Who do you think the woman is in Revelation 12?

[gdemoss]

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.

Hey O, I misunderstood you and therefore came to a wrong conclusion and am not justified in my assessment of you. Your response has cleared up that for me. Thank you.

As for making it clear, God has made everything perfectly clear but inaccessible by the carnal mind and therein lies the rub. We tend to get lost in between the desire to understand and our inability to understand if not obedient. By this I mean:

Luk 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

As much as I want to be obedient and know all things that I might be profitable when I prophesy, the reality is that I am broken, only hoping that I might be counted worthy of true revelation concerning these matters that the church might be edified as a whole.

The difficulty your having understanding what I am seeing here most likely lies in some of my own confusion and lack of clarity. When I get some more time, I will revisit the thread and work to clarify what I have tried to convey about the passage. Sorry for misunderstanding your position and bringing about false accusation of your character.

Peace.

[wingnut-]

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.

I don't see this chapter as a complete historical retelling, I think that ends following verse 5. From there past and future are mingled. The two matters you question point to future events, the 1260 days would align with Jesus telling Israel to flee to the mountains in Matthew. The war in heaven is something we know happened in the past, but verses 10-12 indicate this will happen again, specifically note the part in verse 10 about him accusing the brothers. Also the conclusion of verse 12 that speaks of his time being short. This is when he really lashes out at Israel, and where the river section comes in. The devil could not have been accusing the brothers prior to his original fall, so that is how I conclude this as future.

Getting back to the woman though, do you see the significance of the 12 stars, representative of the 12 tribes? What would that equate to as far as the church?

[Guest]

Getting back to the woman though, do you see the significance of the 12 stars, representative of the 12 tribes? What would that equate to as far as the church?

Thanks Wingnut for adding to the discussion. If I were to advocate for the "woman is the church" position, I would probably suggest that perhaps the 12 apostles, as representatives of the church. If fact, if there were not 12 tribes, I would probably go there, if for know other reason it is one of the 12s in the Bible that jumps into my head. However, the 12 tribes, though it occurred to me, did not strike me as powerful enough that I wanted to include it in my 'argument'. However, it does seem a more natural fit that the 12 apostles. Perhaps someone else might have another option for what that 12 might represent.

Gary, thanks for the 'reassessment' of me, although I did not feel in any way attacked or belittled, I still appreciate that you took the time to inform me, that you did come to some kind of wrong conclusion about me or what I said. Not everyone here bothers to do that.

[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.

I don't see this chapter as a complete historical retelling, I think that ends following verse 5. From there past and future are mingled. The two matters you question point to future events, the 1260 days would align with Jesus telling Israel to flee to the mountains in Matthew. The war in heaven is something we know happened in the past, but verses 10-12 indicate this will happen again, specifically note the part in verse 10 about him accusing the brothers. Also the conclusion of verse 12 that speaks of his time being short. This is when he really lashes out at Israel, and where the river section comes in. The devil could not have been accusing the brothers prior to his original fall, so that is how I conclude this as future.

Getting back to the woman though, do you see the significance of the 12 stars, representative of the 12 tribes? What would that equate to as far as the church?

I think the apostles fit better than the tribes. (although both may be wrong-- just trying to piece things together here myself )

A couple more problems I have here with the woman being Israel are that this "great wonder" appeared "in heaven" & also the opening statement of the book claim these are "things which must shortly come to pass"(Rev 1:1) Now, Israel has never appeared in heaven to my knowledge and I can't get past that opening statement in Rev 1:1, that this book is about future events, so I don't think the past and present are mingled here.

The apostles and the church however, I can see why it states "appeared in heaven", since, as believers we are seated with Him in heavenly places. (Ephesians 2:6~ And has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.)

[wingnut-]

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.

I don't see this chapter as a complete historical retelling, I think that ends following verse 5. From there past and future are mingled. The two matters you question point to future events, the 1260 days would align with Jesus telling Israel to flee to the mountains in Matthew. The war in heaven is something we know happened in the past, but verses 10-12 indicate this will happen again, specifically note the part in verse 10 about him accusing the brothers. Also the conclusion of verse 12 that speaks of his time being short. This is when he really lashes out at Israel, and where the river section comes in. The devil could not have been accusing the brothers prior to his original fall, so that is how I conclude this as future.

Getting back to the woman though, do you see the significance of the 12 stars, representative of the 12 tribes? What would that equate to as far as the church?

I think the apostles fit better than the tribes. (although both may be wrong-- just trying to piece things together here myself )

A couple more problems I have here with the woman being Israel are that this "great wonder" appeared "in heaven" & also the opening statement of the book claim these are "things which must shortly come to pass"(Rev 1:1) Now, Israel has never appeared in heaven to my knowledge and I can't get past that opening statement in Rev 1:1, that this book is about future events, so I don't think the past and present are mingled here.

The apostles and the church however, I can see why it states "appeared in heaven", since, as believers we are seated with Him in heavenly places. (Ephesians 2:6~ And has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.)

You make some fair points, I don't know why the apostles didn't occur to me, doh.

[wingnut-]

Getting back to the woman though, do you see the significance of the 12 stars, representative of the 12 tribes? What would that equate to as far as the church?

Thanks Wingnut for adding to the discussion. If I were to advocate for the "woman is the church" position, I would probably suggest that perhaps the 12 apostles, as representatives of the church. If fact, if there were not 12 tribes, I would probably go there, if for know other reason it is one of the 12s in the Bible that jumps into my head. However, the 12 tribes, though it occurred to me, did not strike me as powerful enough that I wanted to include it in my 'argument'. However, it does seem a more natural fit that the 12 apostles. Perhaps someone else might have another option for what that 12 might represent.

Gary, thanks for the 'reassessment' of me, although I did not feel in any way attacked or belittled, I still appreciate that you took the time to inform me, that you did come to some kind of wrong conclusion about me or what I said. Not everyone here bothers to do that.

Yeah I see that now, sometimes I overlook the obvious

[Babbler]

The woman represents the messianic people since in Revelation there is a constant fusion of Israel and the Church. She is clothed in glory because she is already triumphant and is pregnant with life, albeit an endangered life. We have here the definitive conflict between life and death, between the woman and the dragon, between the Church and the empire. The birth pangs are the pains of the victims who by their death are born into life (12:11). The woman flees to the desert (as opposed to the city, the system), traditionally a place for refugees and those persecuted, but also the place where one experiences God's protection.

[goldust59]

The woman represents the messianic people since in Revelation there is a constant fusion of Israel and the Church. She is clothed in glory because she is already triumphant and is pregnant with life, albeit an endangered life. We have here the definitive conflict between life and death, between the woman and the dragon, between the Church and the empire. The birth pangs are the pains of the victims who by their death are born into life (12:11). The woman flees to the desert (as opposed to the city, the system), traditionally a place for refugees and those persecuted, but also the place where one experiences God's protection.

Hmm, Will have to look at it again with these thoughts in mind-- thanks Babbler.

[other one]

I think I'm beginning to understand why we have so many different denominations...

[gdemoss]

Getting back to the woman though, do you see the significance of the 12 stars, representative of the 12 tribes? What would that equate to as far as the church?

Thanks Wingnut for adding to the discussion. If I were to advocate for the "woman is the church" position, I would probably suggest that perhaps the 12 apostles, as representatives of the church. If fact, if there were not 12 tribes, I would probably go there, if for know other reason it is one of the 12s in the Bible that jumps into my head. However, the 12 tribes, though it occurred to me, did not strike me as powerful enough that I wanted to include it in my 'argument'. However, it does seem a more natural fit that the 12 apostles. Perhaps someone else might have another option for what that 12 might represent.

Gary, thanks for the 'reassessment' of me, although I did not feel in any way attacked or belittled, I still appreciate that you took the time to inform me, that you did come to some kind of wrong conclusion about me or what I said. Not everyone here bothers to do that.

Our thoughts come from two places and you can tell where they come from by where they lead us too but in some cases it isn't always apparent. Multiple views expressed over a single passage can lead to confusion so we know who is the author of that.

I was offered in thought that the word constellations, which are groupings of stars, is not found in scripture. There are 12 constellations in all that make up the course that the sun travels through throughout the year. The King of these twelve groups of stars is Leo the Lion who is at the head of Virgo the Virgin and Leo then could be considered the 'crown' of the twelve. Take it for what it is worth. The idea that a group of celestial bodies can be referred too as a star but be meaning constellation makes more sense to me especially since I cannot find any use of the term constellation in ancient Greek. The purpose proposed for naming the crown of twelve stars at the head is simply to more accurately define who the Virgin is that is in question if this be the case.

No dogma here. Can't say I have any of it 'nailed' down for certain. What I seek to consider is what impact do the thoughts I am being offered have upon my actions? What is it that I will do considering what I have believed? All of the talk about the stellar alignment on October 16th, 2012 combined with all of the other thoughts that point to signs of the end of the age has caused me to ask "What should I be doing?" and in turn answered by Hebrews 10, provoking others unto love and good works, though increasing the frequency of our meetings. For this cause, I have to go as I have an assembly this evening for that very purpose. Peace in Christ.