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

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

Expand Messages
  • Alan Fuller <rocsy@yahoo.com>
    Keith, I read the article with some intrest, but these thoughts occured to me. The woman was in heaven. The dragon was in heaven. So wasn t the baby born in
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Keith,

      I read the article with some intrest, but these thoughts occured to
      me.

      The woman was in heaven. The dragon was in heaven. So wasn't the baby
      born in heaven? It doesn't say he was snatched up to heaven, but to
      God and his throne.

      It appears the woman goes to earth in 12:6, and the dragon in 12:9.

      Could 12:4 be an allusion to Daniel 8:10?

      Did the baby drop from heaven to earth? That's the only way I think
      it could represent a rapture of the church. Or does a baby born in
      heaven represent the church? If it is supposed to be in heaven how
      does it represent the rapture?

      Alan
    • Keith Starkey
      Hello Alan, I think the allusion to Daniel 8 is not a stong one; the horn that comes out of the broken large horn tramples the hosts, but the dragon in
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Alan,

        I think the allusion to Daniel 8 is not a stong one; the horn that comes out
        of the broken large horn tramples the hosts, but the dragon in Revelation
        doesn't trample on or throw people (hosts) out of heaven. He MAY have had
        1/3 of the angels head over to his side, but that wouldn't qualify as
        pertaining to this passage. Further, the Dragon may have trampled over some
        of the angels he fights, but this still wouldn't qualify the interpretation
        regarding the baby. The scene John sees is a SIGN in heaven. Babies are
        obviously not born in heaven; the reality (or literality) of the scene, if
        any, has to be on earth's side.

        Rev 12:6 doesn't say the woman came to earth at this point, it says she fled
        to the desert; she was already on the earth. (Surely she wouldn't flee from
        heaven to earth for safety!)

        Further, the baby (who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter) is
        caught up to God and His throne, as you noted. Caught up . . . from heaven
        to a throne? I think we'd be reading more into this than what seems
        reasonably clear: the woman surely is Israel; the baby surely the Christ;
        the dragon surely Satan; the offspring the disciples of Jesus (Rev 12:17
        "Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against
        the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's commandments and hold to the
        testimony of Jesus.")

        Thanks very much for you input, Alan,

        Keith R. Starkey

        _________________________________________________________________
        MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
        http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
      • Alan Fuller <rocsy@yahoo.com>
        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
        Message 3 of 4 , 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
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.