The Second Seal (Part 3)

Jesus, "Peace," and the Sword of the Cross

Audio Version!

And out came another horse, a red one, and the one sitting on it—there was given to him to take peace from the earth (namely that they slay one another), and there was given to him a great sword. Revelation 6:4

One of the great questions of history is why and how Christianity overtook paganism in the Roman Empire.

Many a historian, sociologist, or anthropologist has attempted an answer—I am not qualified to make the attempt in any of these areas, maybe marginally in history.

Yet as a student of the Bible, I can at least discern some potential reasons drawn from the pivotal event of the cross and the literature it spawned—the New Testament and centuries of theological reflection and formulation about the relation of Jesus to God.

The cross changed everything.

Not just in the personal lives of billions since whose very existence has been transformed by hope.

But at a macro level.

The cross of the crucified Jesus became the symbol that undid the power structures holding ancient societies together—and ultimately destroyed their foundations.

The question is how.

How did the cross function to change the world?

As you can likely discern, I see in the second seal of Revelation 6 some answer to this question, “How?”

Let’s take it phrase by phrase.

“To the one sitting on it, there was given to him to take peace from the earth.”

To reiterate from the last post, this task was a commission from God to Jesus.

The only giving and taking thus far in the visions has been between God (the One on the throne) and the Lamb—and so it is here.

God granted the rider—Jesus—the ability or authority “to take peace from the earth.”

If nothing else is clear in Revelation, God’s sovereignty is without question!

Nothing happens apart from either the knowledge, direct action, or allowance of God.

Though God self-limits to allow for human freedom (and Satan’s influence as a consequence), his loving purposes directly intervened through the promises of the OT culminating in the incarnation.

In this second seal (to actively state it) God gave Jesus the task to take peace from the earth.

This task seems counterintuitive, though, even contradictory to Scripture.

Most of the time peace in the New Testament (Greek eirēnē) referred to God’s peace. In Luke 2, the angels proclaimed “Glory to God in the highest, and peace upon the earth among people of good will.” Jesus wished peace upon the disciples in John. In Romans 5, “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” and in Ephesians and Colossians Paul encourages his readers to “let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts.” Paul normally included peace in his letter openings.

But Jesus said he did not bring peace, but a sword, and here He is commissioned “to take peace from the earth.”

What peace was Jesus talking about; what peace was he to take?

In short, forced peace built on violence.

This was earthly “peace”—not the peace of God (the terms for peace are the same, Hebrew shalom and Greek eirēnē).

Just a cursory look at the 230+ times peace was used in the Old Testament shows the distinction between human peace and God’s peace.

Earthly peace always implied the (temporary) absence of hostility whereas the peace of God implied the presence of wholeness and prosperity.

Earthly peace may be the temporary lack of conflict, but it never lasts.

Earthly peace was never stable and was built on provisional alliances, often at the expense of a third party.

Prior to Jesus, sacrificial systems and mythic reenactments in polytheistic societies promoted societal order through the simulated off-loading of violence to maintain “peace.”

Internally, sacrificial systems likely developed out of human sacrifices—scapegoats blamed for plagues, societal unrest, and other calamities—to keep the “peace.”

Animal sacrifice and rituals were ultimately substituted in many cultures to preserve peace (though those like the Aztecs continued the practice of human sacrifice).

Externally war itself against an enemy produced societal cohesion (the sacrifice of one’s own warriors and of the enemy).

“Peace” has often been “achieved” between certain groups because they have a common enemy—the enemy functions as a scapegoat for the furtherance of the mutual interests and “peace” of the allies.

So the interim periods of “peace” that followed were dependent on violence.

But during the periods of peace, internal rivalry and conflict then produced the need for either an internal scapegoat—individual or group (think the Jews in 1930s Germany)—or external war to unify the people and prevent self-destruction leading to war again (the same Germany is still a good example—and allied with Italy and Japan).

The so-called “Pax Romana” from 27 BC to roughly AD 200 saw plenty of violence to maintain that “peace.” (The so-called Pax Americana since WW2 is of the same character).

This “peace” built on death was the peace Jesus was commissioned to take.

Now back to the question at hand, “how did/does Jesus take peace from the earth?”

This earthly peace was (and is) a false peace bred by Satan that became the inbred Lie of all humanity—the Lie was that violence was necessary for peace.

Jesus’s task was to expose that lie, so we could discern the truth of God’s Peace.

He did that on the cross—the cross functioned as the great sword of Truth.

That this false peace was intended in this verse is explained by the next phrase.

(continued)

---

In Plain Sight is a subscriber supported publication. If you appreciate the content and insights of this Substack, please consider a paid subscription. Subscribers receive additional material at the end of most posts with more subscriber only material to come.

“(Namely, that they slay one another).”

On a surface reading, this phrase is almost incomprehensible grammatically and theologically—and especially if Jesus is the rider.

I cannot count the time I’ve spent agonizing over its sense.

Just to illustrate, the fifty or so translations at Bible Gateway have about twenty different translations of this phrase! Many are similar, but each has its own nuance. I encourage you to read them at the link I gave.

Now add one more to the list.

I have finally come to a translation that brings together the grammar, the relation of this phrase to the previous and following phrases, (dare I say) the sociology/anthropology of the phrase, and its theology.

That’s a lot and this post is going to be a bit long because of it, but I don’t want a part 4!

Here it is: “(namely that they slay one another)”

1. Grammar (warning: weeds ahead! I’ll have more in Observations section).

The grammar of the Greek phrase kai hina allēlous sphaksōsin (that I translate “namely, that they slay one another”) has caused translators massive headaches (and those who copied the manuscripts too).

There is nothing quite like this phrase in the entire New Testament.

It starts with kai, usually translated “and,” but does not join anything, so other uses of kai must be considered.

Hina often indicated purpose, but “in order that they should kill one another” makes no sense with “they” rather than the rider as the subject.

Another sense for hina, one that John used regularly in his Gospel and letters was to define a concept previously stated.

This use is called an explanatory hina.

A good example is John 6:29 “This is the work of God that (hina) you believe in the one whom he sent.” The phrase after hina defined the concept “work of God.” Other examples: John 6:39; 15:13; 17:3; 1J 3:11, 23; 4:21; 5:3; 2 John 6; 3 John 4.

That is exactly what John did here:

“That they slay one another” is the definition of “peace”!

John used kai as an adverb “indeed” or “namely” to signal his intent (it can’t be “and” because it does not join two equal clauses).

So the two phrases together are “there was given to him to take peace from the earth, (namely that they slay one another).”

2. Anthropology/sociology. These are not technical terms for me, but practical. I basically dealt with this above: humans create peace through violence. “Peace … namely that they slay one another” is the unveiling of this process (as the Bible does throughout).

Another sixth century commenter on Revelation, Andrew of Caesarea said as much:

“While the remainder of the gospel message was spreading [i.e. the white horse], the peace of the world was abolished, <human> nature having been divided against itself according to that which had been said by Christ, “I did not come to bring peace to the earth but a sword” (trans. Constantinou).

This phrase served to specify the type of peace Jesus was commissioned to take: peace built on violence.

3. The embedded theology is that Jesus, the bloody rider/slain Lamb, came to expose the lie of “peace” through violence.

He did this through his own blood, not the blood of others.

His death at the hands of others was intended to bring “peace,” as Caiaphas said before the Sanhedrin: “It is better you that (hina!) one man die for the people than the whole nation be destroyed” (John 11:50).

They killed Jesus to maintain peace.

But in the resurrection, the truth of Jesus’s innocence was affirmed by God and the world has not been the same since.

Peace through violence was exposed—Jesus took peace from the world on the cross!

Ever since peace through violence has still been attempted—and regularly argued as “a good thing,” but it is not true peace.

God is the only one who brings that peace.

4. One other realization is that this phrase, “namely that they slay one another” is not actually part of the vision, but John’s explanation of what he saw!

He knew what “take peace from the earth” meant, but added an explanation so his readers would understand.

I have indicated this insight by putting the phrase in parentheses.

(cont.)

---

---

“And there was given to him a great sword.”

Weapons in Revelation are visionary metaphors, and so it is here.

We already have an inkling of what the sword points to from the vision of Jesus in Revelation 1.

There a sword was coming from Jesus’s mouth!

It was repeated in 2:12 and 16, and later in Revelation 19:15 and 21 that sword from his mouth was still there.

The sword coming from Jesus’s mouth is the Word of God; the words Jesus speaks act as a sharp sword of truth.

Paul named it in Ephesians 6 (“the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God”) and Hebrews described it (“the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword …”).

Here the rider on the red horse was given a great sword.

Is it the same sword? What was it used for?

This sword (Greek machaira) was a long sword used in battle, whereas the sword from Jesus’s mouth was a romphaia, a short sword. I am not sure there is any difference for the metaphor.

This machaira is the same as Matthew 10:34, Ephesians 6:17, and Hebrews 4:12.

If Jesus’s commission was to take earthly peace away to establish God’s peace, this was his weapon.

With this weapon he took the fight of the gospel to the world, just as he did with the bow in the first seal. If the arrows of the bow of the white horse brought about death—that is salvation—this sword does the same.

The sword sliced through the lies of the world, the world system, and defeated Satan and all of his minions. Like the bow, it was a weapon of conquering, but conquering via the cross—this was the rider on the red horse.

The sword functioned just like the cross.

Here is the whole of Hebrews 4:12: “For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword and piercing unto the division of soul and spirit, both joints and marrow and a judge of the desires and intents of the heart.”

The sword wielded by Jesus did/does exactly that.

The truth of the innocent death of Jesus (affirmed in the resurrection) exposed the lie that violence against a blamed scapegoat was justified.

No one person is liable for natural disasters or the collective sins of society—though we still try!!

Jesus however freely went to the cross as a willing scapegoat to take the sin of the world upon himself in order to unleash God’s peace on the world among those who saw the truth.

Jesus, the rider on the red horse, took away earthly peace, and replaced it with the peace of God.

Observations on the Greek Text of Revelation

ἐδόθη αὐτῷ λαβεῖν τὴν εἰρήνην ἐκ τῆς γῆς

there was given to him to take the peace from the earth

καὶ ἵνα ἀλλήλους σφάξωσιν

(namely that one another they slay)

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ μάχαιρα μεγάλη

and there was given to him a sword great.