Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Revelation

[Alpha and Om]

The First Seal, First rider of the apocalypse is *NOT* the antichrist.

1I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, “Come!” 2I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.

The key words are Nikese/Nikon and Stephanos the victor's crown.

νικῶν (nikōn) Verb - Present Participle Active - Nominative Masculine Singular Strong's Greek 3528: To conquer, be victorious, overcome, prevail, subdue. From nike; to subdue.

Stephanos a crown a mark of royal or (in general) exalted rank the wreath or garland which was given as a prize to victors in public games metaph. the eternal blessedness which will be given as a prize to the genuine servants of God and Christ: the crown (wreath) which is the reward of the righteousness that which is an ornament and honour to one

To the one who is victorious (nikon), I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

The one who is victorious (nikon) will not be hurt at all by the second death.

To the one who is victorious (nikon), I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.

To the one who is victorious (nikon) and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— 27that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’ b —just as I have received authority from my Father. 28I will also give that one the morning star. 29Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

The one who is victorious (nikon) will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.

The one who is victorious (nikon) I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

To the one who is victorious (nikon), I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

These quotes from revelation 2 and 3 are clearly speaking of the same character described in Revelations 6:1-2. We can tell this by the way each of these quotes from 2 and 3 describe this person with the same language: Victorious. The rider in 6:1-2 is given a victor's crown (stephanos) and overcomes/conquers (nikon).

Claims that the rider is the antichrist are not supported by anything as far I can tell, but I would have to see the justifications of people who have made these claims to specifically address them

[jimwalton]

I agree with you that the 1st rider is not the antiChrist. That position is held by Date, Ryrie, Unger, and Scofield, among others, but I don't agree with them either.

But I disagree with you that the rider of Rev. 6.2 is the same figure as the references in Rev. 2 & 3. We have the same terms, but that doesn't mean it refers to the same figure, or even the same team. In chapters 2 & 3 John is speaking of believers and their persistence in the faith despite persecution of various sorts. The first rider in the 1st seal, however, is one of a set of 4 of negative forces. All of the symbols of the first horseman are ones of aggression, hostility, expansion, domination, and manipulation. These are clearly NOT the characteristics of the believers in chapters 2 & 3. The white horse seems to symbolize war and victory. The bow (an offensive, not defensive, weapon) symbolizes conquest and war. The crown is a symbol of power and victory. The word used for "riding out" (ἐξῆλθεν) is a word that in Revelation ALWAYS refers to the rise of mysterious and sinister figures. And this character is "bent on conquest" (καὶ ἵνα νικήσῃ)—a purpose clause pointing to "fight and win."

Some interpret the first rider to be Emperor Trajan of the Roman Empire, but I disagree with that, too, for reasons that are to the side of the question at hand, so I won't go into them.

Some interpret the first rider to be Jesus, but I don't see that, either.

To me it makes more sense to view the first rider as the spirit of military conquest that will consume the world in the End Times.

[Alpha and Om]

ἐξῆλθεν
(ἐξῆλθεν) is a word that in Revelation ALWAYS refers to the rise of mysterious and sinister figures
​
revelation 14:15
revelation 14:17
revelation 14:18
revelation 16:17
revelation 19:5

all use that word, so "always" refers to sinister and mysterious figures? no. https://biblehub.com/greek/exe_lthen_1831.htm
​
And this character is "bent on conquest" (καὶ ἵνα νικήσῃ)
​
bent on conquest is how it's translated in one version of the Bible, the NIV.
https://biblehub.com/search/revelation/6-2.htm
​
​
> The first rider in the 1st seal, however, is one of a set of 4 of negative forces. All of the symbols of the first horseman are ones of aggression, hostility, expansion, domination, and manipulation. These are clearly NOT the characteristics of the believers in chapters 2 & 3.

Clearly unsupported is the claim that the first rider is negative. aggression, hostility, expansion, domination, manipulation are words you're adding. The word nikon is the exact word linking the 6:1-2 rider to the characteristics of the victor in chapters 2 & 3.

> The white horse seems to symbolize war and victor

Jesus Christ and the first rider are on white horses.

> The bow (an offensive, not defensive, weapon) symbolizes conquest and war.

You mean like the bow God uses (Psalm 7:12-13: 12If one does not repent, God will sharpen His sword; He has bent and strung His bow. 13He has prepared His deadly weapons;He ordains His arrows with fire.)?

> The crown is a symbol of power and victory

Yet the word here is stephanos not diadem. Stephanos is also the type of crown given to Jesus Christ.

Where you see negativity, I see God.
​
furthermore: The one who is victorious (nikon) I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.
​
This is a pillar in the temple of Jesus Christ's God, with the names of God, the new Jerusalem and Jesus Christ's own name written on it. Not only that but most translations of Revelation 3:12 imply this being left the temple at some point and never will again. This is not a characteristic of all believers.

[jimwalton]

> all use that word, so "always" refers to sinister and mysterious figures? no.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

> bent on conquest is how it's translated in one version of the Bible, the NIV.

Right, but that's the flavor. The verb is νικήσῃ, and it's in the 1st aorist active subjunctive form in a purpose clause (ἵνα). The *hina* points to purpose, the subjunctive points to probability, and the aorist points to its end. Conquest is his purpose and goal, though it is yet unachieved. The NIV is not remiss in translating it "bent on conquest." It's a reasonable dynamic equivalent. "To conquer," as most translations put it, is fine also, as long as we understand that conquest is his intent as yet unachieved. Therefore "bent on conquest" is not a bad translation.

> clearly unsupported is the claim that the first rider is negative. aggression, hostility, expansion, domination, manipulation are words *you're* adding. The word nikon is the exact word linking the 6:1-2 rider to the characteristics of the victor in chapters 2 & 3.

I strongly disagree. Whether you perceive the 1st rider as antiChrist (hostile, dominator), the spirit of war (hostile, aggressive, oppressive), or even God's judgment (wrath, destruction), the action of the 1st rider is decidedly characterized by war and conquest. War is always brutal.

> Jesus Christ and the first rider are on white horses.

The only similarity between Jesus (Rev. 19.11-16) is the color of the horse, which in both cases symbolizes war and victory.

> You mean like the bow God uses? Psalm 7:12-13

Yes, there are many places God uses a bow (Gn. 9.13; Ps. 7.13; Lam. 2.4; 3.12; Hab. 3.8-9) but that doesn't mean every mention of a bow in Scripture is a reference to God.

> Yet the word here is stephanos not diadem. Stephanos is also the type of crown given to Jesus Christ.

Correct. Stephanos was the victor's crown won at athletic competitions, not a ruler's crown. Athletics in those days were recognized as competitions of strength, and therefore strength and victory. There's no problem with what I said.

In one Bible text Jesus is given a stephanos: Rev. 14.14: The crown of a victor. I don't understand your point. The other 6 times in Revelation that stephanos is used, it is not a crown for Christ. I'm not sure what your point is, but just because the word stephanos is used doesn't mean this character is Christ.

> Where you see negativity, I see God.

There is no doubt that God is the "general" directing this action. The repetitions of chapters 6 & 7 confirm that God is orchestrating the events. Each of the horses is invited (by the heavenly voice) to come; each is given their power. God is clearly in charge. But, as with much of Revelation, the actions being taken here are those of judgment, and therefore negative.

> The one who is victorious (nikon) I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

Again, just because the word "victor[ious]" is used doesn't mean it has the same referent each time. C'mon, we have to give some deference to context.

You know, your thesis was that the first rider was not the anti-Christ, and I agreed with that from the onset of the dialogue. I'm not exactly sure what point you're pressing in all these details. Are you claiming the rider is Jesus? You haven't said as much. All you claim is that it's not anti-Christ, and I agree. Where are you going with this conversation?

You are probably well aware that the identity of the rider of the 1st horse is much debated. The possibilities that have been presented are:

1. Antichrist; Gog (Ezk. 38-39, who carries bows and arrows). The white color is a perverted imitation of God and Christ. Dan. 8.20-25.
2. The spirit of military conquest
3. The world power under which Christ starts his work
4. The Parthians, in actual Roman history
5. The angel of the Lord, to implement God’s wrath against Jerusalem
6. Christ Himself, to implement God's wrath against unbelievers. Rev. 19.11.

It's a wide open field. I happen to prefer choice #2, but obviously there are opinions across the spectrum. I just don't understand what your point is aside from, "He's not the antichrist."

[Alpha and Om]

> Where are you going with this conversation?

Where I'm going is that the 6:1-2 character can be COMPLETELY identified with the rewards he earns for overcoming as described at the end of each letter to those churches in Revelation 2 and 3.

> To the one who is victorious (nikon), I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
> The one who is victorious (nikon) will not be hurt at all by the second death.
> To the one who is victorious (nikon), I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.
> To the one who is victorious (nikon) and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— 27that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’ b —just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give that one the morning star. 29Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
> The one who is victorious (nikon) will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life, but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.
> The one who is victorious (nikon) I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.
> To the one who is victorious (nikon), I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

It is described as a person. This is someone Jesus practically says is equal to himself. Notice that some of the gifts seem very singular as I've said before. The iron scepter to rule the nations, the morning star, a seat on the throne. Note also that if the translation "Never again will they leave it" implies that they were in the temple of God and left it.

We also have this chain of events starting with the 4 riders. The first one has a bow and overcomes and is victorious. Now I'm going to have to add a bit of personal experience here, which you can take with a grain of salt if you wish, but this person overcomes and is victorious against Satan (The Dragon) and makes them surrender to all mankind with their bow. Something Satan was supposed to do wayyyy back when God created mankind. Noticing that it is not until the second rider comes along that power is given to spill blood or make people kill each other. This is because Satan surrendering to all mankind, doesn't fully solve the problem of wickedness in the world, it just makes it a human problem. Depending on the disposition of the people being surrendered to I suppose, whether they repent/confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh or not, Satan surrendering to them would mean something different. Perhaps it is in this difference in reaction to the surrender we find the agents of Satan, the beasts, granted their authority and the people who express allegiance to them, those that accept the mark.

Perhaps I risk too much in elaborating on this interpretation of events, but that's what I know so far.

Maybe I'll risk even more, the entirety of it, and explain why/how I feel I know these things and risk revealing my personal motive for trying to clear up this misconception about the first rider with the bow and confess that I myself am this person with the bow. If that scandalizes you or freaks you out a bit, I will remind you of John 4:2-3 and invite you to test me in such a way.

[jimwalton]

> Where I'm going is that the 6:1-2 character can be COMPLETELY identified with the rewards he earns for overcoming as described at the end of each letter to those churches in Revelation 2 and 3.

You make a serious exegetical mistake to align the person of chapter 6 with ANYTHING in chapters 2-3 just because the same verb is used. "Conquering" appears all through Revelation in a variety of situations (17 references). There is nothing that thematically ties Rev. 6 to Rev. 2-3. Revelation 6 ties to Habakkuk 3, and the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24 and parallels), and it's heavily influence by Ezekiel and Zechariah (1.8-11; 6.1-8). The horses relate to cataclysmic phenomena, both human and natural. There is no exegetical rational for tying it to Rev. 2-3.

The victory of the saints, that you have marked out by your references and bold font are valid enough in their own right, but don't tie into the first horseman.

> It is described as a person.

Yes, the victors of chs. 2-3 are persons. You are correct, but not necessarily the horsemen. The other horsemen seem to be abstract: #2 a symbol of war (especially since there are no literal fiery red horses), #3 a symbol of famine, and #4 Death and Hades. We have warrant to regard #1 as symbolic (and not a person) as well.

> This is someone Jesus practically says is equal to himself.

Again, just because the same term is used doesn't mean it has the same referent, especially in Revelation. For instance, the woman in 2.20 (Jezebel) is a false prophet. We are not to think of the woman in chapter 12 as the same false prophet, and the woman in 17.18 is "the great city." You are mistaken to connect "overcome" (conquer) in chs. 2-3 with the conqueror in ch. 6.

> We also have this chain of events starting with the 4 riders.

It's an interesting interpretation, but I don't think it holds water with the thrust of the book. I think that perhaps you are pushing the text in a different direction. There is no other cross-reference to tell us anything about Satan surrendering to humanity. It comes across as something you've manufactured. Satan is portrayed in several different ways in the Bible, but never like that.

> Maybe I'll risk even more, the entirety of it, and explain why/how I feel I know these things and risk revealing my personal motive for trying to clear up this misconception about the first rider with the bow and confess that I myself am this person with the bow. If that scandalizes you or freaks you out a bit, I will remind you of John 4:2-3 and invite you to test me in such a way.

Even more interesting. Thank you for sharing. It took some courage. So if the rider (the person with the bow) is Jesus, or someone equal to Jesus, are you saying that you are Jesus here on Earth in the flesh, or are you saying that you share some divine nature with Jesus? Just looking for clarity in your confession.

Secondly, you mean 1 John 2.-3, not John 2.3.

If you are this rider and wield the bow, are you willing to share with me what the other elements of Rev. 6.2 mean? The white horse, the crown, and exactly what is being conquered?

Let's talk.

[Alpha and Om]

> Even more interesting. Thank you for sharing. It took some courage. So if the rider (the person with the bow) is Jesus, or someone equal to Jesus, are you saying that you are Jesus here on Earth in the flesh, or are you saying that you share some divine nature with Jesus? Just looking for clarity in your confession.

You know that's a tough one. I can only say with certainty that I am the one with the bow and I did witness Satan's surrender to all mankind. Those are facts.

It's hard to answer the rest without scandalizing good Christians. Something I am extremely hesitant to do.

If you'll give a broad allowance for me to speak freely and allow me the full responsibility of what I say, I will give you full freedom, and my forgiveness if necessary, to call what I have to say blasphemy. If it seems blasphemous to you, by all means reject it. Jesus Christ is the truth, the way and the life. I have only my very life, flesh and blood to offer as evidence for any of this actually happening to me and I don't believe my words can or will ever be enough to convince anyone and I'm the first to admit that they shouldn't be what convinces you.

I had a religious experience when I was 19 that led me to believe I had a role in the conception of Jesus Christ. I will say that it involved being forgiven for my sins, a mystical vision of a soul being conceived in the woman I was having sex with, during which I was confronted with a certain piece of knowledge that men often conceive for the purpose of living again through their offspring, I saw the error in this and avoided it in a way by forgiving my father and his for having that subconscious impulse, adding to my own reasons for belief is that this was the only time I have ever, or as circumstances now dictate, will ever conceive or beget a child. Yet there was no pregnancy. I was taken up into the Godhead this night and shown future events as well as other things. It led to years of me questioning if I had some "divine nature", perhaps the same divine nature as Jesus Christ, or at least I'm some person who was tasked by God with providing a y-chromosome. I still question this, though over time and watching events from that vision actually come to pass, I suppose I've grown bold (or stupid) enough to say that I do share enough of my nature with Jesus Christ to call myself that, even my real name is in fact an anagram for Jesus Christ Electoral, I suppose it would have been better to wait for Jesus Christ himself to write that name on me, as the interpretation I've espoused in this thread says he will. Maybe in a way he did, you see my 30th year after I was given the bow and after I earned my victory over Satan with it, I was baptized (coincidence that it was the same age as Jesus' baptism? maybe) and took a new first name. Maybe I just haven't earned my 'M' yet to make the name spell Jerusalem as well . Perhaps there will be an 'M' on my white stone, when it is given to me.

Does this provide clarity? I somehow doubt it.

> If you are this rider and wield the bow, are you willing to share with me what the other elements of Rev. 6.2 mean? The white horse, the crown, and exactly what is being conquered?

white horse: faith, victory, I was guided by Faith when I used a real bow to earn a more spiritual one, which I now employ in the testing of spirits that I am constantly confronted by, if they do not confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, well...you know...they get the arrow.

crown: again, victory as it is, or will be, a Stephanos

what is being conquered: Satan and spirits that do not confess Jesus Christ had come in the flesh. Now when I say Jesus Christ had come in the flesh, I am referring to the biblical Jesus Christ. I am not saying anyone must confess that I am this fleshly incarnation. Up until the first seal opened, I suppose I was a secret thing or mystery of God, something no one but God really knew. Belief in me or my testimony here is required of no one as far as I know. It's a good thing, too, because having not a single believer reassures me that I am not some talented deceiver, as many of the spirits I'm confronted by seem want to claim.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for being open, honest, and vulnerable with me. I assuredly don't want to be disrespectful to you. May I ask a few more questions?

The New Testament, and Revelation in particular (Rev. 13.14; 20.9), gives no impressions of Satan surrendering to Christians. The NT claims that Satan still roams around seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. 5.8), that he continues to deceive (Jn. 8.44). What exactly was this surrender?

How could you conceive Christ since the Scriptures say he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the human body of Mary in space/time history millennia ago?

What other future things were you shown?

Why would you have a divine nature just because of the things you were shown? The prophets were often shown marvelous things, but none of them assumed they had a divine nature because of those great revelations.

Thank you for sharing with me.

[Alpha and Om]

> What exactly was this surrender?

too little too late. A boastful surrender. In essence saying, "I have enough humans, I have my human agents whom I have granted authority, they are enough to defeat God".
​
> How could you conceive Christ since the Scriptures say he was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the human body of Mary in space/time history millennia ago?

The temple veil was torn from top to bottom.

19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

>! http://www.angelfire.com/dc/universalism/bridalchamber.html !<
​
Knowing then, that Marriage is the "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring", and which "has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptised. I would ask you to speak with me privately concerning this matter.
​
> What other future things were you shown?

The destruction of mystery babylon.
​
> Why would you have a divine nature just because of the things you were shown? The prophets were often shown marvelous things, but none of them assumed they had a divine nature because of those great revelations.

I know who the two witnesses are, what they are witnesses of. I have a brother of sorts, more like an uncle, resembling James the Just. I have my friend, John, of whom it is said he is full of the holy spirit. The holy spirit itself said of me, through a person speaking in tongues, "He is here, he is right here."

[jimwalton]

Thank you for talking with me. If I may ask more questions?

Revelation 11 speaks of the two witnesses in the context of a numbering (v. 1) and a trampling of the outer court by the Gentiles (v. 2). The "measuring" is thought to be a reference to some preservation of some segment of God's people. The "trampling" is often thought to be a worldwide persecution of the Church or a widespread apostasy by the Church (i.e., an aspect that was not protected). Do you perceive this has already happened?

The two witnesses are preachers of repentance, noted for their prophetic activity, and able to perform signs and wonders. Can you describe your and your "brother/uncle" ministry?

When the Holy Spirit said of you, "He is here, he is right here?", what did He mean?