The White Horse Imagery of Rev 19: Covenant Amil View

[Arial]

Rev 19:11-16 11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.

The symbols are interpreted canonically (in light of the whole bible) and Christologically centered (who Christ is and what he accomplishes).

Sorry. Hit wrong button. To be continued. But need to take a break for a couple of minutes.

 

[Arial]

I am not making up the meanings as have repeatedly been accused of by @CrowCross. Key sources are Beale, Hendriksen and others and from within the Scriptures, Is 11:4;63:1-6; Psalm 2. The key methodological principle is shared across sources, operation with the principle: Apocalyptic imagery is symbolic unless the text itself forces literalism. Symbols are interpreted by Scripture itself. Imagery is analogical, not arbitrary. Visions communicate theological realities, not visual predictions.

The white horse: 19:11

Royal victory and triumph​

The imagery of a conquering king returning from battle​

​

Faithful and True/ Word of God

Christ as the perfectly reliable judge​

Christ as the divine self-revelation (John 1)​

Interpretation: The judgement is grounded in Christ's identity as the revealer and executor of God's truth​

​

Eyes like a flame of fire

Penetrating, omniscient judgement​

Interpretation: Christ sees all things as they truly are. Nothing escapes his judgment.​

​

The many diadems

Universal sovereignty​

Contrast: Earlier in Rev the dragon and beast wear limited crowns. Christ wears many meaning total dominion. Amil point: This is the public manifestation of a kingship he already possesses.​

​

The robe dipped in blood

Two options both used in amillennial circles:​

His own blood points back to his atoning work. The conquering King is the slain lamb. Victory through sacrifice.​

​

Option 2: The blood of his enemies (Is 63 background). Judgment imagery---victory through judgment.​

​

Either way victory is inseparable from his redemptive and judicial work.​

​

The sword from his mouth

The word of Christ as the instrument of judgement. (Compare 2 Thess 2:8---"slay with the breath of his mouth."​

Amil conclusion: Christ conquers not by literal warfare, but by the power of his sovereign word. And this strongly confirms the symbolic nature of the vision.​

​

The rod of iron

Messianic rule and judgement (Psalm 2)​

Interpretation: Christ exercises unbreakable authority over the nations​

​

The armies of heaven on white horses

The people of God and/or angelic hosts. Notable: they are clothed in white and no weapons are described.​

Amil emphasis: The hare in Christ's victory, but do not accomplish it. The victory is entirely his.​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[CrowCross]

The white horse: 19:11
Royal victory and triumphThe imagery of a conquering king returning from battle

Rev 19 shows a white horse with Jesus riding it going off to battle...NOT returning from a battle.

 

[CrowCross]

The sword from his mouth
The word of Christ as the instrument of judgement. (Compare 2 Thess 2:8---"slay with the breath of his mouth."Amil conclusion: Christ conquers not by literal warfare, but by the power of his sovereign word. And this strongly confirms the symbolic nature of the vision.

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival.

Is this in reference to the 1st Thes 4:16 return or the Rev 19 white horse return...or some other return?

 

[Arial]

@CrowCross said:
Yes. Christ literally riding a white horse. Why not?

But let's say the return of Christ is "symbolism" like you preach....Where is this white horse symbolism mentioned in Acts 1 where Jesus ascends and the angels say He will return in the same way?
Where is the white horse symbology at the 1 Thes 4:16 rapture?

Here is your position formally stated:
In Acts 1:11, Jesus returns "in the same way" as he ascended.
That ascent was visible, bodily and not on a horse.
Rev 18 shows Jesus on a white horse.
Therefore, Acts w and 2Thess and 1 Thess 3 must refer to a different event which you say is the rapture.

There is a problem with that reasoning.

In Acts the angles say "This Jesus... will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

"In the same way" does not require identity in every visual detail. It specifies manner, not every feature. The text emphasizes visible---"you saw him go". Bodily/personal---"this Jesus". From heaven---he ascends into heaven. He will return from heaven.

What is not emphasized is posture (standing, riding, etc,). Surrounding imagery (clouds vs horse). Or symbolic elements. Your argument shifts from "same manner" to "same visual form in every detail". That is an overextension of the text.

Most interpreters, even dispensationalist admit that the sword and crowns are symbolic of authority. I can't say the same for you because in previous posts when pressed on that issue you simply say they are all literal in order, I suppose to avoid confronting the contradiction. Assuming quietly and privately you know they are symbols, the question becomes, why isolate the horse as literal if surrounding elements are symbolic?

If the passage is recognized as a symbolic vison the conflict with Acts1 disappears.

Acts 1 is a historical description of the event---as are the passages in 1 and 2 Thess. Rev 19 is a symbolic portrayal of the meaning of the event.

And in case you think that is all far-fetched and made up and unbiblical. Scripture frequently describes the same reality from different angles.

For example: Christ as a lamb and a lion in the same book. God as a rock, shepherd, king. Different imagery does not equal a different event or referent.

It is even true with the Thess epistles. Same coming, same judgment context. They are not separate events, but different descriptions of the same eschatological coming.

To summarize: Acts 1 describes how he returns (visible bodily, from heaven).
Rev 18 describes what his return means (victorious judgement).

 

[Arial]

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of His mouth and annihilate by the majesty of His arrival.

Is this in reference to the 1st Thes 4:16 return or the Rev 19 white horse return...or some other return?

It is a comparrison of the language used in Rev 19 and 1 Thess 2:8.

There is only one return. The 1and 1 Thess, Acts 1, and also the 1 Cor 15 return and Rev 19 are all the same return described in different ways and Rev 19 gives the meaning and accomplishment of his return using symbolic imagery.

 

[CrowCross]

@CrowCross said:
Yes. Christ literally riding a white horse. Why not?

But let's say the return of Christ is "symbolism" like you preach....Where is this white horse symbolism mentioned in Acts 1 where Jesus ascends and the angels say He will return in the same way?
Where is the white horse symbology at the 1 Thes 4:16 rapture?

Here is your position formally stated:
In Acts 1:11, Jesus returns "in the same way" as he ascended.
That ascent was visible, bodily and not on a horse.
Rev 18 shows Jesus on a white horse.
Therefore, Acts w and 2Thess and 1 Thess 3 must refer to a different event which you say is the rapture.

There is a problem with that reasoning.

In Acts the angles say "This Jesus... will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

"In the same way" does not require identity in every visual detail. It specifies manner, not every feature. The text emphasizes visible---"you saw him go". Bodily/personal---"this Jesus". From heaven---he ascends into heaven. He will return from heaven.

What is not emphasized is posture (standing, riding, etc,). Surrounding imagery (clouds vs horse). Or symbolic elements. Your argument shifts from "same manner" to "same visual form in every detail". That is an overextension of the text.

Most interpreters, even dispensationalist admit that the sword and crowns are symbolic of authority. I can't say the same for you because in previous posts when pressed on that issue you simply say they are all literal in order, I suppose to avoid confronting the contradiction. Assuming quietly and privately you know they are symbols, the question becomes, why isolate the horse as literal if surrounding elements are symbolic?

If the passage is recognized as a symbolic vison the conflict with Acts1 disappears.

Acts 1 is a historical description of the event---as are the passages in 1 and 2 Thess. Rev 19 is a symbolic portrayal of the meaning of the event.

And in case you think that is all far-fetched and made up and unbiblical. Scripture frequently describes the same reality from different angles.

For example: Christ as a lamb and a lion in the same book. God as a rock, shepherd, king. Different imagery does not equal a different event or referent.

It is even true with the Thess epistles. Same coming, same judgment context. They are not separate events, but different descriptions of the same eschatological coming.

To summarize: Acts 1 describes how he returns (visible bodily, from heaven).
Rev 18 describes what his return means (victorious judgement).

Wow, you took the long way home....like Supertramp. Except not very logical. Of course you know I'm bloody well right....But you can go on being a dreamer if you like.

Yes, this Jesus is the very same Jesus. No argument there.
But, Jesus left nothing like the description of His return in Rev 19. Even when you throw in all the symbolism.
I see you taking symbolism to the extreme...very extreme.
There are a lot of literal themes that are symbolic...baptism is one. Water baptism doesn't save but it has a lot of symbolic meaning.
In history conquering kings often rode WHITE horses. That is literally rode a white horse...becaue the white coloring of the horse was symbolic...while the horse was quite literal.

When you dilute Acts with inserted concepts of symbolism....well, you open up s strange can of worms.

 

[Arial]

Wow, you took the long way home....like Supertramp. Except not very logical. Of course you know I'm bloody well right....But you can go on being a dreamer if you like.

I can see the smoke coming out your ears from here. Why do you get so angry you can't control your mouth? David had a prayer for that. "Lord, set a guard over my lips that I might not sin against you."(Paraphrase) I am simply disagreeing with you and looking at things from a perspective outside Dispensationalism. And it is the very perspective you asked me to give! Does that call for insults and rage?

But, Jesus left nothing like the description of His return in Rev 19. Even when you throw in all the symbolism.

Could you please read what I said again for comprehension. This shows you did not understand what I said at all. Either that or it is another one of those things not worth consideration.

Here is a challenge: If all those things in Rev 19 that are under discussion were symbolic of things real---what would each one be symbolic of?

What you need to do instead of just rageful venting is show that they are not symbolic of realities but are the literal things themselves. That is going to be difficult because nowhere in historical narrative---the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles---does it say that Jesus will return riding on a white horse and an army of riders on white horses will follow him. No where does it say that he will be wearing a bloody robe or wearing a whole lot of crowns on his head. Nowhere does it say he has a sword coming from his mouth, or that he carries a rod of iron and beats the nations with it.

However, the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles all frequently do speak of his return in great detail, and the resurrected saints glorified at his return and the judgment of the wicked at his return. So, you tell me---why not? Inventing a third coming since the middle coming in Dispensationalism (at least your version of it) is only a half coming, but his appearance on a white horse being the real second coming, won't solve the dilemma. Why not?

Because nowhere in the OT, the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles does it ever say there is more than one reappearance of Christ to the earth. Two advents. The first his birth in Bethlehem. The second at the consummation of redemption, the end of this age. And there are only two "ages" according to Jesus and the apostles. This age and the one to come. The one to come is seen in Rev 21-22.

 

[Arial]

There are a lot of literal themes that are symbolic...baptism is one. Water baptism doesn't save but it has a lot of symbolic meaning.

Irrelevant.

In history conquering kings often rode WHITE horses. That is literally rode a white horse...becaue the white coloring of the horse was symbolic...while the horse was quite literal.

Irrelevant.

When you dilute Acts with inserted concepts of symbolism....well, you open up s strange can of worms

I didn't do a thing to Acts. I disagreed with you.