RE: [revelation-list] Question on Revelation 6:2 bow
- Interesting. But how would that type of bow (and I'm picturing something
like a girl would wear in her hair or something atop a gift)fit in with the
idea of conquering? But if I remember correctly, the English word -
inTOXicated - literally means "shot with an arrow".
From: Alan Fuller [mailto:rocsy@...]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 3:38 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Question on Revelation 6:2 bow
Everything I have ever read, or any picture I have ever seen,
indicates that the bow in Rev 6:2 was the bow of a bow and arrow. A
person in another group told me it was a bow like a knotted ribbon.
Strong's seems to confirm that.
>5115. toxon, tox'-on; from the base of G5088; a bow (appar. as thesimplest fabric):--bow.
5088. tikto, tik'-to; a strengthened form of a prim. teko, tek'-o
(which is used only as alt. in certain tenses); to produce (from
seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), lit. or fig.:--bear, be
born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.<
However, I can't confirm this anywhere else.
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
>A.T. Robertson, a renowned scholar of the Greek New Testament, takesthrough the New Testament, verse by verse, painting word pictures
from the Greek to bring to light the words and actions of Jesus and
the early Christians.
A bow(toxon). Old word (Zechariah 9:13 of a great bow), here only in
So is the bow in Rev 6:2 that of a fabric, or like the weapon?
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- Hi Jason,
Interesting message to which I have a few comments. Sorry for the delay.
> -----Original Message-----It is certainly possible that Hab 3:9 is the OT scriptural basis, or at
> From: coates [mailto:jasonnola@...]
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:01 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: RE: [revelation-list] Question on Revelation 6:2 bow
> David Chilton points out that Habakkuk 3:9 is the OT
> scriptural basis for
> Revelation 6. (The Days of Vengeance, Tyler, Texas: Dominion
> Press, 1987
> p.186.) Christ is depicted here as the warrior-king of
> Habakkuk carrying a
> bow. The victory of the Redeemer over His enemies is seen in
> Psalm 45 where
> again the warrior-king is seen going forth conquering and to
> conquer. (The
> sense here is that conquest is ongoing and not yet completed.)
least, background. It could also be just a parallel. Habakkuk 3,
however, describes a theophany, and Revelation describes the coming of
both God and Christ as a theophany, or epiphany, if you like. I have
argued in my thesis that it is important to be able to explain why God
features so prominently in Revelation.
Several scholars point to Psalm 45 as the background. In my thesis I
have pointed to a large number of parallels between Psalm 45 and
Revelation, but I was not able to show that Revelation contains any
certain allusions to Psalm 45. I think, however, it is fair to conclude
that Psalm 45 may provide us with a model for the understanding of
Christ as the coming warrior-king. The wedding motif also seems to be
present in both Psalm 45 and Revelation, as McIlraith, among others, has
shown. This is one of the reasons why I suggest that Christ is depicted
as a Warrior-Bridegroom in both texts, but especially in Revelation.
>Bornkamm argued convincingly already in 1937 that it is part of John's
> I find it interesting that there is no mention of an arrow or
> quiver of
> arrows. The bow of the warrior-king is empty. One explanation
> is that the
> "one" arrow - Christ's redemption of man - was released, and
> therefore any
> act of Christ, such as the judgement and conquest of his enemies, is
> predicated upon this.
narrative technique that he does not always mention everything. One of
his (or his primary) argument was a careful comparison of Rev 14:14-20
and 19:11-21. This article is rather important, but few seems to have
read it. That there is no mention of an arrow or a quiver of arrows does
therefore not necessarily mean that there were no arrows or quiver. It
may rather be one example of his narrative technique.
If Revelation employs theophany language -- and it does e.g. here and in
6,12-17 -- then I think it is important to provide an explanation which
fits the theophany concept. One could argue that John used theophany
language without any notion of theophany. However, I wonder how any
reader well acquainted to the OT (and the pervasive use of the OT in
Revelation suggests that John assumed that his readers were acquainted
with the OT) should have been able to see that. It would only have been
possible if the texts itself makes clear that the theophany language is
used without the very theophany notion. If this is indeed the case, then
it should be easy for us to detect. Several studies have, however,
argued that John makes use of the theophany concept.
>I am well aware that Chilton and others interpret the plagues as a
> Chilton continues to offer some very interesting explanations
> of where the
> bow comes from, and how it fits in the scheme of judgement on apostate
> Israel. (Op. cit. p186-7.)
judgment on apostate Israel. It is true that Revelation uses OT texts
which describe that, but Revelation also uses a number of other texts
which are concerned with the judgment on other nations. Indeed, I think
that just as God's people is international, so are those who will be
One problem, which I think it unsatisfactorily answered by Chilton and
other AD 70-interpreters, is what relevance the AD 70-judgment has for
the seven cities of Asia. Another is what "every eye" in Rev 1:7 means.
Georg S. Adamsen