Major Discovery Concerning Revelation 12

Unsealed ^ | 7/11/17 | Gary

[amessenger4god]

Next month is The Great American Eclipse and the month after is The Great Sign.  For those of you who have followed our articles on the Revelation 12 Sign, you know that we openly admit that we don't know for sure the day or the hour of the rapture, but we do recognize that a strong case can be made that the male child in Revelation 12 represents the Church in union with Christ and therefore Revelation 12:5 portrays the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church.  Therefore, if the rapture occurs in close proximity to the September 23rd sign itself, whether on a day shortly before or after, I will not be surprised.

I was recently studying Paul's letter to the church in Galatia and I stumbled across what might be the pivotal clue we've all been looking for, but first, let's review the existing reasons why the male child in Revelation 12:5 should be identified as the Church:

1. The Church is twice called a man (Ephesians 2:15, 4:13) and the most common metaphor in the Bible for the Church is actually the "Body of Christ", rather than the "Bride of Christ".  That is not to say the Church is not also Christ's Bride, but that as far as metaphors go, and there are many, the "Body of Christ" is the one most frequently used (e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 12:12-13, 25-27; Romans 12:4-5; Colossians 1:18, 24, 2:19, 3:15; Ephesians 4:4, 11-13).  So to say that the male child is only Christ would be to neglect these many other Scriptures.

2. The Apostle John intentionally made a grammatical error in Revelation 12:5 by modifying masculine huios (son) with neuter arsen.  He is clearly connecting this particular male child with the male child in Isaiah 66, which is a corporate entity.

3. Revelation 12:5 says that the male child "will rule all the nations with a rod of iron" and Revelation 2:26-27 informs us that the Church "will rule them with a rod of iron".

4. Identifying the male child as the Church preserves the corporate symbolism in Revelation 12.  The woman is Israel, the dragon is the satanic world system that arises under antichrist, and the child is the Church.

5. The male child is raptured in Revelation 12:5.  The Greek word used is harpazo, which means "caught up" or "snatched up" and it is the word used for the rapture of the Church in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.  Every single mention of Jesus' ascension is described using the words epairo or anabaino, both of which indicate a gradual rising, not a violent snatching away (harpazo).  Revelation 12:5 is a clear connection to the rapture event.

6. The context of Revelation 12 is the Tribulation and Revelation 1:1 indicates the vision is yet future.  Reading past events into the passage would be a violation of a number of important exegetical principles and also a violation of the text's prima facie meaning.

7. Revelation 12:5 was the original proof-text of the modern dispensational movement and the founders of modern pre-tribulationism recognized it as such (e.g. John Darby, Harry Ironside, etc).

8. The raptured child in Revelation 12:5 is called teknon (informal child), rather than huios (son of honor), which is strange considering that Jesus is exclusively called huios in the Scriptures, except on a single occasion by his mother (Luke 2:48).  In addition, the Apostle John uses teknon to refer to the Church as the children of God in his first epistle (1 John 3:1-2, 10, 5:2), and uses huios exclusively to refer to Christ in his gospel and first epistle (John 1:49, 59, 3:13, 16, 5:19, 14:13, 1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:20).  To assume John is suddenly changing course in Revelation 12 would be contrary to all evidence.

9. Any mention of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection in Revelation 12 is sorely lacking if indeed the male child is Christ.  These missing details have confounded scholars for centuries in addition to the fact that the child is raptured to Heaven shortly after birth with seemingly no intervening period of time.  These missing details suggest that the male child is the Church.

...And now on to what I found in Galatians, which is point #10.

Let's start with Galatians 3:16:

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, 'And to offsprings,' referring to many, but referring to one, 'And to your offspring,' who is Christ.

The Apostle Paul makes a critical argument in this verse.  He says that you should go back and look at the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis (specifically Genesis 13:15, 15:5, and 17:8).  He then says that you should do a grammatical study on the word used for offspring or seed and take notice that the noun is in the singular rather than plural form.  It is almost unheard of for one of the Bible's many authors to walk their audience through a grammar study.  What in the world is Paul doing?

It was already well established that the Abrahamic Covenant was a promise apart from the law to bless all the families and nations of the earth.  Abraham was promised not just one, but many offspring, "as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore" (Genesis 22:17; see also Genesis 15:5).  Yet here in Galatians 3:16 Paul zeroes in on a single noun.  His conclusion is that the singular male offspring promised to Abraham is Christ.  Christ is the true Son of Promise.  Christ is the singular seed.  Christ is the male child of Genesis 3:15 and the later Abrahamic Covenant.

So is Paul contradicting the corporate aspect of the promise to Abraham?  Is he saying there will not be many?  Here is the prophetic linchpin in Paul's concluding remarks in the passage:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's [singular] offspring, heirs according to promise.

- Galatians 3:28-29

Paul makes the unequivocal statement that Believers are united in Christ.  The many are one.  And he drives his point home by saying that through faith the Church is the singular male child promised to Abraham.  The Greek is as clear as day (see here).

While some of the earlier points (#1-9, especially #1) hint at this truth, Galatians 3:29 spells it out directly.  There is now direct Scriptural support for identifying the male child in Revelation 12:5 as the Church in addition to all the circumstantial evidence.

To summarize:

10. The Church in union with Christ is the singular male child promised to Abraham.

You can read a more detailed study of the first eight points here and here.

[MHGinTN]

About time to treat that root of bitterness, right? Paul was inspired by The Holy Spirit of God, and received instruction directly from Jesus while he was raptured to Heaven, then returned to earth. he said so ... unless you want to also call him a liar.

[Zionist Conspirator]

About time to treat that root of bitterness, right? Paul was inspired by The Holy Spirit of God, and received instruction directly from Jesus while he was raptured to Heaven, then returned to earth. he said so ... unless you want to also call him a liar.

What makes you think J*sus was from G-d? You are aware, I hope, that the "new testament" was an addition to the Bible, no different than adding the "book of mormon" or something else like that. G-d did not give Moses a 66-book "bible."

And since you're so into "fallacies," have you ever heard of the one called "affirmation of the consequent?" It's the one chrstianity is based on.

[MHGinTN]

Read John 14, Jesus speaking to His closest friends. He told them that if they had seen Him they had seen the Father. Would you receive it if I explained that passage to you using a physics concept?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Read John 14, Jesus speaking to His closest friends. He told them that if they had seen Him they had seen the Father. Would you receive it if I explained that passage to you using a physics concept?

You seem to be missing the point. Why should I pay any attention to John 14? Why should I pay any more attention to the "new testament" than to the "book of mormon?" Something tells me that you can't quite grasp the concept that the "new testament" isn't self-evidently true.

You are aware, are you not, that the Bible originally didn't have a "new testament," that it was added later? That's why it's "new."

You don't understand, do you? Your only defense of chrstianity is the quote the "new testament." You realize that only works with people who already believe in its authenticity?

[MHGinTN]

I cannot help you in your unbelief. But, there is coming an event which will give you an opportunity to change your mind and call out ‘Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord’. Don’t let your bitterness block your heart from repentence at that hour. Shalom

[Zionist Conspirator]

I cannot help you in your unbelief.

Thank you for your admission that your belief in the "new testement" rests on absolutely nothing.

May it be His Will that you one day see the errors in this and acknowledge the true and pure Word of G-d.

[MHGinTN]

You posted, "Thank you for your admission that your belief in the "new testement" rests on absolutely nothing." And that is precisely NOT what I said, twister. Your bitter rejection of Jesus and His Ekklesia is oozing out all over the 'place'.

I said I cannot help you with your unbelief. The Truth of Jesus, Who He IS, has built great faith in Him as Messiah, my Savior, and brought me into the 'Body of Christ', which concept is impossible to comprehend without His Holy Spirit teaching the regenerate human spirit, raising one up in the way that they should go.

I take it then that you do not want a Physics explanation for what Jesus taught His disciples recorded in John 14 under guidance of The Holy Spirit of GOD?

[metmom]

What about the ten virgins? I have to believe those are SAINTS or they would not be called virgins. They all had lamps and had oil (Holy Spirit) at one time. Unbelievers have neither.

They are not the church.They are attending the wedding.

The wedding feast is for the Bride and Groom.

We know the Groom is Jesus.

We also know the Bride is the church.

Therefore, the virgins are not the church because it is not their wedding feast. They are guests at it.

The Bride, the church, is the guest of honor. It's HER wedding.

[RightField]

Bookmark

[metmom]

Thank you for your admission that your belief in the "new testement" rests on absolutely nothing.

The New testament is the recorded fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah.

The entire OT points towards Jesus. The NT shows where that was fulfilled and what is coming after and how NT saints are to live.

[Zionist Conspirator]

The New testament is the recorded fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah.

The entire OT points towards Jesus. The NT shows where that was fulfilled and what is coming after and how NT saints are to live.

And once again, you're completely missing the point.

You are repeating very well-known chrstian claims. And that's what they are--claims. Repeating them does not prove them. But you don't seem to have any other "proof" than simply repeating them ad nauseum.

The claims of the "new testament" and chrstianity to be the "fulfillment" of the "old testament" is the very thing I am disputing. And the only way you can defend the claims is to simply repeat them.

Have you never studied apologetics at all other than with convincing other Protestants that they're wrong and you're right about something?

And I just wrote a huge post defending American Fundamentalist Protestants!

[metmom]

I suppose then that the writers of the Gospels were liars, then.

Right?

[metmom]

It’s not about Protestant apologetics.

It’s about reading the Gospels and other NT writings and reading where the authors stated *And this was in fulfillment of Scripture....* or something to that effect.

[Arlis]

Good points. All true. Except........

So who then are the ten virgins?

Only saints are virgins in scripture. Only saints have the Holy Spirit (oil in their lamps.).

Cannot apply to unbelievers........

[Cvengr]

Might refer more to the product of the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

The wise virgins remained in fellowship, allowing the Holy Spirit to continue His sanctifying work in us. The foolish virgins did not remain so perseverant.

Remember how our Lord perceived when a woman touched His garment in faith.

When the Lord returns, the HS may have already departed, leaving us with the spirit and sanctification of our souls partially complete, pending the Millennial reign.

[metmom]

Non-church age believers?

Maybe Jewish believers during the Tribulation or from before the church age.

Not exactly sure, but IIRC, believers before the church age did not have the continual indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Psalm 51 references that when David asks that God not take His Holy Spirit from him. So that leaves that as a possibility.

I also agree that it cannot be unbelievers.

[Arlis]

Makes no sense.

You are accurate on OT believers, but the wise virgins did have the HS. Inconceivable that Jewish converts during the Tribulation would not have the HS. Regeneration requires the Holy Spirit.