Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Revelation 12 Reference Post


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:09 PM

This is being posted on behalf of Adanac.  It is his study on Revelation 12.



OK, for this Bible study I am going to make you guys do the work. I shall present a series of questions for which you will provide the answers. Here are the first set of questions. I'm just looking for very simple answers.

1. The woman is clothed with the sun, moon and stars. What does the allusion to Joseph's dream tell us about this woman?

2. Where are the words "great... dragon" quoting from in the Old Testament? What does this tell you about the dragon?

3. The woman's pregnancy is mentioned twice using two different quotations from Isaiah. What are those quotations and what contrast can you see in the context of these passages?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#2 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:10 PM

2. Where are the words "great... dragon" quoting from in the Old Testament? What does this tell you about the dragon?

This one's easy: the great dragon in the OT is in Ezekiel 29:3, which says: -

speak, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lies in the midst of his streams, that says, 'My Nile is my own; I made it for myself.'

Here it refers to Egypt, Israel's enemy.

One of the things this tells us about the 'dragon' in Rev. is that it is just a bunch of humans - a nation, or something - not a big supernatural beastie.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#3 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:10 PM

2. Where are the words "great... dragon" quoting from in the Old Testament? What does this tell you about the dragon?

This one's easy: the great dragon in the OT is in Ezekiel 29:3, which says: -

speak, and say, Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lies in the midst of his streams, that says, 'My Nile is my own; I made it for myself.'

Here it refers to Egypt, Israel's enemy.

One of the things this tells us about the 'dragon' in Rev. is that it is just a bunch of humans - a nation, or something - not a big supernatural beastie.

Ezekiel 29 also tells us that this serpent would be taken over by babylon in verse 19, which works with the whole picture of the power passing down to Rome.

Isaiah 27v1-12 shows that the term serpent is applied to Egypt as well.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#4 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:10 PM

OK, so we have something Egyptian about the dragon. There is also a clear reference to Daniel 7 and the fourth beast, that of Rome. We are looking at something with Egyptian and Roman characteristics.

What about the woman? What nationality does she seem to be from the sun, moon and stars?

And what about those 2 quotations regarding the pregnancy of the woman taken from Isaiah?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#5 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:11 PM

And what about those 2 quotations regarding the pregnancy of the woman taken from Isaiah?

Isa 66, what about Micah 4:10?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#6 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:11 PM

Micah 4 is interesting. I was thinking more of the contrast between Isaiah 66 and Isaiah 26.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#7 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:11 PM

And what about those 2 quotations regarding the pregnancy of the woman taken from Isaiah?

Well, in Isaiah 26, she gives birth to wind. She could not deliver the earth. The next verse shows how the dead shall live- through God's power not their own.

In Isaiah 66, Jerusalem brings forth son/sons. It seems as if over a long period of time.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#8 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:12 PM

Right, so is Revelation 12 telling us to look at Isaiah 26 or Isaiah 66? Is it telling us there is deliverance (Isaiah 66) or not (Isaiah 26)? It quotes from both spots (Rev 12:2 = Isa 26:17 and Rev 12:5 = Isa 66:7).

There is some ambiguity here. I believe it is a designed ambiguity.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#9 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:12 PM

1. The woman is clothed with the sun, moon and stars. What does the allusion to Joseph's dream tell us about this woman?

That she has the ecclesiastical power of God's people?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#10 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:12 PM

Right, so is Revelation 12 telling us to look at Isaiah 26 or Isaiah 66? Is it telling us there is deliverance (Isaiah 66) or not (Isaiah 26)? It quotes from both spots (Rev 12:2 = Isa 26:17 and Rev 12:5 = Isa 66:7).

There is some ambiguity here. I believe it is a designed ambiguity.

Hmmm...I see in the margin what you are saying but I don't get how 12:2 directly relates to Is 26 and 12:5 relates to Is 66. It seems like 12:2 just states that she is in labor and then the picture focuses on the dragon and then it focuses back on her when she does deliver...

Is 26 says she does give birth, but to nothing...
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#11 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:12 PM

So far we have an Egyptian/Roman dragon and a woman who is pregnant - but will it bring forth deliverance? The woman is clothed with the sun, moon and stars. Since nobody's tackled that one I'll provide the answer - Genesis 37:9 where Joseph sees a great sign (Rev 12:1) of sun, moon and stars, which represent the family of Israel. So there is something Israelitish about the woman.

As a side note it is worth saying that using these quotations as strict references to the same historical contexts in which they are found does not work. Unless that is the woman is literally the family of Jacob and the dragon is literally the Pharaoh of Egypt. Rather Revelation is using these symbols from the Old Testament as just that: symbols, and using them in a new context, that of the Apocalypse.

So next question:

Verse 5 contains a quotation from the Old Testament in reference to what the man child does. Where is the quote from and what does it tell us about who the man child is?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#12 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:13 PM

1. The woman is clothed with the sun, moon and stars. What does the allusion to Joseph's dream tell us about this woman?

That she has the ecclesiastical power of God's people?

You're interpreting too much at once there. For now just note the Israelitish aspect of the symbols ascribed to the woman.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#13 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:13 PM

Right, so is Revelation 12 telling us to look at Isaiah 26 or Isaiah 66? Is it telling us there is deliverance (Isaiah 66) or not (Isaiah 26)? It quotes from both spots (Rev 12:2 = Isa 26:17 and Rev 12:5 = Isa 66:7).

There is some ambiguity here. I believe it is a designed ambiguity.

Hmmm...I see in the margin what you are saying but I don't get how 12:2 directly relates to Is 26 and 12:5 relates to Is 66. It seems like 12:2 just states that she is in labor and then the picture focuses on the dragon and then it focuses back on her when she does deliver...

Is 26 says she does give birth, but to nothing...

One of the points about quotations in Revelation back to the Old Testament is that it is often not a direct corallation between the texts that is meant. Instead it grabs a symbol or thought from the original context and applies it to the new context. For some reason Revelation 12 takes us back to both Isaiah 26 and 66 and looking at the context we see no deliverance in the former and deliverance in the latter. What we have to figure out it why, because it can't be directly applying the context of both passages because they contradict each other. That's why I think there is a designed ambiguity, and for good reason.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#14 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:14 PM

Since nobody's tackled that one

:book:

As a side note it is worth saying that using these quotations as strict references to the same historical contexts in which they are found does not work

Less complicated sentence :D I think I get what you are saying but I'd have to ask "why" (I agree with you 'cause I've read all of Fort's symbolism stuff). I ask why because I'd like to have a easy anwer to give those who may not agree such as to the Asyncrituses..

OK, I thought we might get some tangents.

The two classic examples I like to use where the original historical context is discarded but the type grasped hold of and transported forwards are Revelation 2:20 and 8:2. They mention Jezebel and seven trumpets respectively, with the former context being obvious and the latter being that of the detruction of Jericho.

With both of these things you cannot use the historical context as descriptive of what is going on in Revelation except to use it as a type. The Jezebel in Thyatira is not the original Jezebel but her spirit is certainly there. Likewise the destruction of the city in the context of Revelation 8 is the not the destruction of Jericho again but that original destruction is used as a type of a new destruction.

This is how Scripture is written. Paul says in 1 Cor 10 that everything that happened to Israel in the wilderness happened to them as types for us to learn from. Revelation does the same. It goes back to the Old Testament, grabs a lesson, and applies it in a new context.

And with the introduction to the book being thoroughly Christian in its context we are left with no option than to say that Israel throughout the book is not being used to describe Israel but what Israel is a type of - the ecclesia. Quickly it falls into apostasy in chapters 2 and 3 and we end up with the ecclesia and the church at odds with each other.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#15 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:14 PM

For some reason Revelation 12 takes us back to both Isaiah 26 and 66 and looking at the context we see no deliverance in the former and deliverance in the latter. What we have to figure out it why, because it can't be directly applying the context of both passages because they contradict each other. That's why I think there is a designed ambiguity, and for good reason.

Isa 66 = easy birth of a manchild without pain.
Rev 12 = birth of a manchild after great pain
Isa 26 only expectation, no birth but pain so great it is likened to childbirth

This is not a fulfilment of both passages so much as the picking up of an element out of each - so what is the pain of Isa 26 and what is the birth of Isa 66?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#16 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:14 PM

Verse 5 contains a quotation from the Old Testament in reference to what the man child does. Where is the quote from and what does it tell us about who the man child is?

Ps 2:9 where the Messiah breaks the earth with a rod of iron.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#17 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:14 PM

The Jezebel in Thyatira is not the original Jezebel but her spirit is certainly there.

Similarly the great whore of Rev 17 is not the Jezebel of Thyatira but her spirit is certainly there.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#18 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:15 PM

There are other clues that this is a book that uses types. For instance there are lots of references to the tabernacle in Revelation. But Revelation 15 says that it is the tabernacle in heaven.

What tabernacle in heaven? Since when does the Bible mention a tabernacle in heaven? I've never heard of a tabernacle in heaven?

Oh no? Yes I have. Where is the heavenly tabernacle mentioned before Revelation?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#19 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:15 PM

For some reason Revelation 12 takes us back to both Isaiah 26 and 66 and looking at the context we see no deliverance in the former and deliverance in the latter. What we have to figure out it why, because it can't be directly applying the context of both passages because they contradict each other. That's why I think there is a designed ambiguity, and for good reason.

I see what you are saying here but to me that is relying on the little side margin note things. How do we know, in the absence of the references, that vs. 2 applies to Is 26 and vs. 5 to Is 66? I see your thoughts with the references in mind but I do not see it without them there.... do you get what I mean?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#20 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:15 PM

Verse 5 contains a quotation from the Old Testament in reference to what the man child does. Where is the quote from and what does it tell us about who the man child is?

Ps 2:9 where the Messiah breaks the earth with a rod of iron.

:book:

The man child certainly appears to be Christ. In fact the connections are numerous. Expositors have described the woman as Christ's literal mother, Mary, or Israel since he was born a Jew. The dragon seeks to devour the man child as soon as he is born (verse 4) and the obvious echo to Herod seeking to kill the Christ when he was born. And the man child at the end of verse 5 is caught up to God and His throne.

So it certainly appears that the man child is Jesus. And everyone rejoices in verse 10.

But there's something strange afoot...
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#21 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:16 PM

For some reason Revelation 12 takes us back to both Isaiah 26 and 66 and looking at the context we see no deliverance in the former and deliverance in the latter. What we have to figure out it why, because it can't be directly applying the context of both passages because they contradict each other. That's why I think there is a designed ambiguity, and for good reason.

I see what you are saying here but to me that is relying on the little side margin note things. How do we know, in the absence of the references, that vs. 2 applies to Is 26 and vs. 5 to Is 66? I see your thoughts with the references in mind but I do not see it without them there.... do you get what I mean?

The quotations I mention are taken from a Testimony article from teh 70's in which brother Arthur Gibson, a gifted linguist, lists 701 quotations from the Old Testament in Revelation.

Having said that the references to Isaiah are not the main point here - I just wanted to point out that there is some ambiguity.

The main point is in identifying who the man child is. So far we have:

An Israelitish woman.
An Egyptian dragon.
The birth of a man child who appears to be Christ.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#22 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:16 PM

Having said that the references to Isaiah are not the main point here - I just wanted to point out that there is some ambiguity.

But just reading Revelation I don't see the ambiguity :D
The camera just focuses from one to the other and back again... :book:

The main point is in identifying who the man child is. So far we have:

An Israelitish woman.
An Egyptian dragon.
The birth of a man child who appears to be Christ.

Got this though :coffee:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#23 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:17 PM

What tabernacle in heaven? Since when does the Bible mention a tabernacle in heaven? I've never heard of a tabernacle in heaven?

Oh no? Yes I have. Where is the heavenly tabernacle mentioned before Revelation?

It'd be Hebrews. :book:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#24 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:17 PM

The man child certainly appears to be Christ. In fact the connections are numerous. Expositors have described the woman as Christ's literal mother, Mary, or Israel since he was born a Jew. The dragon seeks to devour the man child as soon as he is born (verse 4) and the obvious echo to Herod seeking to kill the Christ when he was born. And the man child at the end of verse 5 is caught up to God and His throne.

So it certainly appears that the man child is Jesus. And everyone rejoices in verse 10.

But there's something strange afoot...

The first strange thing is that the life of the child as described in Revelation is fundamentally different to the life of Christ.

There are a number of things that don't quite fit.

a) This is a prophecy of the future. Jesus wasn't born future to John's time.
b) Jesus wasn't a child when he went up to heaven (although we could just say there that the child, who was to become a man, was caught up to heaven).
c) The man child goes off the scene - no mention of him at all afterwards.
d) Despite © the Kingdom supposedly comes in verse 10.
e) After the Kingdom comes (supposedly) in verse 10 the woman is still persected in verse 17.

But verse 5 still appears to suggest that the man child is Jesus. What's going on?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#25 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:17 PM

Typology was one of the MAJOR ways the NT authors 'looked at' OT history. And as often as they looked through typological eyes--they saw their promised Lord and Messiah foreshadowed.

Oooh, this is very good.

I get the Matt. 2 thing now. I even have your typology thread printed out waiting to be read on my desk. :book: Well, it's been there a while though... :D
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#26 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:18 PM

There are a number of things that don't quite fit.

a) This is a prophecy of the future. Jesus wasn't born future to John's time.
b) Jesus wasn't a child when he went up to heaven (although we could just say there that the child, who was to become a man, was caught up to heaven).
c) The man child goes off the scene - no mention of him at all afterwards.
d) Despite © the Kingdom supposedly comes in verse 10.
e) After the Kingdom comes (supposedly) in verse 10 the woman is still persected in verse 17.

These are critical issues, especially the one in bold. :book:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#27 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:18 PM

OK, I've got to wrap this up because it is getting late, I want some apple crumble and Esther wants to research electronic pianos on the Internet.

Two points from the context of Revelation 12 help us determine who the man child is.

Firstly in chapter 13 we have on the scene a beast that comes out of the sea. It's really a continuation of the story in chapter 12 because of the continued reference to the dragon (v2).

Notice it says this beast blasphemes the name of God - v5-6. Verse 6 says he opened his mouth "to blaspheme his name". That's quoting Leviticus 24 where we have the law regarding blaspheming the name of God.

15  And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16  And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.


But you'll notice that this law came about after a specific incident in which someone blasphemed God's name.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#28 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:19 PM

a) This is a prophecy of the future. Jesus wasn't born future to John's time.

This is a bit :wave: moment.

Well, it is obvious that Rev 12 is future to John's day but for some reason I would think that the child could be Christ, but that was in the past. Never even thought that since it is in the future it couldn't apply to Christ! :D It is amazing how the brain can hold two conflicting ideas and you never notice... :book:

e) After the Kingdom comes (supposedly) in verse 10 the woman is still persected in verse 17.

This one is very good too.

But verse 5 still appears to suggest that the man child is Jesus. What's going on?

Okay, this spells ambiguity better for me... :wave:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#29 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:19 PM

The incident in question reads:

10 ¶ And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11  And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:) 12  And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.


Why is Revelation 13 directing us back to this passage? Here we have the "son of an Israelitish woman" blaspheming God's name. Notice the emphasis:

10 ¶ And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; 11  And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:) 12  And they put him in ward, that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.


The fact that he is the Israelitish woman's son is repeated as if to emphasize the fact. Not only that but his father is an Egyptian.

Where else in the Bible do we read of a man child, an Israelitish woman and an Egyptian?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#30 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 27 February 2005 - 04:19 PM

So we have a woman and we have a dragon in Revelation 12. The dragon is called "that old serpent" in verse 9.

We have a woman, and we have a dragon, and we have the birth of a man child.

Where else in the Bible do we have a woman, a serpent and the birth of a man child?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users