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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.