His Calvinism sometimes gets in the way, but astute readers will be able to ignore it.  I am working from this book in Parkade Baptist CYP’s current Sunday School series on Genre Hermeneutics.

Pierce, Ronald W., Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Gordon D. Fee. Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. 2nd ed. InterVarsity Press, 2005.

This book is heralded as the egalitarian response to Piper and Gundem’s Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  I have only had the chance to start a couple of the essays.  They have been pretty good so far.  I’ll talk about it more as I get more into it.

Piper, John. The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright. Crossway Books, 2007.

Disappointed.  All he did was convince me of Wright’s position.  Other people had built up Piper in my mind as some great exegete/theologian.  Not.the.case.

R, M. Daniel Carroll. Christians at the Border: Immigration, the Church, and the Bible. Baker Academic, 2008.

Reading this for one of my classes – looks to be good, but I am only a chapter or two into it.

Stowers, Stanley Kent. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. 1st ed. Westminster Press, 1986.

Every student of antiquity and of Paul needs to read this book.  Hands down one of the best books in the field.  I am re-reading it for my class on Letter hermeneutics this Sunday.

Wright, N. T. Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. IVP Academic, 2009.

Dang.  I can’t talk too highly of this book so far.  I wonder how many critics of Wright will read this book.  If they read it without their systematic glasses on, they might just change their minds. 

The righteousness of God pertains primarily to his faithfulness to his convent with Abraham, not that he seeks his own glory above all else.

Anyone know of good sources for Roman rhetorical strategies?  I cam across these three resources that might be of help.  I have come across a primer of the subject in ESF’s commentary on the Apocalypse of John that I am working my way through.

1. R. Dean Anderson, Ancient rhetorical theory and Paul (Peeters Publishers, 1999).
2. Justin T. Gleeson, Rediscovering Rhetoric (Federation Press, 2008).
3. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Gerhard A. Krodel, Revelation (Fortress Press, 1991).
4. Donald Lemen Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman education (Columbia University Press, 1957).

As I am nearing the completion of my degree and am on the cusp of having time to think on theological matters once again, I am struck by the inclusion of letters, letters, from Paul [1] to various peoples in the Canon.  I am an absolute Canonist (this will show up in an upcoming post which will complete my Paul and 1 Cor 11 series which has been on hold as I completed many school projects.) and take as an article of faith that what shows up in our present Canon belongs in the Canon.

However, having a sentence included in the Canon does not mean it should be taken as completely prescriptive 100% of the time prime facie.  When we have letters, we have to realize that a) letters are very different beasts than Gospels, Apocalypses, etc. and b) there are many different types of letters out there, each meant to be read in a particular way. 

With this in mind I have been pondering how we are to read the Pauline letters.  If we do straight theology from them, we might (but we might not) be missing something…I can’t think of any examples in the specific (and I will have my mind back early next week).

Any thoughts?

1. or people writing in Paul’s name [↩]

Do you remember the video of the preacher who lamented that modern translations changed the KJV phrase “him that pisseth against the wall” to “male” shows the demasculinization of our culture, helped by those modern translations? Do a search for it here at this site or at Youtube.com. Here is this pastor showing how mistranslated the NIV is by comparing it against the KJV. I can’t believe that he is serious about this.

Here is a quiz by Zondervan to see how you understand the NT authors’ use of the OT texts. This is to help promote their new book that highlights three differing views. I fell in line with Darrell Bock’s view, “Single Meaning, Multiple Referents and Contexts.” Take the quiz and see how you fair.

Koinonia: Test Your View of the NT Use of the OT

For a fuller understanding of Bock’s view click here for my blog post. I’m not sure if I actually fall into any of these categories until I read the book.

To all the Christian Pacifists out there – How do you interpret Romans 13:1-7, especially verse 4?

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.

For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing.  Pay to all what is due them– taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. (NRSV)

I read this and I see a justification for violence, an avenger (ἔκδικος) that uses the sword (μάχαιπαν), by the state as God’s agent of punishment on Earth.  I’ve only glanced around at this, but ἔκδικος, from ἐκδικία, the word for vengeance, is the word for and avenger or punisher.  It only shows up elsewhere in Paul’s writings as an avenger of wrongs in 1 Thessalonians 4:6 where Paul is warning against exploiting other Christians because the Lord is an avenger of wrongs.  Μάχαιπαν, the word for sword, shows up both literally, such as in Acts 16:27, and figuratively, such as in Ephesians 6:17.  Also, worthy of noting, is that Rome was a perpetrator of all kinds of evil, and yet, Paul is still giving this advice.  Oppressive governments, through their physical acts of violence, are being called agents of God’s justice in the world.  Furthermore, the act of resisting these governments will incur God’s judgement!  What are we to do with this?  Is this a case of the religion of Jesus being pitted against the religion of Paul? The closest parallel I can think of is Matthew 22:15-22 – the whole “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” thing – which seems to be in agreement with the above.  But then again how do we unify those teachings with the Sermon on the Mount?  Do we just not worry about the government and work solely through the Kingdom of God for justice in this world? (which is what I lead towards)

Additionally, as a historian, I see this section of Romans as Paul pleading for the Christians there and throughout time to not make themselves a target for Roman persecution thereby giving this fledging movement a chance at surviving.

What about you?  I am curious as to how other’s view this.  Is Paul giving in?  Is he being sneaky?  Should Christian pacifists be cool with governments, even oppressive ones, meting out punishments on God’s behalf in this world?  I am really interested in how some of our self-proclaimed Pacifists, such as Dave, Tom, JR, and Scott, deal with this.

When was the last time you describe your relationship with God as a "personal" one?

A recent article I read last week pointed out that when it comes to a personal relationship with Jesus:

As far as the Bible is concerned, this doctrine is simply made up by evangelical Christian theologians.

The article seems to be a response to something Rick Warren wrote.  The author then goes on to debunk the doctrine by quoting some Bible verses (I don’t know if the author is quoting Rick Warren or making his own apologia).  In any case,  the verses used are totally not something I would have thought of using and I don’t know how one would use them to defend the idea of a personal relationship with God. 

John 15: 1-13 | John 10:1-16 | Revelation 3:20 | Revelation 19: 7-9 | Revelation 19: 17-21

With that said, I thought it was worth a discussion here at MassTheo. 

If you believe in a personal relationship with God, how do you define it?  What Bible verses would you use to back up this doctrine or teaching?

p.s. the original article is from an atheist site so I don’t want to link to it from here unless you want me to. 

I heard an interesting quote the other day that I found interesting. I think I’ll present it without any context or commentary and see what sort of comments/responses in evokes. I have my own thoughts, but I think this quote could provoke very interesting (and hopefully fruitful) discussion. It’s short, so here it goes:

I’d rather do violence to a text than violence to a person.

Discuss.

“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.” Genesis 1:1-2

Does the Bible, specifically Genesis 1:1-2, support a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing)? Would such a doctrine have made sense to ancient Israelites/early Christians? How does Gen. 1:1-2 fit into the schema of it’s contemporary ancient mediterranean understandings of the creation of the world? If something was there, then what was/is it? Further, what is really at stake in the answers to these questions?

I’m currently reading a lot about this in one of my classes and have some thoughts…but I’d like to see what you guys have. Certainly, those familiar with Hebrew could contribute much to our understanding of what the text itself (may) say(s).

I have always tried to listen before I talk (about theology jargon). I have always tried to learn from others in hope that I can grow to always be following the truth. But I would like to evaluate my approach…is it wrong?

On any (and every) debate I start (or try to) in the middle. I have always been a person who doesn’t like the dogmatics of others and I try not to be like that.

I am not an extremist. I have always seen those in the extreme sides of debates as always being wrong…and their pride/ego gets the best of them. For me, I have found that trying to start in the middle (even when I am still biased) allows for me to have lessened the blinders (though I might still have some on!).

I have two questions for everyone.
1) Is this approach good/bad/dangerous/smart? and why
2) Is there ever a time when starting on one extreme side is more beneficial then starting from middle ground?

Casey
Ps…my questions might be stupid…if they are sorry about wasting your time

I don’t think I’ve detected any rampant Dispensationalism here at Mass Theology. However, here are some thoughts/observations on the White Horse in Revelation 6. As you can tell from my previous posts and this one – I sure do love inner-book word studies. They just seem to clear up so much bad theology.

In Revelation 6:2, when the Lamb who was slain unfastens the first of 7 seals, a white horse comes forth carrying a rider who holds a bow, but no arrows. This rider is given a crown and rides out as a conqueror to conquer. Dispensationalists often interpret this rider to be the anti-Christ – the eschatological one who will come and dupe the world into following him. He fools them by bringing peace (hence no arrows), and for 3.5 years is a peaceful chap until something snaps in him and he goes berserk in a cosmic sort of way.

Contrary to this popular interpretation, though, this figure in chapter 6 is hardly some eschatological anti-messiah. This figure really is the actual Messiah, Jesus Christ. He comes forth to conquer, but does not do so with violence – again, the lack of arrows in his bow.

This fact of the crucified, peacemaking Jesus being the figure represented as riding a white horse is supported by simple word studies in the passage. And here’s where I will spend the rest of my time.

First, the Gk. word for white (λευκὀς) only, only, only occurs in reference to Jesus, God, or the faithful followers of Jesus in John’s apocalypse. White is the color of righteous triumph, the color of those who have overcome, the color of the One who delivers the revelation of God. In fact, in 19:11, another (probably the same) white horse comes out with a rider on it who is explicitly shown to be Jesus – the One called Faithful and True. Now, John’s imagery is often difficult to interpret, but I seriously doubt he would put both Jesus and the anti-Christ on the same white horse (or even two horses that came from the same mother). This color is strictly reserved for the righteous and the Righteous One, not the world or Babylon.

Second, the crown this rider receives is the Gk. word (στέφανη) employed only, only, only in reference to the believers and Christ in Revelation. The Beast and other antagonists in Revelation sport a different crown altogether – a completely different Gk. word. The one time an antagonist does wear this righteous crown, Revelation says it is “like a στέφανη of gold” (ὥ στέφανοι χρυσοί ), not an actual στεφανόη. That is, this is a fake στέφανοη.

Third, the Gk. word for conquer (νικών) – from which we get the word “Nike” – is employed only, only, only in relation to Jesus and the saints who faithfully followed him. There are 2 exceptions to this in Revelation, but the overwhelming evidence points to the use I have mentioned here. Furthermore, in the previous chapter – the immediate context, that is – (5:5) the imagery directly pointed to Jesus being the conqueror. John expects his readers to still have that imagery in their mind when they come to this horse.

Fourth, I would look at the bow. Dispensationalists often say that the anti-Christ will conquer with peace, but unfortunately miss that Jesus has already conquered with peace. Jesus brings peace, not through a sword, not through military might, but through being the Lamb that was slain. They got the peace right – they just gave it to the wrong person.

Finally, offering an argument from silence, I would also note that the word “anti-Christ” not only never occurs in this passage, but never occurs outside the books of 2 & 3 John. And there the anti-Christ’s were among the people – they were not some eschatological figure waiting to deceive the world – the deception is occurring now!

Ok, more later, but for now, let me know what you think – especially you Dispensationalists out there in Mass Theology land. Why must this figure be the anti-Christ? In the end, I think the evidence I have provided here is overwhelming, but I’m up for someone making an attempt….(I say with a challenging wink and sly smile).

Given the shift in the way the Bible portrays Satan from a member of God’s royal court in Job to leader of the rebellion against the Kingdom of God with Paul, how do we, as Christians, construct our concept of Satan?

I think this is a great question on two levels, i) what the heck is Satan and how does it function? and ii) how do we interpret scriptures that have varying views on religious phenomena?

I have some suggestions, but I have a couple of hours to iron out a paper proposal, a panel proposal, and have lunch with Meredith, so I will leave mine later.