2-9-1-1: Whenever we read about the coronation of a king, we will read that the king was "crowned." I have yet to read about a coronation where the king was "given a crown." On this basis alone, there is no justification for the assumption that this was the coronation of a king, and certainly no justification for believing that this was the coronation of King Jesus. If I were "given a crown," this would not make me a king, and the act would certainly not constitute a coronation. The term, "given a crown" is wholly unfitting if it describes the coronation of all coronations, that being the crowning of King Jesus.

We are told that Jesus' "true coronation" took place on the cross (DA379.1) and that His "final coronation" will take place at the judgment (FLB356.2+4). Yet, according to our traditional interpretation, 6:2 does not speak of the cross or of the judgment. If this "giving" of "a crown" in 6:2 is the crowning of Jesus, then just what coronation is this?

Please notice that the rider in 6:2 "had a bow " and that "a crown was given to him". If this rider already had a crown, and if, as some claim, 6:2 records the giving of another crown to him, then the passage would certainly tell us that he had a bow and a crown, and that a crown was given to him. Clearly, therefore, this rider never had a crown prior to his receiving of the crown in 6:2. This means that this rider cannot possibly be Jesus "riding out on the back of a triumphant church," for Jesus is the eternal King - He always has been King and, as such, He always has had a crown - many crowns in fact.

Can there be any doubt that the rider on the white horse of Revelation 6 is not Jesus? I must agree with Billy Graham, the evidence suggests that this is an imposter - a fake, a deceiver "riding out in the garb of purity" - that this was not a glorious crown, that this was not an official crowning, and that this individual never earned or deserved this crown.

CRITIC: Have you considered that Jesus laid aside His royal crown when He left heaven and become a man? Here is one of many statements.

“Christ had laid aside his crown and his royal robe, he had stepped down from his throne, and had clothed his divinity with humanity.” (The Signs of the Times, May 20, 1889).

The crucial point here is that while Jesus laid aside His crown, He never relinquished His crown. Even though He “laid aside” His crown, it always has been, still is, and ever will be “His crown” for He is the eternal King of kings.

2-9-1-2: CRITIC: In the NT God promises many times to “give” a crown to His faithful followers who overcome. So your idea that "it is given" suggests that “he never earned or deserved that crown” is not Biblical but an assumption.

When God’s children are “given” their crowns will they have earned them? Will they deserve them? We will be given our crowns by grace, unworthily, but not so in the case of Jesus - He is crowned worthily. “I rejoice in His love, and when we shall enter in through the gates into the city it will be the highest privilege to cast my crown at His feet.” (1888-128.4). You simply cannot equate our being "given" crowns with Jesus coronation.

Again, if this is the crowning of Jesus, why are we not told that He was "crowned?" Why would He be "given" a crown?

2-9-1-3: CRITIC: The Greek for crown in Revelation 19:12 [Diademas - Strong's 1238] is not the same as Revelation 6:2 [Stephanos - Strong's 4735]. Revelation 6 speaks of the crown of victory and is used of Christ’s victory as a man over sin as well as the crown promised to His faithful followers as the rider and horse represent Christ and His faithful church. Revelation nineteen’s crown is more of a diadem of God’s glory.

You have accused me of making assumptions :-), but on what basis do you assume (a) that this was a coronation, (b) that this was the coronation of Jesus, (c) that this took place during the apostolic era, and (d) that this crown was Jesus' crown of victory. These are all HUGE assumptions that find no support in the words of inspiration..

According to Vines dictionary, “diadema (1238) is never [please note] used as stephanos is (4735); it is always the symbol of kingly or imperial dignity.”

According to Easton’s Dictionary:  “In the New Testament a careful distinction is drawn between the diadem (1238) as a badge of royalty (Rev. 12:3; 13:1; 19:12) and the crown (4735) as a mark of distinction in private life.”

Let us summarize this in tabular form:

Now if 6:2 speaks of Jesus riding out on a triumphant church at the beginning of the Christian dispensation, (1) why is only one crown mentioned, when we all know that He wears many crowns? (2) why does the text suggest that He never had a crown prior to this? (3) for such an auspicious event as you claim that this is, why does the text not indicate that He wears His "badge of royalty", His "symbol of kingly or imperial dignity?"

In chapter 19 we are told that Jesus wears many diademas crowns [1238]. He “is king of truth, king of salvation (Mt 21:5; Zec 9:9); king of grace; king of peace (Lk 19:38; Heb 7:2); king of righteousness (Heb 1:8; 7:2); king of glory (Mt 25:31-34); king eternal; king of saints, king of the ages; king of kings (Rev 19:16). `Upon his head are many diadems.’ (Rev 19:12).” (International Standard Bible).

Then in 14:14 we are told that Jesus also wears a stephanos crown [4735]. This crown is described as “a crown of gold.”

It is easy to believe that the stephanos “crown of gold” in 14:14 is the crown of victory, for it is only on the basis of Jesus’ victory that He is qualified to take up the sickle and to harvest the earth, but if 6:2 also speaks of the crown of victory, I ask again, why is it described as merely “a crown,” and why was He just "given" the crown, why was He not "crowned." There is only one reasonable explanation and that is that 14:14 and 6:2 speak of two totally different crowns – crowns that are worn by two totally different individuals.

In almost every instance where a stephanos crown is mentioned in Scripture there is a qualifier describing the crown. For example: “crown of thorns,” “crown that will not last,” “crown of righteousness,” “crown of life,” “crown of glory,” “crown of gold,” “crown of twelve stars,” etcetera. There is one notable exception, however, and that is in 6:2 where this stephanos crown is simply described as “a crown.” Now there is no question that Jesus' crown of victory is the most glorious of all stephanos crowns. As such, if 6:2 speaks of Jesus’ stephanos crown of victory, surely there would be some qualifier? Surely this stephanos crown would at least be described as “a crown of gold,” as in 14:14, or as a “crown of victory?” Why would the most celebrated and magnificent of all stephanos crowns be so ingloriously described as simply “a crown.” This is out of character with other instances where far less glorious crowns are mentioned in Scripture? And, again, why is He "given" this crown and not "crowned" with this crown? No, this text persuades me that this is no special crown at all, that this is not the crowning of Jesus, that this is not even a coronation, but that this is the mere giving of a crown to an imposter.

CRITIC: "No special crown at all" does not fit with the use of this word in Scripture. In the book of Revelation alone this crown is consistently signified as special:

Re 2:10* Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown <4735> of life.

Re 3:11* Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown <4735>.

Re 4:4* And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns <4735> of gold.

Re 4:10* The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns <4735> before the throne, saying,

Re 12:1* And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown <4735> of twelve stars:

Re 14:14* And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown <4735>, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

Besides nearly half of the references to "stephanos" in Revelation are without a qualifier.

Does that prove that there cannot be an exception? Would you expect an imposter to wear a crown of tin? Does the pope wear a crown of tin?

If the diademas crown (1238), that which is worn by Jesus in 19:12, is also worn by the dragon and the beast, will you not allow for an imposter to also wear a stephanos crown?

Is your argument on the basis of "consistency" a biblical argument? I ask this sincerely as a layperson.

CRITIC: And finally there are no direct references that this crown has anything to do with the anti-christ.

Nor are there any direct references, and nor is there any significant evidence suggesting, I repeat, (a) that this was a coronation, (b) that this was the coronation of Jesus, (c) that this took place during the apostolic era, and (d) that this crown was Jesus' crown of victory.

CRITIC: It is spoken of as merely a crown in Revelation 3 and 4 as noted above.

Not so. The crown in chapter three refers to our crowns, not His, and the crown in chapter four is described as a "crown of gold." (Revelation 4:4)

If this, as you believe, is one of the most climactic events in the history of the universe, the crowning of Jesus with the crown of victory that He earned through His own shed blood, where is the fanfare? Would an inspired account of possibly the most significant coronation ever read simply . . . “and he was given a crown?” Surely, if this was the majestic Jesus receiving so noble and so costly a crown - a crown that He truly deserves to wear –  a crown that cost Him infinite pain and His very life - wouldn’t He at the very least be “presented” with the crown, or be “awarded” or “rewarded with” the crown? Wouldn't we read that He was "crowned?" And wouldn't there be at least some indication that this is a special crown.

Then, if 6:2 speaks of Jesus receiving yet another crown, would inspiration not rather have informed us that “he was given another crown?” Conversely, if this was Jesus taking up the crown that He laid down, then wouldn’t the text read, “And He again took up His crown?”

All of which only confirms the point: In the total absence of anything that persuades us to believe otherwise (other than your claims that your arguments are biblical and that mine are not - big smile), the text suggests that this was a rather ordinary crown, that this was not a coronation, and that this rider is not Jesus.

CRITIC: The coronation is in the immediate context of the verse:

11* And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

 12* Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

 13* And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

 14* And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

 1* And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

 2* And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

You have no justification for this assumption. 6:2 speaks of the first seal and the following description of the scroll (book) and its seals gives us no hint that 6:2 speaks of the coronation of Jesus.

`There in His [God's] open hand lay the book [with its seals], the roll of the history of God's providences, the prophetic history of nations and the church. Herein was contained the divine utterances, His authority, His commandments, His laws, the whole symbolic counsel of the Eternal, and the history of all ruling powers in the nations. In symbolic language was contained in that roll the influence of every nation, tongue, and people from the beginning of earth's history to its close. The destiny of every nation was contained in that book. As the book was unrolled, all who looked upon it were filled with awe. . . . There were no blanks in the book. There was space for no more writing.' (12MR296; 297)

Thanks to Jesus' worthiness (chapters 4 & 5), Jesus is invested with the power and authority to break the seals and to unroll the scroll - that is, power and authority to usher in the final events and judgments on planet earth.

CRITIC: The "total absence" of evidence is on your part. You are making huge assumptions that this crown is given to the anti-christ based on no evidence concerning the use of the word "stephanos" in the Bible and using this against a view that has much more Biblical evidence as noted above.

"Much more Biblical evidence?" At this point, I am happy to let the evidence to speak for itself. :-)

Should my reader wish to contribute to this discussion, please click here to send an email. Should you wish to make an extensive contribution then press Edit, Select All and copy this entire page to MS WORD. Now, in the resultant MS WORD document, you may insert your comments into the copy in a unique color and then save this document as REV2-9-1 and attach it to the email above before sending it. TO ENSURE THAT YOUR EMAIL IS NOT REJECTED AS SPAM, PLEASE ENTER THE WORDS "REVELATION INSIGHTS" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL.