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

Re: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.