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

Continuing the Man Child and the woman

Expand Messages
  • the_starkman <keith_starkey@hotmail.com>
    Hello Alan, ALAN: I have to disagree with the location of the woman and the man child. KEITH: The text says, Then a great sign appeared in heaven . . . This
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Alan,

      ALAN:
      I have to disagree with the location of the woman and the man child.

      KEITH:
      The text says, "Then a great sign appeared in heaven . . . "
      This does not say that the woman, the child, or the dragon is in
      heaven; the sign--the revelation, the vision--is. If we suppose
      that these three entities are in heaven, are you prepared to believe
      that a child was literally born in heaven?? The meaning seems
      clear: Israel giving birth to Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus (and
      perhaps the church) to the throne of God.

      ALAN:
      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.

      KEITH:
      The vision IS the symolism. If there is to be a resurrection of the
      body of Christ (the church) one day, but it hasn't happened yet
      (except Jesus' resurrection), then the interpretation is
      futuristic. But even if we don't accept the passage to include the
      church's resurrection, clearly it must be the resurrection of Jesus,
      wouldn't you agree?

      ALAN:
      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.

      KEITH:
      I can't see how earth being mentioned or not would make any
      difference in the general interpretation of the passage; the Man
      Child is obviously Christ. It seems an inescapable conclusion no
      matter what perspective one takes of the book of Revelation.

      ALAN:
      You say (Alan quoting Keith) >> the baby surely the Christ<<
      In saying this you seem to contradict one of the main points of Mr
      Svigel.

      KEITH:
      Remember, I am interested in what one thinks about Svigel's notion
      that the passage incorporates the body of Christ in the catching up--
      I already hold to the Child and the catching away being at least
      Christ's resurrection. I'm merely wanting to find what different
      flavor, if any, the passage absorbs if we include the church in the
      catching away. I hold no contradiction to Svigel whether I believe
      the church is included or not.

      ALAN:
      (quoting Keith) ">>the woman surely is Israel;<<"
      Svigel seems to depend a lot on Gen 37:9 for this interpretation.
      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.

      KEITH:
      Genesis 37:9 aside, if you were a first-century Christian who had
      just been handed the manuscript of the Revelation, and you had no
      preconceived ideas about it, because you had not even heard of it
      until the time it was given to you, what would be the most obvious
      interpretation of the Man Child (not the woman as of yet)? Wouldn't
      you, as a Christian, know automatically this is Jesus the Christ,
      the one who will rule all nations with a rod of iron? That would
      seem simple enough to deduce, wouldn't it?

      Now the next question would be who is the woman? You stated the
      church is the woman; however, the church--Jesus' called out ones--
      wasn't in existence when the Man Child was born, and the heavenly
      Jerusalem wasn't mentioned because it wasn't a part of the birthing
      of the Christ. (The church birthed the groom? That doesn't sound
      correct?!) The only folk left are Mary and Israel. Well, Mary
      didn't flee into the wilderness for 3 1/2 years (maybe she did, and
      I'm not up on the documentation for that!). But we do have that
      corresponding verse in John 1:11 with it's well-known subtelty: "He
      came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him27"
      (NET). Foot note 27of the New English Translation states the
      following:

      "His own people did not receive him. There is a subtle irony here:
      when the lovgo" (logos) came into the world, he came to his own (taV
      i[dia, ta idia, literally "his own things") and his own
      people (oiJ i
      [dioi, Joi idioi), who should have known and received him, but they
      did not. This time John does not say that "his own" did not
      know
      him, but that they did not receive him (parevlabon, parelabon). The
      idea is one not of mere recognition, but of acceptance and welcome."

      I have to conclude, therefore, that Israel, Jesus' people, birthed
      Jesus.

      Thanks again, Alan,

      Keith
    • Alan Fuller <rocsy@yahoo.com>
      Hi Keith, I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and birth are in heaven because that s what the vision says. Of course that doesn t
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Keith,

        I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and
        birth are in heaven because that's what the vision says. Of course
        that doesn't mean I think that those things literally happen in
        heaven because it is a vision, not a literal narrative. The idea
        that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me. Neither
        is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
        dispensational rapture clear to me.

        The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
        believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven. If that is
        the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
        be shown. In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
        vision. The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
        Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
        resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
        from the earth? Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
        someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
        in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth. That seems
        entirely inconsistent to me.

        Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
        that is the correct interpretation. The vision is supposed to be a
        prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected. Svigel believes the
        church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
        overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
        Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
        prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

        Israel did not receive Jesus. Did the woman in the vision reject
        Jesus? Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil? Was
        that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

        The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
        child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
        this could also be the church.

        The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
        pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
        the mother of christians?



        Thanks,
        Alan
      • Keith Starkey
        Greetings Alan, ... The woman? Okay, we can let that go for the time being. But who, then, would you say is the Man Child? And finally, I m not all that
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 9, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Greetings Alan,

          >The idea that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me.
          > >Neither is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
          >dispensational rapture clear to me.

          The woman? Okay, we can let that go for the time being. But who, then,
          would you say is the Man Child? And finally, I'm not all that hyped up,
          myself, on a dispensational rapture either. Of all the items in prophecy,
          that one is the least of my concerns, except, if for any reason, I find in
          it something revealing the heart and character of God. Otherwise, we'll all
          get to heaven one way or another!


          >The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
          >believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven. If that is
          >the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
          >be shown.

          I tend to agree with you here, Alan. It's rather vague and demanding; to
          have to "figure it out" is troublesome to the interpretation.


          >In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
          >vision. The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
          >Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
          >resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
          >from the earth? Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
          >someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
          >in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth. That seems
          >entirely inconsistent to me.

          Okay, I see where you're coming from. I would note, however, that the
          dragon is cast to the earth after the event of the catching up of the Man
          Child, unless one interprets the casting down of Satan as parenthetical.
          (Too, at this point, I'm not finding much to flavor the text by trying to
          interpret the "catching up" as encompassing both Christ and His body.)


          >Svigel believes the church is the primary representation, and Rev >2:26,27
          >shows that the
          >overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
          >Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
          >prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

          Now I'm getting confused. Can you be specific: who is the Man Child, and
          what do you mean by he was "born in heaven" if you don't believe this is
          literal?


          >Israel did not receive Jesus. Did the woman in the vision reject
          >Jesus?

          Her rejecting Jesus is immaterial because she will eventually (in this time
          period) accept the Child as the Messiah: All Israel will be saved (Romans
          11).


          >Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil? Was
          >that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

          Well, personally, I don't think think the dragon presented much of a threat
          to the Man Child (or the Church). He is, however, quite a threat to the
          woman (Israel?), and that's the emphasis of his wrath.


          >
          >The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
          >child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
          >this could also be the church.

          Who else or what else would you say the Child might be if it's not Jesus?

          >The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
          >pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
          >the mother of christians?

          I'm still putting my chips on Israel as the woman. Time will tell!

          Hey, thanks Alan,

          Keith

          _________________________________________________________________
          Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
          http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
        • Leo R Percer
          On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:53:50 -0000 Alan Fuller ... and ... Psalm 2:8-9 shows up in one other place in Revelation--19:15. This is the
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 9, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:53:50 -0000 "Alan Fuller <rocsy@...>"
            <rocsy@...> writes:

            > Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
            > that is the correct interpretation. The vision is supposed to be a
            >
            > prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected. Svigel believes
            > the
            > church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
            >
            > overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
            > Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
            > prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.
            >

            and

            > The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
            > child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
            > this could also be the church.
            >

            Psalm 2:8-9 shows up in one other place in Revelation--19:15. This is
            the vision of the rider on a white horse, a rider who (by all
            appearances, at any rate) seems to be Jesus. Curious, no?

            Leo Percer
            Waco, TX

            (My dissertation--"The War in Heaven--Michael and Messiah in Revelation
            12"--looks at this issue in a little more depth. I am beginning to think
            an article or book on Psalm 2:8-9 is also needed. Any takers?)

            ________________________________________________________________
            Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
            Only $9.95 per month!
            Visit www.juno.com
          • Bob MacDonald
            Your archives reveal that the Apocalypse by Jacques Ellul (1978) has not been referenced in your discussions. While this book is a nuisance to search (no
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Your archives reveal that the Apocalypse by Jacques Ellul (1978) has not
              been referenced in your discussions. While this book is a nuisance to search
              (no index), his thesis is that the book of the Apocalypse reveals the
              meaning of the incarnation, life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus.

              He identifies for instance, the woes, as the suffering of Christ (page 73):
              "all that happens to humanity is concentrated in fact upon his [Jesus]
              person. Thus we must never read the plagues and judgments of the Apocalypse
              outside of the perspective of perfect, absolute, unbreakable association
              between Christ and men..."

              The man-child and the woman are in the centre of the third woe, which is
              itself the centre of the keystone of the book (8:1 to 14:5) - the midsection
              of the 5 sections. Ellul considers this the unfolding of the mystery of the
              incarnation (pp 83-84) in heaven since its full understanding is invisible
              on earth - (too few words for summarizing these two pages).

              He considers the woman as having a plurality of meanings: Eve, (12:9), Zion
              and Israel who engender the Messiah and the believers; Mary in "celestial
              reduplication", but not the Church who does not give birth to the child but
              who derives from him. Finally, he writes: "we must not forget that the
              Incarnation is the total union of the whole of man with the whole of God. In
              this perspective, the woman appears to me to be the image of the entire
              creation (of earth and heaven) in some way synthesized to produce the fruit
              of the most decisively intimate covenant of God with his creation."

              The dragon must prevent the Incarnation - if the latter comes to pass, all
              is lost. So the fury that is unleashed at the Incarnation (12:2-5). So (my
              conjecture) the immediacy of the ascent of the child. In wrestling with this
              colourful imagery and refusing deliberately to take the Apocalypse as a map
              of the 'future', I think Ellul helps us see the celebration of the non-power
              power of God as revealed. The child (Jesus) is taken up to heaven (not I
              think away from the earth but in the bosom of the Father) from which the 3.5
              year (12:14) ministry proceeds. The woman is protected in the desert and by
              the earth from all that the dragons and beasts can imagine or deliver.

              This is long enough as a sampler - are there other commentators who have
              taken this thesis more recently than 1978? Ellul seems rarely quoted
              (Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament 1972, Nanos, Mystery of
              Romans 1996). I wonder if others specifically studying Revelation had used
              his work.

              Bob

              mailto::BobMacDonald@...
              + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

              Catch the foxes for us,
              the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
              for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
              http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
            • Don K
              I seems to me that this objection overlooks one thing. The Apocalypse is not just a prophecy of things to come but is a review of things that had been, and
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                I seems to me that this objection overlooks one thing. The Apocalypse is not
                just a prophecy of "things to come" but is a review of things that had been,
                and there were present (1:19). Thus, the vision of chapter 12 certainly
                could, it seems to me, be a review of the past, a vision of the present, and
                a foretaste of the immediate future as well.
                Don K

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Leo R Percer" <PercerL@...>
                To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:18 PM
                Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman


                >
                > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:53:50 -0000 "Alan Fuller <rocsy@...>"
                > <rocsy@...> writes:
                >
                > > Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
                > > that is the correct interpretation. The vision is supposed to be a
                > >
                > > prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected. Svigel believes
                > > the
                > > church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
                > >
                > > overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
                > > Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
                > > prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.
                > >
                >
                > and
                >
                > > The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
                > > child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
                > > this could also be the church.
                > >
                >
                > Psalm 2:8-9 shows up in one other place in Revelation--19:15. This is
                > the vision of the rider on a white horse, a rider who (by all
                > appearances, at any rate) seems to be Jesus. Curious, no?
                >
                > Leo Percer
                > Waco, TX
                >
                > (My dissertation--"The War in Heaven--Michael and Messiah in Revelation
                > 12"--looks at this issue in a little more depth. I am beginning to think
                > an article or book on Psalm 2:8-9 is also needed. Any takers?)
                >
                > ________________________________________________________________
                > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
                > Only $9.95 per month!
                > Visit www.juno.com
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >
              • Keith Starkey
                DON: Thus, the vision of chapter 12 certainly could, it seems to me, be a review of the past, a vision of the present, and a foretaste of the immediate future
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  DON:
                  Thus, the vision of chapter 12 certainly
                  could, it seems to me, be a review of the past, a vision of the present, and
                  a foretaste of the immediate future as well.


                  KEITH:
                  I am in COMPLETE agreement with this statement. We just weren't working
                  from that perspective. It was Svigel's interpretation of the "catching up"
                  being the issue of including or not including the entire body of Christ, not
                  just resurrection of Jesus.

                  Great comment, though, Don,

                  Keith



                  _________________________________________________________________
                  MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
                  http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
                • Alan Fuller <rocsy@yahoo.com>
                  Hi Keith, ... Jesus?
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Keith,

                    >>Who else or what else would you say the Child might be if it's not
                    Jesus?<<

                    Sviegel says it is primarily the body of Christ, meaning the church.
                    That is more in line with my thinking, although I don't see the
                    snatching away as a rapture. As the 17th century commentator Matthew
                    Henry puts it;

                    >Having on her head a crown of twelve stars; the doctrine of the
                    gospel, preached by the twelve apostles, is a crown of glory to all
                    true believers. As in pain to bring forth a holy family; desirous
                    that the conviction of sinners might end in their conversion. <

                    The heavenly Jerusalem is mother to those of the spirit whom the
                    dragon wishes to devour (1 Pet 5:8). The spirit of God gives power
                    over the dragons temptations. The catching away to God is the power
                    the overcomer has been given to resist the wiley predator (Rev 2:26,
                    17:14).

                    The mother is the doctrine of the church that gives faith, and the
                    spirit is the man child that is given protection by the Father.
                    That's an idealistic interpretation that I prefer.


                    Thanks for asking,

                    Alan
                  • Alan Fuller <rocsy@yahoo.com>
                    Don, In 1:19 John is instructed to what he has seen, what he sees, and the following things he will see. It is popular to use this verse to divide the book
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Don,

                      In 1:19 John is instructed to what he has seen, what he sees,
                      and the following things he will see.

                      It is popular to use this verse to divide the book
                      into three parts.

                      Rev 1:11-20 The things John has
                      seen perhaps representing events in John's
                      past.
                      Rev 2:1-3:22 The things that are, representing the
                      first century churches with which John was familiar
                      and, current events for John.
                      Rev 4:1-22:21 The things that shall be, events future to John.

                      In my opinion, too much importance is attached to this
                      verse. It is simply an instruction to John to write
                      everything he sees in the vision, and it is not a good method
                      to use to divide the book of Revelation.

                      Why should it be about past history, or events current to its
                      writing?
                      In Revelation 9:12 it says that some of the woes are past, yet most
                      of us don't try to say the events described previous
                      to 9:12 are in John's past.

                      Also there is no special emphasis
                      given to the verse as in the next verse, 1:20.
                      Shouldn't 1:19 be viewed more like 9:12?

                      Thanks,
                      Alan
                    • coates
                      The thematic symbolism of the woman and her child here is too strong to reduce to a singular reference. Of course I come from the standpoint that the Bible is
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 11, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The thematic symbolism of the woman and her child here is too strong to
                        reduce to a singular reference. Of course I come from the standpoint that
                        the Bible is a coherent and complete document plotting the Godhead's plan of
                        human redemption through the Messiah. The imagery of the woman is so
                        highlihted in this passage in association with a Christ figure that I
                        beleive on needs to look to first reference.
                        From: Alan Fuller <rocsy@...> [mailto:rocsy@...]
                        Sent: 09 January 2003 06:54
                        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman


                        Hi Keith,

                        I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and
                        birth are in heaven because that's what the vision says. Of course
                        that doesn't mean I think that those things literally happen in
                        heaven because it is a vision, not a literal narrative. The idea
                        that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me. Neither
                        is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
                        dispensational rapture clear to me.

                        The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
                        believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven. If that is
                        the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
                        be shown. In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
                        vision. The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
                        Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
                        resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
                        from the earth? Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
                        someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
                        in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth. That seems
                        entirely inconsistent to me.

                        Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
                        that is the correct interpretation. The vision is supposed to be a
                        prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected. Svigel believes the
                        church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
                        overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
                        Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
                        prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

                        Israel did not receive Jesus. Did the woman in the vision reject
                        Jesus? Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil? Was
                        that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

                        The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
                        child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
                        this could also be the church.

                        The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
                        pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
                        the mother of christians?



                        Thanks,
                        Alan



                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      • coates
                        Apologies for this last mail . . .it went off accidentally. The imagery of this woman in labour seems to trigger thoughts of Genesis 3v15. Here the first
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 11, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Apologies for this last mail . . .it went off accidentally. The imagery of
                          this woman in labour seems to trigger thoughts of Genesis 3v15. Here the
                          first reference to the holy war or two seeds begins and for me is continuous
                          throughout the Old and New Testament. It fits in with the imagery of a
                          conquering warrior/Christ. This passage is a recapitulation of the history
                          of God's plan for the souls of man and the ensuing struggle against the
                          enemy the dragon-serpent Satan. The idea of a struggling woman carrying the
                          seed of righteousness through the generations comes forth in figures such as
                          Rachel and Mary whose lives mirror this archetypical struggle. Time and time
                          again the idea of a an evil enemy whose head is ultimately to be crushed
                          comes through in this struggle. The women here is the Old Testament church,
                          if you want to call her Israel then so be it, who gives birth to the
                          Messiah. It is a labour or outworking made over many generations and the
                          birth pangs had been felt for many centuries.

                          The imagery of the woman gives some clues as to her identity. The sun and
                          moon and stars reminiscent of Joseph's dream where the mother and father and
                          brothers were symbolised. Stars are symbolic not only of power and
                          government but here directly of the 12 tribes of Israel . . . the OT Church.
                          Joseph's parentage is highlighted as a remberance of the first parents, Adam
                          and Eve, and an allusion agin to the seedbed of the struggle found in
                          Genesis. I have more, but will give more direct and precise responses later.

                          Jason Coates
                          Johannesburg

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: coates [mailto:jasonnola@...]
                          Sent: 11 January 2003 04:22
                          To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the
                          woman


                          The thematic symbolism of the woman and her child here is too strong to
                          reduce to a singular reference. Of course I come from the standpoint that
                          the Bible is a coherent and complete document plotting the Godhead's plan of
                          human redemption through the Messiah. The imagery of the woman is so
                          highlihted in this passage in association with a Christ figure that I
                          beleive on needs to look to first reference.
                          From: Alan Fuller <rocsy@...> [mailto:rocsy@...]
                          Sent: 09 January 2003 06:54
                          To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman


                          Hi Keith,

                          I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and
                          birth are in heaven because that's what the vision says. Of course
                          that doesn't mean I think that those things literally happen in
                          heaven because it is a vision, not a literal narrative. The idea
                          that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me. Neither
                          is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
                          dispensational rapture clear to me.

                          The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
                          believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven. If that is
                          the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
                          be shown. In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
                          vision. The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
                          Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
                          resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
                          from the earth? Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
                          someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
                          in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth. That seems
                          entirely inconsistent to me.

                          Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
                          that is the correct interpretation. The vision is supposed to be a
                          prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected. Svigel believes the
                          church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
                          overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
                          Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
                          prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

                          Israel did not receive Jesus. Did the woman in the vision reject
                          Jesus? Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil? Was
                          that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

                          The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
                          child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
                          this could also be the church.

                          The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
                          pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
                          the mother of christians?



                          Thanks,
                          Alan



                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • Keith Starkey
                          JASON: The idea of a struggling woman carrying the seed of righteousness through the generations comes forth in figures such as Rachel and Mary whose lives
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 13, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            JASON:
                            "The idea of a struggling woman carrying the seed of righteousness through
                            the generations comes forth in figures such as Rachel and Mary whose lives
                            mirror this archetypical struggle. Time and time
                            again the idea of a an evil enemy whose head is ultimately to be crushed
                            comes through in this struggle."

                            KEITH:
                            Ultimately, however, what's the point of the passage? I think he had
                            something more specific in mind than the vagueness you've described, though
                            I like the theology.


                            JASON:
                            "The women here is the Old Testament church,
                            if you want to call her Israel then so be it, who gives birth to the
                            Messiah. It is a labour or outworking made over many generations and the
                            birth pangs had been felt for many centuries.

                            The imagery of the woman gives some clues as to her identity. The sun and
                            moon and stars reminiscent of Joseph's dream where the mother and father and
                            brothers were symbolised. Stars are symbolic not only of power and
                            government but here directly of the 12 tribes of Israel . . . the OT Church.
                            Joseph's parentage is highlighted as a remberance of the first parents, Adam
                            and Eve, and an allusion agin to the seedbed of the struggle found in
                            Genesis.

                            KEITH:
                            Here again, what is it that John is ultimately saying? It's not enough to
                            merely recap Joseph's vision; John was going somewhere with it, somewhere
                            very relative reason why he was given the visions in the first place.

                            I can't help but see the clarity of coming to terms with the language you've
                            used (good, by all means): Israel births the Christ (the Man Child). The
                            child is taken back to heaven, and Satan continues to make war on the
                            remnant; in this case the church, ultimately to include Israel. It seems
                            simple enough, I believe.

                            Thanks,

                            Keith R. Starkey

                            Keith R. Starkey

                            _________________________________________________________________
                            Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                            http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
                          • Juan Stam
                            I agree with Alan that this verse is not meant to give an outline of the book. (1) It is best translated, what you have seen, that is things that are and
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jan 25, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I agree with Alan that this verse is not meant to give an outline of the
                              book. (1) It is best translated, "what you have seen, that is things that
                              are and things that are to come. The book brings visions ("things seen")
                              right to the very end. It is two-fold, not three-fold, and nothing suggests
                              it was meant to divide up the book by these two (or three) categories. (2)
                              In fact, the first-century realities of the Roman Empire are present almost
                              to the end: Armageddon as a cavalry battle (14.20; 16.16), the seven hills
                              of imperial Rome and seven emperors, five already deceased etc; the bill of
                              lading for imperial commerce (18:11-14, fits roman luxury commerice
                              precisely but impossible to interpret in modern terms), etc. (This,
                              however, does not rule out also future significance of some visions, e.g.
                              coming of Conquerer ch 19, final judgment, new creation and more). (3) The
                              N.T. emphasis on both "already" and "not yet" makes the traditional schemes
                              of preterist, historicist, futurist etc really irrelevant; Revelation is all
                              of them but not only one of them. When it describes the future dimension of
                              our hope, it does so in the terms of its own world and its own reality.

                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: <rocsy@...>
                              To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:50 PM
                              Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Things seen, what is now and what will take
                              place later


                              > Don,
                              >
                              > In 1:19 John is instructed to what he has seen, what he sees,
                              > and the following things he will see.
                              >
                              > It is popular to use this verse to divide the book
                              > into three parts.
                              >
                              > Rev 1:11-20 The things John has
                              > seen perhaps representing events in John's
                              > past.
                              > Rev 2:1-3:22 The things that are, representing the
                              > first century churches with which John was familiar
                              > and, current events for John.
                              > Rev 4:1-22:21 The things that shall be, events future to John.
                              >
                              > In my opinion, too much importance is attached to this
                              > verse. It is simply an instruction to John to write
                              > everything he sees in the vision, and it is not a good method
                              > to use to divide the book of Revelation.
                              >
                              > Why should it be about past history, or events current to its
                              > writing?
                              > In Revelation 9:12 it says that some of the woes are past, yet most
                              > of us don't try to say the events described previous
                              > to 9:12 are in John's past.
                              >
                              > Also there is no special emphasis
                              > given to the verse as in the next verse, 1:20.
                              > Shouldn't 1:19 be viewed more like 9:12?
                              >
                              > Thanks,
                              > Alan
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.