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

Re: [revelation-list] Re: The Apocalypse Of John And The Rapture Of The Church

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Jan 3, 2003
      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 2 of 4 , Jan 3, 2003
        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.