Re: [revelation-list] Question on Revelation 6:2 bow
> >I don't know who the question is addressed to, but from my point ofI just realized this reference to the TV series "batman" might not be
>>view, the canonicity of Enoch vs. Revelation would mean that I
>>really can't say what the writer of Enoch may or may not have seen,
>>but that John was in the Spirit, witnessing a vision, not merely
>>composing a tale. For what it's worth....
>Holy special pleading, batman...
very clear to anyone born after 1972 or so. What I meant by this
criptic reference was that your approach to the canon is a clear case
of special pleading, and seems to be based on a fideistic
circularity. While this might work in a church or in some
confessionalistic setting, it fails to meet acceptable scholarly
criteria, so that even if you believe in this fashion, you will need
*another argument* if you want to engage at a scholarly level.
>>I am curious. Would would also say that the writer of Enoch also
>>"saw/had" a vision?
>>Vancouver School of Theology
>Vancouver School of Theology
>Strangers stopping strangers just to shake their hand...
>-Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Vancouver School of Theology
Strangers stopping strangers just to shake their hand...
-Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS
- 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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