Who do you think the woman is in Revelation 12?

[Guest]

12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; ² and she was with child; and she *cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.

³ Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. ⁴ And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

⁵ And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to ^[a]rule all the ^[b]nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. ⁶ Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she *had a place prepared by God, so that there ^[c]she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Let's see, she gives birth to a male child. Jesus is a male Child.

He is to rule the nations.

From Psalm 2:

4He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.

5Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury, saying,

6"But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain."

7"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

8Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the [very] ends of the earth as Your possession.

9You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.'"

There we see God's Son, Jesus, will rule the nations coincidentally, also with a rod of iron.

The child is caught up to God

Acts 1

1The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when He was taken up to heaven,

9And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

Jesus was caught up to Heaven.

The child will be at God's throne

Psa 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord:

“Sit at My right hand

Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

Matt 25:31“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne

Jesus is at the throne.

The 1260 days is a little more troublesome. Do a search for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, or forty two months, or time times and half a time, or three and a half years, and you will find many references in the bible. It is the length of the great tribulation the second half of Daniels 70th week. Some note that the time is also predicted by Jesus, when He told them to flee Jerusalem (Luke 21:20). Commentators differ on whether those nourised by God, is Israel, the Church. However, in the context in Rev 12, it seems likely that Israel is indicated, becuase the woman gave birth the the Son. The Church did not give birth to the Son, Israel did.

If you want to say that the Church is spiritual Israel, or true Israel, or the Israel of God, fine, I won't argue with that, but it was bloodline Israel, that produced the Messiah.

So, after all of those points of agreement listed above, I believe the woman is Israel. And it would be hard to convince me that any other person or entity, can match all those features above.

[Guest]

.... So, after all of those points of agreement listed above, I believe the woman is Israel. And it would be hard to convince me that any other person or entity, can match all those features above.....

Amen~!

[xero]

Galatians 4:25 "For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

[gdemoss]

While Omegaman has a pretty clear understanding of how it can easily look to represent bloodline Israel, I cannot take that position as I believe the bride (singular though we be many) will produce a man child (though we be many) who will rule with a rod of iron with the eldest in the millennium. She will 'give birth' to this child after the 'birth pangs' turn into full travail.

This is why I have trouble accepting that which 'appears' to be looking back historically. In the context, we see the war in heaven spoken of and Satan cast out permanently. I do not believe this has happened yet as Paul clearly calls him the Prince and the power of the air. He has not lost his wings yet. He will.

Revelation is a book of prophecy speaking of things to come. I do not believe that it is historical except to describe it in past tense from what happened to him that he came to receive the revelation. That which is natural comes first followed by that which is spiritual in nature.

[Guest]

While Omegaman has a pretty clear understanding of how it can easily look to represent bloodline Israel, I cannot take that position as I believe the bride (singular though we be many) will produce a man child (though we be many) who will rule with a rod of iron with the eldest in the millennium. She will 'give birth' to this child after the 'birth pangs' turn into full travail.

This is why I have trouble accepting that which 'appears' to be looking back historically. In the context, we see the war in heaven spoken of and Satan cast out permanently. I do not believe this has happened yet as Paul clearly calls him the Prince and the power of the air. He has not lost his wings yet. He will.

Revelation is a book of prophecy speaking of things to come. I do not believe that it is historical except to describe it in past tense from what happened to him that he came to receive the revelation. That which is natural comes first followed by that which is spiritual in nature.

I admit to being a simpleton in these matters. I am not the sort who can imagine scenarios that might be, and then feel comfortable in thinking I have an understanding. Even the book of revelation, with its vision and symbolism, I tend to take literally except when it is obvious that that cannot work.

When I examine what you wrote gdemoss, it occurs to be that your understanding could be correct, just as correct as 1000 other understandings which have been put forth by Christians over the centuries (not referring to the woman, but your whole outline). Some people enjoy trying to ferret out hidden, secret, obscure possibilities, personally, it scares me to death. You and I have a philosophical difference, I tend to look for the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions, It even occurs to me, that if God chose to include so many points of identification as I laid out, then it makes Him appear like He is attempting to deceive, I just cannot go there.

Just some things to ponder - If I understand you correctly, the woman will produce a manchild who will rule in the millenium, does that mean the manchild is the church, and if so, is it not odd to identify the church as His bride, and then the manchild?

And you state that the bride will produce a manchild, are you also saying that the woman is the bride (who is the church) who will produce a manchild (who is the church), such that it really means that the church will produce the church?

By the way, I am not trying to attack your understanding, I am just looking for clarification of what you mean by the things you say. For example. in Rev 12: 5 and 6 we read: 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male [child], who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

So, if the woman is the church (if I understand you correctly) are you saying that the woman in verse 6 (the church) will be where the the male child in verse 5 (the church), at the throne of God, or is the wilderness in verse 6 somewhere else, like perhaps outside of Jerusalem, in a real wilderness or what? . . . for 1260 days. I am very confused. Can you set me straight?

Also, I am wondering about your view of Satan, in terms of the the Prince and the power of the air (I think you meant the prince OF the power of the air). First off, having read perhaps a dozen commentators over the years on this phrase, I have not found much agreement of what that even means, nor have I found many who seemed to have any confidence that they knew what it means. Most however, seem to in one way or the other, take it to mean that he is the ruler over demons (allegedly in traditional Jewish belief, the abode of demons was the atmosphere). In any case, you ascribe to the phrase, if I understand you correctly, that it indicates that He is still a powerful adversary (no disagreement), but you maintain that he has not been cast down yet, and that is part of your basis for seeing some of this as yet future.

I offer that Jesus said (while on earth) that He saw Satan fall like lightning (Luke 10:18) and then in Luke 10:19, He told the 70 disciples that He has given them authority over all the power of the enemy. You said: "He has not lost his wings yet. He will." Maybe, but it sure sounds like his wings have at least been clipped. I don't want to overstate the case, as he is tossed out in subsequent verses, but I beleive he is somewhat diminished by (especially) Christs victory.

Satan might be the prince of the power of the air (he is the god of this age 2 cor 4:4) but Jesus is Lord of the universe.

4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

In spite of Satan accusations and abilities to deceive (including the ability to convince some to overestimate him) he is already a defeated enemy, he lost, he only has left to be tossed off the playing field. Until then, we must endure him and his persecutions.

Sorry, getting off track there . . .

Regardless of his current status, what do you think about rev 12:4

4And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

If the woman was going to give birth to those who will rule in the millennium as you implied, and the dragon (Satan?) is waiting there to gobble up the manchild the church, do you have a sense of timing or sequence about when that seen occurs? Tell you what, as much as iI would like your answer so I may understand you thinking, maybe I am complicating the topic here too much, since the O.P. merely asked, who do you think the woman is, and you already answered that, I think. Feel free to read and comment on the can of worms thread if you want to give an outline of how you see all of this unfolding.

I would like to comment a little on your understanding that the book of revelation is about prophecy. You said:

"This is why I have trouble accepting that which 'appears' to be looking back historically."

If what I imagine is true about Israel being the woman, that does not diminish the furtureishness (sorry to invent a word) of revelation. Israel has existed a long time, and is going to exist for a long time to come. The fact that Israel produced Jesus in lineage does not detract from the fact that that the Messiah and the dragon are enemies in the future. I am not saying this well, and I think it will get worse. Just because Jesus, and satan, and Israel have a past, does not mean that they do not have a role in the future. Do we pretend that when Revelation speaks of Jesus, that He has no past. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the one who was and is and is to come. A reference to Israel does not mean Revelation is looking backwards, it only brings the past into view, as an identification of the players in the future. I do not feel I said that well, hopefully you can get past my clumsy verbiage and understand what I am trying to say

[gdemoss]

I am not the sort who can imagine scenarios that might be, and then feel comfortable in thinking I have an understanding.

This is good. A man's imagination is wicked from his youth according to scripture.

When I examine what you wrote gdemoss, it occurs to be that your understanding could be correct, just as correct as 1000 other understandings which have been put forth by Christians over the centuries (not referring to the woman, but your whole outline). Some people enjoy trying to ferret out hidden, secret, obscure possibilities, personally, it scares me to death. You and I have a philosophical difference, I tend to look for the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions, It even occurs to me, that if God chose to include so many points of identification as I laid out, then it makes Him appear like He is attempting to deceive, I just cannot go there.

Our differences are enough that you will be moved to attack any position I take and therefore anything further begins to be more of an assault on what was presented rather than natural inquiry provoked by a desire to understand.

There is a difference between seeking to deceive and hiding things from prying eyes but being a literalist, you ought not have a problem with God sending people a delusion as he has done that repeatedly in history and promised to do so again to those who do not receive a love of the truth.

You have declared that the woman is literal bloodline Israel. I used to hold this position. I cannot in good conscience do so any longer.

Rev 12:1 ¶ And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

The woman appeared in heaven. Literal Israel giving birth to Jesus is out right there.

Being a person of literal interpretations, as I once was, you will have to use your imagination to get past this barrier. I could not do it.

One day I understood that Peter was writing to people who believed the gospel when he said the following:

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Upon understanding this truth within it's surrounding context, I understood that something would happen in the life of the believer sometime after he began to obey the word of God. Obedience is required for understanding and none of us are exempt. For this cause I seek to follow every precept laid out in scripture that the mysteries of the kingdom might open unto me. I don't claim to have arrived or have a perfect understanding. I put out there what I do for those who wish to discuss it openly and examine it for fruit.

I do consent the basic understanding that all things need to be tested and that which is good is to be kept while that which is not is to be discarded. I do not dogmatically hold to any certain position concerning this section of scripture. There are times that I am certain that I have had scripture opened to me that I have understanding and I do not doubt any longer the interpretation of such but this is not one of them.

[Guest]

There is a difference between seeking to deceive and hiding things from prying eyes but being a literalist, you ought not have a problem with God sending people a delusion as he has done that repeatedly in history and promised to do so again to those who do not receive a love of the truth.

A fair point, but I see a difference between deceiving those who are perishing and deceiving those who are intended to understand the book. However, I an not saying that God is deceptive if it turns out that I am wrong, but I sure think He could have made it less confusing, less, how did you put it?: "it can easily look to represent bloodline Israel."

You have declared that the woman is literal bloodline Israel. I used to hold this position. I cannot in good conscience do so any longer

Actually Gary, I said:"So, after all of those points of agreement listed above, I believe the woman is Israel", I stated my belief, I did not state it as fact, no such declaration. I certainly do not advocate going agains your conscience, unless we can demonstrate scripturally, that your conscience is wrong, which we haven't.

Rev 12:1 ¶ And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

The woman appeared in heaven. Literal Israel giving birth to Jesus is out right there.

Being a person of literal interpretations, as I once was, you will have to use your imagination to get past this barrier. I could not do it.

Again, I think you are mischaracterising what I said. I apologise if I was not clear. I beleive I said that I tend to take literally except when it is obvious that one cannot do so. I already mentioned that Revelation is a book of symbols and visions, clearly then I understand that much if not most of the book cannot be taken literally. That does not mean that none of it can be or should be. I beleive I alluded to the possibility that there is a spiritual Israel, the church, and as such I am willing to consider that the woman can represent the church, precisely BECAUSE the word Israel is appled to the church in other places. The literalness of Israel bringing forth the manchild Jesus could somehow indicate the church bringing forth His body, the church. It seems wierd to essentially give birth to oneself, so that would not be my first understanding, but this sort of cunfuing notion is why as asked you to explain what you meant, or at least verify that I understood what you were saying. I do not find it very helpful when people take symbols, develope an understanding of what they think isintended, and then explain it in a way, that is almost as cryptic as the passage in question.

I don't claim to have arrived or have a perfect understanding.

Amen, neither do I brother

I put out there what I do for those who wish to discuss it openly and examine it for fruit.

I think that is great, but I also think then, you should be willing to explain what it is that you said. Notice I did not ask for a justification, but for a claification, and how you understood certain aspect of your belief, that I was confused by. If you want to deline, that is your privelage. I don't feel that you are justified in saying:

"Our differences are enough that you will be moved to attack any position I take and therefore anything further begins to be more of an assault on what was presented rather than natural inquiry provoked by a desire to understand."

If that is your opinion of me, that is fine, I am not offended.

I do consent the basic understanding that all things need to be tested and that which is good is to be kept while that which is not is to be discarded. I do not dogmatically hold to any certain position concerning this section of scripture. There are times that I am certain that I have had scripture opened to me that I have understanding and I do not doubt any longer the interpretation of such but this is not one of them.

Right, and I think that is why we are having this converstion. If it were all clear and a slam dunk, I doubt the O.P. would even have asked the question.

[Guest]

The book of Revelation was written specifically to the bond-servants of Jesus Christ (1:1)--Christian believers....

No

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants... Revelation 1:1(a-c)

Doubt

Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. Revelation 7::3

Gentile Christians?

And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. Revelation 7::4

[wingnut-]

12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; ² and she was with child; and she *cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.

³ Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. ⁴ And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

⁵ And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to ^[a]rule all the ^[b]nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. ⁶ Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she *had a place prepared by God, so that there ^[c]she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Let's see, she gives birth to a male child. Jesus is a male Child.

He is to rule the nations.

From Psalm 2:

4He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.

5Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury, saying,

6"But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain."

7"I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

8Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the [very] ends of the earth as Your possession.

9You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.'"

There we see God's Son, Jesus, will rule the nations coincidentally, also with a rod of iron.

The child is caught up to God

Acts 1

1The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when He was taken up to heaven,

9And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

Jesus was caught up to Heaven.

The child will be at God's throne

Psa 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord:

“Sit at My right hand

Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

Matt 25:31“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne

Jesus is at the throne.

The 1260 days is a little more troublesome. Do a search for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, or forty two months, or time times and half a time, or three and a half years, and you will find many references in the bible. It is the length of the great tribulation the second half of Daniels 70th week. Some note that the time is also predicted by Jesus, when He told them to flee Jerusalem (Luke 21:20). Commentators differ on whether those nourised by God, is Israel, the Church. However, in the context in Rev 12, it seems likely that Israel is indicated, becuase the woman gave birth the the Son. The Church did not give birth to the Son, Israel did.

If you want to say that the Church is spiritual Israel, or true Israel, or the Israel of God, fine, I won't argue with that, but it was bloodline Israel, that produced the Messiah.

So, after all of those points of agreement listed above, I believe the woman is Israel. And it would be hard to convince me that any other person or entity, can match all those features above.

I agree, the woman is Israel

[goldust59]

The church.

I have a problem believing it is Israel because of what it says she does after the "male child" is born. She flees(with the wings of a great eagle) into the wilderness where she has a place prepared by God, to be fed for 1260 days--- when did that happen? Also when has the earth opened her mouth to swallow a flood from the dragon that was directed at the woman? Now, I don't know for sure how that is going to play out for the woman as the church, but I sure don't see how it relates to anything that happened to Israel at the birth of Jesus.