Study Question: Revelation 12:1-6 - Who is the Woman?

[tyndale1946]

I am saying the overwhelming prevailing view on Revelation from the early church, until the 20th Century, was Amillennial. Futurism was introduced by John Darby in the 19th Century. It has as many leaks as a mesh bag when it comes to understanding Revelation and it makes most of Revelation irrelevant to the believer's present life.
However, Amillennial understanding makes this book absolutely relevant and wonderfully encouraging so that the promise of listening to this book being a blessing is absolutely true for everyday living.
Futurism simply leads to needless speculation on events around us as though they had secret codes to decipher.

Indeed, we will have to disagree.

I agree its not... Pie in the sky by and by?... What about pie now?... I'll reward you when you get there?... What about reward now?... God blesses us as we are a blessing to others... Brother Glen

2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[taisto]

I agree its not... Pie in the sky by and by?... What about pie now?... I'll reward you when you get there?... What about reward now?... God blesses us as we are a blessing to others... Brother Glen

2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Have you ever wondered why God gives us so many geneologies in the Old Testament and in Matthew and Luke?

It is to show us that God could not be thwarted by Satan, the dragon, who kept standing by to try devour the Promised One. God, painstakingly shows us how the woman, the line of the Promised One, was cared for and kept from the angry maul of the dragons fury.

Revelation 12 makes the connection for us, showing us how God has worked from Adam and Eve to this very present moment.

What a great encouragement Revelation is to us today.

 

[Van]

I am saying the overwhelming prevailing view on Revelation from the early church, until the 20th Century, was Amillennial. Futurism was introduced by John Darby in the 19th Century. It has as many leaks as a mesh bag when it comes to understanding Revelation and it makes most of Revelation irrelevant to the believer's present life. However, Amillennial understanding makes this book absolutely relevant and wonderfully encouraging so that the promise of listening to this book being a blessing is absolutely true for everyday living.
Futurism simply leads to needless speculation on events around us as though they had secret codes to decipher.

Indeed, we will have to disagree.

As I noted before, just because a view has been held in the past does not mean it is valid. I have presented the view I believe best fits the context based on study, rather than accepting what seems to me to be the flawed views of the past. Amillennialism certainly is not the majority view of General Baptists.

 

[Van]

The 'other woman' is described chapters 17 & 18.

It is a well known fallacy to take an allegorical detail from one passage and claim that detail has the same meaning in another place in another allegory. Just saying....

 

[Revmitchell]

I am saying the overwhelming prevailing view on Revelation from the early church, until the 20th Century, was Amillennial. Futurism was introduced by John Darby in the 19th Century. It has as many leaks as a mesh bag when it comes to understanding Revelation and it makes most of Revelation irrelevant to the believer's present life.
However, Amillennial understanding makes this book absolutely relevant and wonderfully encouraging so that the promise of listening to this book being a blessing is absolutely true for everyday living.
Futurism simply leads to needless speculation on events around us as though they had secret codes to decipher.

Indeed, we will have to disagree.

This is factually incorrect. Origen began laying the basis for a non-literal view of scripture but Amillennialism was not systemized until Augustine came along. He did the primary work on this errant view. However, following this it did become the prevailing view of the Roman Catholic church. This is common knowledge and indisputable.

Bernard Ramm defines this allegorical method of interpreting scripture as "Allegorist is the method of interpreting a literary text that regards the literal sense as the vehicle for a secondary, more spiritual and more profound sense."

Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical interpretation, p.1

The danger of this errant method is it ignores the literal sense and leaves open all kinds of possibilities that are often manipulated to mean whatever fancies the individual.

It also leaves no means to test the interpretation arising from that method.

This is not to say that there is no allegorical texts in scripture but this is often overused to prop up many presuppositions.

 

[taisto]

This is factually incorrect. Origen began laying the basis for a non-literal view of scripture but Amillennialism was not systemized until Augustine came along. He did the primary work on this errant view. However, following this it did become the prevailing view of the Roman Catholic church. This is common knowledge and indisputable.

Bernard Ramm defines this allegorical method of interpreting scripture as "Allegorist is the method of interpreting a literary text that regards the literal sense as the vehicle for a secondary, more spiritual and more profound sense."

Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical interpretation, p.1

The danger of this errant method is it ignores the literal sense and leaves open all kinds of possibilities that are often manipulated to mean whatever fancies the individual.

It also leaves no means to test the interpretation arising from that method.

This is not to say that there is no allegorical texts in scripture but this is often overused to prop up many presuppositions.

Bernard Ramm misses the boat entirely and refuses to see John very clearly connecting the Revelation to vast amounts of passages in the Old Testament. The Revelation is not primarily about futurism (as Darby and his followers have espoused) but is, instead, about explaining the work of redemption from the fall of Adam to the return of Christ Jesus.
Futurists miss the message that connects to the Old Testament and gives great encouragement to the church today. The claim of allegory is a red herring that denies apocalyptic language in Revelation and forces literalism upon John. For instance the 1000 year Millennium becomes a literal 1000 years. Yet, when the Psalmist says that God owns the cattle in a thousand hills, they don't think God only owns 1000 hills with cattle in it. Why? Because the Psalmist is not being literal. So it is with the numbers in Revelation. The writer is not using literal numbers. He is using symbolism to express times and length as well as fullness and completeness. But, because futurists will not relent in their literalism, they contort Revelation into this awful interpretation which makes (and would make) no sense today or at any time in the past. Thus, you end up with false prophet after false prophet telling people wrong dates and interpreting signs that aren't even signs while getting the masses all lathered up and filled with fear.

Such an interpretation goes against the intended meaning to encourage the Church and give them hope in the midst of persecution.

 

[Revmitchell]

Bernard Ramm misses the boat entirely and refuses to see John very clearly connecting the Revelation to vast amounts of passages in the Old Testament. The Revelation is not primarily about futurism (as Darby and his followers have espoused) but is, instead, about explaining the work of redemption from the fall of Adam to the return of Christ Jesus.
Futurists miss the message that connects to the Old Testament and gives great encouragement to the church today. The claim of allegory is a red herring that denies apocalyptic language in Revelation and forces literalism upon John. For instance the 1000 year Millennium becomes a literal 1000 years. Yet, when the Psalmist says that God owns the cattle in a thousand hills, they don't think God only owns 1000 hills with cattle in it. Why? Because the Psalmist is not being literal. So it is with the numbers in Revelation. The writer is not using literal numbers. He is using symbolism to express times and length as well as fullness and completeness. But, because futurists will not relent in their literalism, they contort Revelation into this awful interpretation which makes (and would make) no sense today or at any time in the past. Thus, you end up with false prophet after false prophet telling people wrong dates and interpreting signs that aren't even signs while getting the masses all lathered up and filled with fear.

Such an interpretation goes against the intended meaning to encourage the Church and give them hope in the midst of persecution.

I have quoted to you historical facts. Your rejection of them is on you. No it doesn't miss such an interpretation

 

[taisto]

I have quoted to you historical facts. Your rejection of them is on you. No it doesn't miss such an interpretation

You quoted a person who demands literalism, yet doesn't adhere entirely to literalism himself.

Does God only own the cattle on a thousand hills, but not on hill number 1001? If you're going to take things literally, then do so.

In Revelation, is God a Greek letter of an Alpha and an Omega? We're there actual lampstands? Does the Son of God have an actual sword coming out of His mouth? Etc, etc, etc.

Look at the language of the text. Go to the vast passages in the Old Testament that John is pointing toward where similar symbolism is used.

Rev, the interpretation of the early church is not some people making up allegories from nowhere. The symbolism is all connected to the Old Testament and this is precisely why the book is titled the "Revelation." It is revealing the mysteries of all the past to us so that we will be encouraged and empowered to persevere in trials at the present. It is a picture book that connects the dots from Adam and Eve to the return of Christ Jesus to reign as our King.

Your quote comes from a person who breaks his own rules whenever he wants and is not being literal at all times. In other words, he's being hypocritical in his accusations.

 

[kyredneck]

John very clearly connecting the Revelation to vast amounts of passages in the Old Testament.

Spot on brother:

"The problem with the futurist view is that it is rife with speculation. The true blessing in the book of Revelation is that it is the capstone of the entire bible, and there's no other way to approach the book than through the rest of scripture. Revelation is continually nonstop pointing back to what has already been written. The underlying continuity of the scriptures is never broken. To correctly study Revelation is to study all the scripture. Example, Rev 12 is nothing short of a 'picture story' of Gen 3:15, the seed germ of all prophecy (as Pink referred to it):"
Who/What is the "Whore of babylon"?

 

[37818]

The Biblical futurist view is solely based on the Biblical texts. It happens to be a post trib, pre wrath rapture view. Premillennial.

 

[Revmitchell]

You quoted a person who demands literalism, yet doesn't adhere entirely to literalism himself.
.

Until you understand the literal interpretation of the Bible and our position in this maybe you should refrain from making such arguments that reveal you do not.

 

[kyredneck]

Until you understand the literal interpretation of the Bible and our position in this maybe you should refrain from making such arguments that reveal you do not.

Imagine a literal whore decked out in literal priests' garments riding a literal red dragon with literal seven heads and literal ten horns.

 

[37818]

Imagine a literal whore decked out in literal priests' garments riding a literal red dragon with literal seven heads and literal ten horns.

Accusation of taking the actual metaphor literally. But it does have a literal sense and meaning.

 

[kyredneck]

Accusation of taking actual metaphor literally.

My point is dispies cherry pick what they want to literalize or spiritualize.

 

[Van]

Returning to topic, who or what does the "woman" of Revelation 12:1-2 personify? The Holy Spirit!

 

[kyredneck]

Returning to topic, who or what does the "woman" of Revelation 12:1-2 personify? The Holy Spirit!

Close, but no cigar. The celestial woman of Rev 12 is Jerusalem above, and is manifested/personified here below in her children that are born of the Holy Spirit.

7 `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;
8 the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.` Jn 3

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Gal 4

17 And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus: Rev 12

 

[37818]

My point is dispies cherry pick what they want to literalize or spiritualize.

Romans 2:1, ". . . Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. . . ."

 

[taisto]

Spot on brother:

"The problem with the futurist view is that it is rife with speculation. The true blessing in the book of Revelation is that it is the capstone of the entire bible, and there's no other way to approach the book than through the rest of scripture. Revelation is continually nonstop pointing back to what has already been written. The underlying continuity of the scriptures is never broken. To correctly study Revelation is to study all the scripture. Example, Rev 12 is nothing short of a 'picture story' of Gen 3:15, the seed germ of all prophecy (as Pink referred to it):"
Who/What is the "Whore of babylon"?

I agree entirely.
I just heard a sermon on Psalm 10 this morning where David asks questions as to why the wicked seem to get away with their sins. Then I read Revelation 19, 20,and 21 where God answers the question for us, revealing the mystery of the Bible writers questions to us in one final, grand opus of a book that is truly, THE Revelation. How encouraging to every believer that our perseverance is gloriously rewarded.

 

[Revmitchell]

Imagine a literal whore decked out in literal priests' garments riding a literal red dragon with literal seven heads and literal ten horns.

Ill refer you back to the post you quoted

 

[taisto]

Until you understand the literal interpretation of the Bible and our position in this maybe you should refrain from making such arguments that reveal you do not.

I do understand your argument. My comments may bother you since you adhere to a strict futurist view, but I do understand your position. I simply find it wanting and very strained.

 

[Revmitchell]

I do understand your argument. My comments may bother you since you adhere to a strict futurist view, but I do understand your position. I simply find it wanting and very strained.

Nothing you have posted gives any indication you understand. If you did you wouldnt have posted what you have about literalism