Re: [revelation-list] Re: The Apocalypse Of John And The Rapture Of The Church
- 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*.
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
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
>> 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 thatthe male child represents not Christ alone, but the body of Christ,
the Church. The "snatching up" of the male child, then, would
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.