Theology for the Masses

tom January 15th, 2008

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).

• Christology , Dispensationalism , Eschatology , Hermeneutics
• Comments(17)

Honzo December 26th, 2007

A while ago, I was asked why exactly I believe. I have been pondering this the last few days and I think I can give a semi-intelligible answer. If you had asked me this a few years ago, I would have given my best modernist response. You all know how it goes, right? First, you begin with logical proofs of God’s existence. I would have gone all ontological, teleological, and even cosmological on them.

After establishing the claim that a God exists, I would have moved on to which God exists. I would have pulled out my McDowell’s. You, know, present all the evidence for biblical prophecies coming true, see the prophecy about the city of Tyre, prophecies about Jesus, historical/textual evidence for Jesus’ life, all the standard apologetic answers.

So, after establishing the existence of God and that her revelation to us is the Bible, I would then open the old girl up and start to point out what I believe. After this 30 minute process I would then gladly accept the person to whom I was speaking’s conversion and salvation. Another person checked off the rolls of hell.  Right?

No. The person would/should not have believed me. After all, for each claim that I made with evidence, they could/should have presented countering claims to the existence of God, to the authority of the Bible, and to the person/history/nature of Jesus. I could present my claims and they present theirs. Both of us would have left convinced the other was wrong. I can go into the specifics of the various arguments if needed, but my point stands without them.

In addition, if I would ever stop to listen to the other’s claims, I would more than likely leave the conversation with my faith shattered. Why? Because my faith (as was every idea) was predicated on modernist understandings of verifiable truth claims. That is, the only thing my modernist brain was wired to accept as fact was truth claims that could be scientifically verified. I naturally assumed, from a position of faith, that my claims were so. However, (switching to real life, instead of hypothetical’s) when I started to truly evaluate those claims, I found that they indeed were not as verifiable as I had thought them to be. Each of the logical proofs of God has their problems. The Gospels are not histories as we think of histories. The list goes on and on.

What then? My modernist categories through which I have been trained to view the world demand I abandon these unverifiable truth claims. However, if I were being honest with myself, I really could not bring myself to accept the opposite position either, because it too could not be scientifically verified. How do you test for God? What is your control? The essential questions of religion lay outside the realm of science, which can only access observable and testable data. The modernist categories are simply not adequate for evaluating the claims of religion.

For instance, while the Gospels cannot prove who Jesus was, there was also no way to disprove their claims as well. We simply do not have access to that type of information, given the sources available to us. I found that just about everywhere I looked into my religious beliefs, they were not able to be verified (or denied) through this modernist method of verification. I could speak in terms of probabilities, but never in certain terms. As an honest (as honest I could be) modernist, I found myself at an impasse. Given that the modernist categories are inadequate, one needs to find new categories, post-modern categories, through which one can evaluate the claims of Christianity. Doing so eliminates the need for badly researched pop-apologetics and theologies and opens the door for deeper inquiry.

So what then? Enter experience, community, and relationship, stage right. These will be the subjects of part 2.

• Postmodernity , The Existance of God
• Comments(19)

Honzo October 10th, 2007

Ok, so the play on early 90’s rap did not work so well. However, I think that on the surface, this quiz encapsulates my current ways of thinking about Christ, theology and the Bible.

You scored as Neo orthodox

You are neo-orthodox. You reject the human-centredness and scepticism of liberal theology, but neither do you go to the other extreme and make the Bible the central issue for faith. You believe that Christ is God’s most important revelation to humanity, and the Trinity is hugely important in your theology. The Bible is also important because it points us to the revelation of Christ. You are influenced by Karl Barth and P T Forsyth.

• quizes
• Comments(8)