To Question a Mockingbird
For Sunday morning service, Pastor W. has been conducting a study on Revelation. It always amazes me that God decided to put Revelation in the Bible, because, while it reveals so much, it is so hard to understand. That is, if we are even suppose to understand the parts that are troubling in the first place. Therefore, much of it is often put up to speculation and opinions. Obviously, there is a reason for the book to be there. I am not implying that it is there by mistake, or that it is misprinted. Merely that it is a little much for our feeble minds to comprehend.
A few weeks ago, we reached the sixth chapter in which the seven seals are being opened to bring wrath upon the earth. The first seal reveals a white horse with a rider carrying a bow who "went out conquering and to conquer".
First of all, my local disclaimer: "I do not claim to be a 12 year Bible scholar and the opinions disclosed here represent only my own. (And I personally do not have a flowing working knowledge of the book of Revelation)". And, to add to that, please read my global disclaimer which is declared above.
When Pastor W. got to this line, he began to make his commentary. The gist of it went as such: Though the man is riding to conquer the world, the "weapon" which he uses to propel his victory is a silent yet deadly one, since the text only states that he has a bow. It does not explicitly state that he has any arrows.
When listening to that, I felt like getting up to ask him what line of thought drove him into thinking this. Not in a hostile way, but in an informative and a healthy debate sort of way. My line of thinking was that if I pointed a gun at your head, you would not say "Aha! You did not say that you put ammunition in the gun! Therefore, it is not loaded!". It seems rather obvious that if I am using a gun (or a bow) to conquer a convince store (or a nation), then it is safe to assume that I have ammunition (arrows) to use.
What seems to me odd with the line of thought that was being taught is that much is being read into the verse. I would be much more comfortable accepting what actually is in the Bible, rather than assuming what isn't there.
If this were the case, then this would *not* be the antichrist, seeing as (from what I understand, mind you) the antichrist actually does come in a silent and subtle manner. What the verse is speaking of, then, is some sort of nation that is exercising force on the world.
While I thought that this notion was interesting and all, it was rather forcibly pushed into the back of my mind by my reasoning that he is doing this for a living and isn't trying to con anyone, so I took it as it came. The next Friday of the same week was my Greek class. A classmate was getting chewed out for inserting a heresy into her translation based on an assumption of the meaning of a Greek word as compared to the meaning of an English word. The Dean proceeded to speak about how one cannot take "the easy way out" by taking what one has heard from others second hand as "law". Your conclusions need to have a foundation which can be derived by yourself from base facts and truths. He then proceeded to talk about how he was caught off guard by the same thing that I was the previous Sunday. Apparently, he had always taken it to be as it was explained and just didn't think to question it. He said that even though his MacArthur study Bible had the same stance as Pastor W., it didn't really back it up.
The point of all this isn't to change your beliefs on eschatology (although, for some of you, it might help). I was just thinking about how much we are sheep to other prominent people. Questioning things isn't a display of disbelief. Rather, it is a show of strong interest in the subject matter and leads to greater understanding. This world wouldn't be so dumb if people wouldn't take as law what a few "smart" people tell them. This nation in particular (read, Stupid Media! Stupid Media! Stupid Media!).
I guess I would have to do a word study on the usages of weapons and bows and such in order to obtain a greater understanding of what I am speaking of. That is a project for another day.
A few weeks ago, we reached the sixth chapter in which the seven seals are being opened to bring wrath upon the earth. The first seal reveals a white horse with a rider carrying a bow who "went out conquering and to conquer".
First of all, my local disclaimer: "I do not claim to be a 12 year Bible scholar and the opinions disclosed here represent only my own. (And I personally do not have a flowing working knowledge of the book of Revelation)". And, to add to that, please read my global disclaimer which is declared above.
When Pastor W. got to this line, he began to make his commentary. The gist of it went as such: Though the man is riding to conquer the world, the "weapon" which he uses to propel his victory is a silent yet deadly one, since the text only states that he has a bow. It does not explicitly state that he has any arrows.
When listening to that, I felt like getting up to ask him what line of thought drove him into thinking this. Not in a hostile way, but in an informative and a healthy debate sort of way. My line of thinking was that if I pointed a gun at your head, you would not say "Aha! You did not say that you put ammunition in the gun! Therefore, it is not loaded!". It seems rather obvious that if I am using a gun (or a bow) to conquer a convince store (or a nation), then it is safe to assume that I have ammunition (arrows) to use.
What seems to me odd with the line of thought that was being taught is that much is being read into the verse. I would be much more comfortable accepting what actually is in the Bible, rather than assuming what isn't there.
If this were the case, then this would *not* be the antichrist, seeing as (from what I understand, mind you) the antichrist actually does come in a silent and subtle manner. What the verse is speaking of, then, is some sort of nation that is exercising force on the world.
While I thought that this notion was interesting and all, it was rather forcibly pushed into the back of my mind by my reasoning that he is doing this for a living and isn't trying to con anyone, so I took it as it came. The next Friday of the same week was my Greek class. A classmate was getting chewed out for inserting a heresy into her translation based on an assumption of the meaning of a Greek word as compared to the meaning of an English word. The Dean proceeded to speak about how one cannot take "the easy way out" by taking what one has heard from others second hand as "law". Your conclusions need to have a foundation which can be derived by yourself from base facts and truths. He then proceeded to talk about how he was caught off guard by the same thing that I was the previous Sunday. Apparently, he had always taken it to be as it was explained and just didn't think to question it. He said that even though his MacArthur study Bible had the same stance as Pastor W., it didn't really back it up.
The point of all this isn't to change your beliefs on eschatology (although, for some of you, it might help). I was just thinking about how much we are sheep to other prominent people. Questioning things isn't a display of disbelief. Rather, it is a show of strong interest in the subject matter and leads to greater understanding. This world wouldn't be so dumb if people wouldn't take as law what a few "smart" people tell them. This nation in particular (read, Stupid Media! Stupid Media! Stupid Media!).
I guess I would have to do a word study on the usages of weapons and bows and such in order to obtain a greater understanding of what I am speaking of. That is a project for another day.
posted by Cyphoid at 7:48 PM
6 Comments:
My sister once said that there is a time in most everyone's life that he or she questions most everything that they have been taught. I find a lot of truth in that. It can be scary to question someone's word, especially if you look up to them; but it is important at times.
Indeed. In fact, I think that it is the basis for discovery.
Always question why people believe (or do) things, and more importantly why you believe (or do)things. A person is never in more danger than when stop examining themselves, because they then begin to blindly buy into their own rethoric. They will then easily overlook much obvious, if sometimes unpleasant, truth about themselves. Been there, done that.
BTW, Are you calling Pastor W. a "mockingbird"? I have always pictured him as more of an Emu, being that he has long legs and his knees sort of bend backwards.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Drew, its another language thing. In terms that just the "bow" is mentioned. And, this isn't just enlgish. You should probably check the greek text for a better understanding, because the translaters are always in the way. But anyways, I think the "arrows" are implide. If someone says he or she has a computer, people would assume that they have a keyboard, monitor, and mouse.
And generally, and perhaps a better example, if someone says that he or she has a gun, they'd assume they had (unless otherwise stated) amunition and power, or whatever was firing the thing.
I don't think in particular although, that the meaning of the passage is left unclear because of this statement. And like it says in what I belive is Romans 14, you shouldn't make a big deal out of issues non-faith-threatening. I'm not saying you are being this way, although, but it is always a good point.
Hey, guess what our pastor preached on today? Revelation 6:1-8! He and PW should discuss that sometime.
Post a Comment
<< Home