- 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 livesMessage 1 of 13 , Jan 13, 2003View SourceJASON:
"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."
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.
"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
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.
Keith R. Starkey
Keith R. Starkey
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
- 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 andMessage 2 of 13 , Jan 25, 2003View SourceI 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 -----
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:50 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Things seen, what is now and what will take
> 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
> 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
> 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?
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/