Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

366Re: The Apocalypse Of John And The Rapture Of The Church

Expand Messages
  • Alan Fuller <rocsy@yahoo.com>
    Jan 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Keith,

      Thanks for your clarification, but I have to disagree with the
      location of the woman and the man child.

      12:1 says the woman is in heaven.
      12:3 says the dragon is in heaven.
      12:4 says the dragon is before the woman as she was ready to give
      birth.

      I don't think we can escape the fact that the man child is born in
      heaven. Heaven is spoken of as God's throne, but in Revelation we
      are told that His throne is in heaven (4:2).

      I can accept that what John sees is a sign, but if the catching away
      of the man child is supposed to represent a literal physcial catching
      away of the church, then I would expect the symbolism to show that.
      If earth wasn't mentioned at all then perhaps the symbolism would be
      consistent. But since the earth is mentioned, and all the events are
      represented in heaven until 12:6 I don't see how the catching away of
      the man child could represent a rapture of the type dispensationalism
      teaches.

      You say:
      >> the baby surely the Christ;<<

      In saying this you seem to contradict one of the main points of Mr
      Svigel. He says;

      >...the preponderance of evidence in favor of the interpretation that
      the male child represents not Christ alone, but the body of Christ,
      the Church. The "snatching up" of the male child, then, would
      be
      equated with the catching up of the Church described in 1
      Thessalonians 4:17. <

      Much of his argument rests on the idea that the man child represents
      primarily the church.

      >>the woman surely is Israel;<<

      Svigel seems to depend a lot on Gen 37:9 for this interpretation.

      Exactly what Israel meant isn't clear since Joeseph's mother had
      already died (35:19). He may have meant her sister Leah, but
      regardless Israel's interpretation wasn't literally fulfilled in the
      OT. Only the brothers bowed down later (43:26-28).

      So I would say that it is a mistake to interpret the woman as
      Israel. The heavenly Jersalem is identified as the mother of us all
      in Galatians 4:26. Since the new Jerusalem is seen as the bride of
      Christ and the offspring of the woman are identified as christian in
      Rev 12, I think the symbolism is more in line to show the woman as
      the church and the mother of all christians.

      Thanks,
      Alan
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic