Expert: Scott Talbot - 11/18/2004

Question
Followup To
Question -

Thanks, Scott.

I appreciate the follow-up.  Really, I might agree or disagree with you on this passage--I don't know.  It's challenging.  I'm trying to get a sense of it in English, because I don't know the Greek (or any other language, for that matter!).  But one commentary I looked at said that in order to understand Revelation, you really need to understand the whole rest of the Bible (themes, symbols, etc).  If this is true, and I bet it is, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it is challenging.

Most of the commentaries I've glanced over agree with you about Rev. 12.  I have a hard time landing on the same conclusions.  The evidence may be overwhelming in your view--and since you have a good handle on Scripture, that's saying something--but I still have reservations.  It's like a jigsaw puzzle with a piece that looks like it should fit, and you put it in and it almost fits...but it's just not right.  Am I wrong?  Yeah, maybe.

I've had a little seminary training.  I haven't finished, or gotten a degree.  When I was there, I heard a lot about the "forensic" approach to Scripture as you described.  While I agree that we can and should be very careful about interpreting and applying the Word, I think the primary factor in doing so is the Holy Spirit.  (I want to be careful here--I'm not saying that you don't hold to this principle, or that you said anything to contradict it.)  Yes, the Bible can be analyzed, but taking a "birds-eye" view of the church, I think we suffer a terrible deficiency of understanding the Scripture, not because we don't have enough lexicons etc., but because we are not walking in the Spirit of God.

This is not the whole problem--I know godly men over the years have disagreed over interpreting Revelation.  But since we have the mind of Christ, we need to exercise it!! (1 Cor. 2:16)

I will write you again.  The next one will be even harder, tho.  

Your brother,
Steve

-------------------------

Followup To
Question -

Well...

To let you know, the original question I asked you really is a question.  The difference (perhaps) between this question and a typical one is that I have thought a little about it, & looked up some verses already.  But the reason I asked you is because I am genuinely interested in discovering the meaning of this chapter.  I don't claim to know the meaning.  And I certainly don't intend to "force" an interpretation!

I think believers should have informed dialogue about the Bible, and then (of course) come up with their own understandings and beliefs.  What happens in the church today is that: (1) Believers don't know the word of God, or (2) They are intimidated to talk about it, or (3) (In relatively few cases) They think they know everything.  I don't want to fall into any of these categories.  I hope you did not get the impression that I was a wild-eyed #3.

(I must say that I did think, from the ending statement in your first answer, you were open to discuss this chapter at some length...but maybe I asked a few too many questions--I dunno.  I hope I didn't waste your time.)

I could address some of your comments, but we'll just leave things here.  You do know quite a bit about the Bible, Scott - I appreciate the info.

--S.

-------------------------

Followup To
Question -

Thank you again, Scott.

Well, your argument is a good one, but seems to hinge on whether the events of vs. 1-5 are chronological, just to identify the characters.  I don't see anything in the context to indicate this.

(I know I seem argumentative, but again, just trying to determine the real meaning)

In fact, it would appear the context suggests the opposite.  In 12:2, the woman "being with child...cried out in labor and in pain to give birth".  In 12:5, "she bore a male child".  The next verse (12:6) says, "THEN the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God..."
If you detach the first 5 verses from the rest of the chapter, it seems like you disrupt a flow of events.

I agree with you that the verses about Satan are descriptive and historical, saying he is "a great, fiery red dragon...his tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth" (v.3b;4).  But this would be similar to me describing an accident, if I said, "This Rolls Royce rolled to a stop in the intersection, and a big black truck (you know the one - this truck has caused a few other serious accidents around here), came barreling in and smashed into the front of the Rolls.  Well, the driver of the Rolls was okay, but got out and ran away...etc. etc.  I think in this chapter the brief historical identification was for the dragon, not for other character(s).

If it is true the woman delivered the child, and THEN fled into the wilderness, the woman could not be Israel, and (my guess is) that the child is the raptured church.

I am not confusing Israel with the church.  I don't think they are the same.  

I think the nation of Israel is a "picture", or representation, of God's people.  As God spoke to and through Israel, He was speaking to all of His people, in every generation.  I believe God gave His promises to Abraham, and all who believe in God, as Abraham did, receive God's promises too.  So, you could say that "Israel" has been a spiritual Israel from the very beginning.  I think this was Paul's theology, reflected in statements like Rom. 9:6: "They are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham...those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed."

But, I think Scripture also teaches that God has a plan for the physical nation of Israel also.  While many of them do not believe in Jesus at this time, they, as natural branches from the cultivated olive tree, will be saved and grafted back into their tree (Rom. 11:24) at some time in the future.  This may be during the Great Tribulation, as you suggest...that would make sense.

But, I digress.  The "clear" references to the woman as Israel and the child as Jesus Christ don't seem to make sense unless there is no chronology in chapter 12.  So, this is my proposed chronology (If I can take a crack at it!):

1)The woman (New Covenant/the gospel) gives birth to the child (the church), who is immediately caught up into heaven.

2)The dragon is cast out of heaven, to the earth, and his angels are cast out with him.

3)The woman flees into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God.

4)The woman is nourished for 1260 days from the presence of the serpent.

5)Some people believe the gospel during this time, and a revival of faith happens in the nation of Israel

6)The dragon attempts to drown the woman (the gospel) with lies and deceptions, as water spews OUT OF HIS MOUTH like a flood, but God protects her

7)The dragon goes to make war with the rest of the woman's offspring: Those new believers (after the rapture) who love God and testify to Jesus


Why would Satan focus his attack(s) only on believing Jews during this time?  The one he hates is Jesus Christ, and anyone believing in Christ is the target--not just Jews.  So, this is another reason I think the woman is the New Covenant, and those saved by this covenant, not Israel.

I know you are probably a busy person, Scott, so if you want to take your time to respond, I respect that!  I do appreciate your time on this.  I also gave the AllExperts email address to a friend of mine, and asked his opinion about Rev. 12, so he might send you a note sometime.  His name is Dustin.

Thanks!
Steve

-------------------------

Followup To
Question -

Scott,
Hello again!  I hope I'm not discussing this too long.  I just want to address important things...and we've done some of that, but there are a couple questions I want to ask you, if it's okay.

If the woman is Israel, and the child is Jesus, this passage just doesn't make sense.  (I'm not trying to convince you here, I just want to think through this carefully.)  There are a few reasons why I think this:

(1) The dragon wasn't thrown down to earth right after Jesus' ascension.

(2) Israel didn't encounter a sudden "great wrath" and persecution from the dragon, Satan, right after Jesus' ascension.

(3) The reference to "one thousand two hundred and sixty days" in v.6 (and to "time and times and half a time" in v.14) seems to lose its meaning if it's talking about Israel (the woman) right after Jesus' ascension.

(4) In 12:17, it says, "The dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."  If the woman is Israel, right after Jesus' ascension the only Israelites that confessed Jesus were now part of the church.  So, it seems (am I wrong?) that this view says that Israel gave birth to Jesus, and then to the church.


I realize most commentators think the woman is Israel.  And if the child is Jesus, apparently this would have to be true.  But I have my doubts the child being referred to is Jesus.  It says of the child, "(he) was to rule all nations with a rod of iron" (v.5), which of course sounds like Jesus.  But it sounds like the church, too: "Hold fast what you have till I come.  And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations—‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron; they shall be dashed to pieces like the potter's vessels'—as I also have received from My Father" (2:25-27).

Getting the right answer to this question is important, I think, because "the time is near" (repeated throughout Revelation), and I feel I need to know as much as possible about Jesus' coming, & surrounding events.  Just for your info., I've been posttrib. for a long time, and this chapter seems to lend a lot of validity to the pretrib. rapture view.

Thanks again, Scott!
-S.


-------------------------
Followup To
Question -

Hi, Scott.

I appreciate the quick response to my question!  Thanks!
I do have a couple of questions, though...

In the beginning of Revelation (1:19), it says, "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this."  This seems to indicate that Revelation deals with the present (at the time it was written) and the future, but not the past.  But chapter 12, if it's talking about Jesus' birth, is reaching back into the past.  I would think maybe Rev. 12 is talking about the future.

If this is true, and the child is not Christ, then who is the child?  And what does it mean that the child "was caught up to God and His throne"?  Is this speaking of Jesus' resurrection?  

It seems to me - and I may be wrong! - that the woman is the New Covenant, and the child represents those who have been "born again" from this covenant, i.e. the church, made up of children of promise, just like Isaac (Gal. 4:22-29).  The child would be all those who are "in Christ" at His coming.  Once they are "caught up", and the Great Tribulation begins (Rev. 12:7-12) then others, both from the nation of Israel and Gentiles (in the flesh) would believe in Christ, and thereby become the Great Tribulation saints referred to in passages like Rev. 7:9-17.

In this framework, the "rest of the children" would be those who become saints after the rapture, because they are still children of promise, and belong to "the Jerusalem above" (the New Covenant, as I understand it), "which is the mother of us all" (Gal. 4:26).

What do you think?  To me, this is a critical chapter in the book...I am interested in your view(s)!

Thanks, Scott!
Steve

-------------------------

Scott,

(1) Who is the "woman" in Revelation chapter 12?
(2) Who is the "child" she gives birth to?
(3) Who are the "other children" mentioned at the end of the chapter?

Thank you!
S.W.

Answer -
Hi, Steve! Thanks for the question.

The Bible should be interpreted as any other piece of literature. It should be taken at face value, and interpreted literally, unless it is clear from the context that a literal interpretation is not intended.

In Revelation 12, the vision John saw was clearly meant to convey meaning beyond it's face. In other words, it's not just a woman being spoken of. It's clear that the woman is supposed to represent something.

The woman here represents Israel. This is clear from the reference to the twelve stars (v. 1), and the reference to the sun and moon (also v. 1)--compare this to Joseph's dream in Genesis 37:9.

The dragon is Satan. Where it speaks about his tail sweeping a third of the stars out of the sky (v. 4), this is a reference to the fact that a third of the angels followed Lucifer and fell with him when he rebelled against God. (See also Daniel 8:10.)

The child (v. 5) is the Messiah, Jesus Christ. He was born of the nation of Israel, of the Jewish race. The dragon's wait to devour him refers to Satan's influence on Herod to kill Jesus shortly after His birth (Matthew 2:1-18).

The "rest of her offspring" (v. 17) are defined in the verse. They are "those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." In other words, they are those who embrace Jesus Christ, receive His free gift of salvation, and become God's children (John 1:12, 3:1-21, Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 10:9-10,13).

I hope this helps. For further reading, I would recommend THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST, by John Walvoord (Moody Press, 1966)--perhaps the best commentary on Revelation ever written.

Please feel free to write back if you would like to talk further. I'm happy to help, and I enjoy the interaction.

Have a great week, Steve!

Scott
Answer -
Hi, Steve. You make some good points.

Revelation is, indeed, divided up into three sections:  Those things which were past, to John (chapter 1); those things which were present (chapters 2-3); and those things which were future (chapters 4-22).

Chapter 12 deals with events which were still future to John, and which are still future for us. You are correct about this. The main point of the chapter is to describe Satan's future eviction from heaven and his relegation to earth only as his sphere of influence, where he will focus his attack on God's people, the saints of the Tribulation.

(Note: Currently, Satan has limited access to heaven, too. See Job 1:6-7.)

In describing this event, God puts the event in context for John (and for us) by including related events, which disclose the identity of "The Woman." Verses 1-6 speak of Christ's previous birth, and of the origin of the dragon, his fall, and the condemnation of the fallen angels. While the overall passage focuses on future events, these verses tell of past events to put things in context and to reveal the identity of the various parties. So I still firmly believe that this is referring to Jesus Christ. The reference to His being snatched up to God and His throne is a reference to His ascension after His resurrection.

The Woman is Israel. Most commentators agree. Jesus Christ was born of the nation of Israel, not out of the church somehow. This does not negate the fact that saints of all ages are included in verse 17. They do not all need to be Jews. God's original plan for the Jews included a plan to reach out to all mankind--Jew and Gentile, alike. Specifically, these are saints who are saved during the Tribulation.

Scott
Answer -
Hi, Steve!

I'm glad to see that you're so interested in studying the Bible. What you're doing is a good thing. And it's also good to think things through, to analyze them so that you're not just accepting someone else's opinion. This is a great way to learn and to form strong convictions from God's Word!

Let me try to answer your questions:

1.-3. You questioned whether or not certain events took place right after Jesus' ascension--The dragon thrown to earth, the "Great Wrath," and the 1,260 days.

No, these things didn't take place immediately after the ascension of Christ.

The first five verses of Revelation 12 are not intended to demonstrate a continuous line of chronological events. Rather, they are intended only to reveal the identity of the characters in the vision--Israel, the Messiah, and Satan.

The identity of the woman is known by the reference to the sun and moon, which represent Jacob and Rachel, and the twelve stars, which represent the twelve tribes (Genesis 37:9-11). Also, it's important to understand that the 7-year tribulation is a period in which God again turns his focus back to the nation of Israel. (See Daniel 12:1.)

While God's desire throughout history has been to invite the entire world (Jew and Gentile) into a relationship with Him, he made a covenant with the nation of Israel whereby they would be the channel through which He would communicate Himself to the world. Because Israel rejected her Messiah, God temporarily set them aside (Romans 11). During the Great Tribulation, He will resume His "program" with Israel, and this will be a time of judgment (see Daniel 9:20-27). God will return to dealing with Israel, and also THROUGH Israel to the world.

(This fact can be seen in that God reaches out to the world at this time, first, throught the "two witnesses" [Revelation 11], then through them to the 144,000 Jews--12,000 from each of the 12 tribes [Revelation 7:1-8], then through them to the "great multitude" of believers from all nations [Revelation 7:9-10].)

To summarize, I say all this to emphasize that the vision does not focus on chronological history so much as it does the identity of the characters. There is an abundance of evidence here that tells us that The Woman is clearly a reference to the nation of Israel.

The child is clearly Jesus, the Messiah. The focus of the Bible, of history, of the end times, is Jesus Christ. He was born of the nation of Israel (Rev 12:2,4; cf. Matthew 1:1-17). Satan desired to destroy Him immediately upon His birth (Rev 12:4; cf. Matthew 2:7-18). He will "rule all the nations with an iron scepter" (Rev 12:5; cf. Psalm 2:9, Rev 2:27 [quoting Ps 2:9, a Messianic psalm]). (Note: The reference in Revelation 2:27 indicates that we will rule with Jesus Christ, but it is He who will be the ultimate authority, the holder of the iron scepter.) He ascended into heaven (Rev 12:5; cf. Acts 1:9).

Again, the first five verses are intended to provide a context for the passage, and to reveal the identity of the characters. The events that follow were not necessarily intended to be understood as events which immediately followed those previously mentioned. Verses 1-5 reveals the characters. Verses 6-17 focus on the specific events which relate to the Tribulation era.

4. "The rest of her offspring" - As discussed previously, the Woman is Israel. Her offspring, naturally, are Israelites (Jews). During the Great Tribulation, God's focus is again turned back to Israel. His "program" for Israel resumes. Because Israel is God's chosen people, Satan focuses his attack on them. While all believers are included in his attacks, he has a special hatred for the Jews, which is why, as the vision reveals, his attacks will focus on believing Jews during this time. Some will die as a result of Satan's assaults. "The rest of her offspring" are those believing Jews who are still living after the initial assaults of Satan.

Israel and the church are two different entities which are not to be confused. The church is God's program for the current age, an age in which he has temporarily set aside the nation of Israel as the main channel through whom He works. The church can consist of both Jews and Gentiles. But the church is not the product of or the replacement to Israel, nor should any promises made to Israel be "spiritualized" as to apply to the church. God instituted the church for a specific purpose, but the church is not the outgrowth of or the replacement for Israel.

One final note. You mentioned the post-tribulation rapture view and the pre-tribulation rapture view. After years and years of thorough (and ongoing) study, I am convinced of the pre-tribulation rapture view. Among my reasons for believing this is the fact that the Great Tribulation is a time of great wrath and judgment. The Bible is clear that we who are His children will be delivered from God's wrath (I Thessalonians 1:20, 4:13-18, 5:9). Also, as mentioned previously, the Great Tribulation marks the culmination of God's plan for Israel. God's plan for the Church comes to ane end with the rapture, and His plan for Israel resumes and culminates with the 7 years of judgment described in Revelation and elsewhere.

There is an abundance of additional evidence to support the pre-trib view. I would be happy to share it, if you're interested. For additional reading, may I recommend, THINGS TO COME, by J. Dwight Pentecost (Zondervan Publishing).

Scott
Answer -
Hi, Steve.

I'm beginning to get the impression that you did not ask me the question in order to get an answer, but to try to convince me of something you already decided to believe. I'm happy to discuss this with you, but, if you're set on a certain belief, I'm not sure our discussions will be all that helpful.

I'm convinced of my position, and I doubt very much that I will change my position. I'm not closed-minded, but I have studied the passage in depth and feel that the passage, the context, and other related passages provide clear evidence to the position I shared.

Let me respond to some of your statements. You say that verse 6 says, "THEN the woman fled into the wilderness ...." While there may be one or more English translations that use the word, "then," implying chronology, the original Greek does not use this word. The word is kai, meaning "and." If the statement were intended to connote chronological sequence, the word, "tote," would have been used. The fact that it wasn't is telling.

When interpreting the meaning of "the woman," it's important that we not guess who this is, but rather use the clues that are given. The references to the sun and moon and the twelve stars is overwhelming evidence that the nation of Israel is being referred to. There is no evidence in this passage or elsewhere in the Bible to support the concept that the woman is the New Covenant or the gospel.

If the male child is the church, how do you explain the statement that "The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born"? This is unmistakeably a reference to the birth of Jesus Christ and Satan's attempt (through Herod) to destroy Him immediately upon His birth. The description that he "will rule all nations with an iron scepter" rules out anyone BUT Christ, as this is His right. The fact that we will rule with Him should not detract from the fact that HE has the ultimate right to occupy this position of honor, as prophesied in the Psalms and other places.

If you insist that the statements emphasize a chronological sequence of events, then how can you say that the child is immediately caught up to heaven? There is no immediacy to it. The institution of the New Covenant, the proliferation of the gospel, the salvation of lost souls, and the eventual rapture of those believers who are living at the time, encompass a period of thousands of years. It is not an immediate event.

Steve, I think your theology is correct, from what I can tell. In fact, there is probably little if anything we disagree on--at least with regards to the theological issues you brought up. I just think you're working too hard to force on this passage an interpretation that just isn't there.

Admittedly, Revelation is difficult, since it does employ some metaphorical language. And, since most of the events of Revelation have yet to occur, some of it is guesswork and speculation. I believe that the imagery of Revelation, as with any prophecy, will best be understood by those who witness its fulfillment. God's primary purpose, I believe, is to confirm to those who see the events being fulfilled, that He foretold these events, and that HE is behind them.

Steve, I admire your determination. And, above all, I commend you for your desire to study the Bible. Keep at it, and, most of all, make sure it is accomplishing God's purposes in your life (See James 1:22-25).

Your friend,

Scott
Answer -
Hey, Steve!

One of the problems with email is that it is difficult to convey one's tone. Judging from your latest message, I'm wondering if you mistook my previous email as being too harsh. I hope this is not the case.

Again, let me emphasize that Bible study is always a good thing, and healthy debate is an excellent way to learn. I'm always challenged to approach issues with an open mind, but sometimes it is hard to do this. When the parties to the debate are not open-minded, the debate serves little if any worthwhile purpose. I was merely exploring this possibility, while reminding myself at the same time of this point.

I'll say it again, because I mean it. I truly admire your desire to dig into God's Word. If only more people had that desire! It's fun, it's exciting, and it's rewarding to uncover the gems of truth from the Bible and then apply them to life.

Remember, the Bible was given to us as a resource for our edification (II Timothy 3:16-17). It was meant to be understood and applied. And because this is so, God gives us enough information to objectively determine the meaning He intends to convey. The answers are there. We need to be diligent in finding them.

Bible study is a science, of sorts. It involves understanding the meaning of specific words (best conveyed in the original language), the grammatical syntax, the immediate context, the wider context of Scripture as a whole, the historical context, the frame of mind of the human writer and the original recipients, the way words and phrases are used by a particular penman throughout the Bible, the connotation of a word or idea in that historical/cultural context, etc.

The point is this. The truth is there. One can dig deeper by scrutinizing the text, like a forensic scientist, who carefully examines hairs and dust, DNA and microscopic particles. The more we dig, the more we discover. In fact, the treasure of truth is endless, I believe.

So keep studying! And please do write whenever you would like to talk, ask a question, discuss a passage, whatever. That's what I'm here for. (It's never a waste of time!) :^)

Your friend,

Scott

Answer
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate what you said about relying on the Holy Spirit's guidance in our understanding of the Scriptures. His role is vital and should never be underestimated.

I look forward to future discussions.

Scott

P.S. Enjoy the holidays!