Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 13:40:50 GMT -6
I realize this will be a bit contentions, so I ask, right of the bat, for us all to be very patient with one another.
The question is as the thread title suggests. How many 3.5 years periods are spoken of in Revelation 12?
If we ignore our pre-conceived ideas about how long the tribulation is, wouldn't the simplest reading of Rev 12 speak of only one period of 3.5 years? As you answer this question, please don't assume that Rev 12 has to be talking about the entire tribulation period - or even be during the tribulation period.
Just looking at the plain language of Rev 12:
The woman flees to the wilderness where she is fed for 1260 days.
The woman flies to the wilderness where she is nourished for time, times, and half a time.
To me it seems obvious that this is the same event. I recognize that to others it seems obvious that the opposite is true. So....
I want to hear from both sides why they support one side verses the other. But - arguments that start with - "Well we know the tribulation is 7 years because of Daniels 70th week." Will not hold merit in my mind. The reasons are:
1. There are already disagreements about whether some or all of Daniel's 70th week is a already fulfilled. - please don't argue this point in this thread - that is not the point of the thread.
2. Even if Daniel's 70th week is future and is 7 years and represents the tribulation - that does not mean that Rev 12 is trying to cover that entire time.
I am not trying to persuade here - just the opposite - i want to hear good arguments and to be persuaded.
Thanks brothers and sisters.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 7, 2017 14:08:45 GMT -6
Just in my own simple terms. The "pre-conceived" notion is??? (Outline below)
This is also for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the timeline view that is widely held today.
1. Two witnesses - 3.5 yrs first half of Trib.
2. Israel (woman) is under the covenant with the Anti-Christ for this first portion
3. After 3.5 yrs. the woman flees to the wilderness for the second 3.5 yrs
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Oct 7, 2017 15:07:27 GMT -6
I agree with Mike.
What is the purpose of the two witnesses? To turn Israel back to God? If so, then they have to be there before Israel flees to the wilderness.
If their purpose is just to witness to the world, then they could very well be witnesses while Israel is in the wilderness. But they are stationed in Jerusalem which seems to me that they are to speak to the Jews.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 15:45:25 GMT -6
So, these ideas would depend on the woman being Israel. I don't think she is Israel. Are there arguments not depending on her being Israel?
Also, even if she is Israel, I might be missing how that would mandate that rev 12 is referencing 2 3.5 year periods. Can someone help me see that?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 7, 2017 19:53:54 GMT -6
You know i just reread the original question and you ask about Rev 12 specifically not the other chapters of Rev. So I'd agree there is only one 3.5 yr span in Rev 12
|
|
|
|
Post by linda on Oct 7, 2017 21:19:38 GMT -6
So, these ideas would depend on the woman being Israel. I don't think she is Israel. So are there argument not depending on her being Israel? Also, even if she is Israel, I might be missing how that would mandate that rev 12 is referencing 2 3.5 year periods. Can someone help me see that? Thanks Out of curiosity, if this woman is not Israel, who do you think she is? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 0:45:08 GMT -6
To sum it up, like @silentknight I also dont see 2 3.5 year periods mentioned in Rev 12.
And if one only reads the plain text without any endtime models in mind, there is no other conclusion left. IMHO.
Or maybe I dont see it, too....
I'm also curious about the identity of 'your' woman, @silentknight.
Only want to know and not to argue anything. All of us are in the learning phase...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 7:41:17 GMT -6
@stephan and linda , In the bulk of the church the people are taught that the woman is Israel and the child is Jesus. Some teachers have realized that the child is not Jesus, he is the church. But they still hold onto the woman being Israel. In my opinion, this does not ring true. So I ask the Lord to reveal more in this area. I am not saying that this is a word from the Lord, but this is what became more obvious to me after this request. The woman is Zion. The child is Emmanuel. I wrote this up in this article which Gary posted on Unsealed.org - www.unsealed.org/2017/09/o-come-o-come-emmanuel.html. It contains some "evidence" of the child's name. I encourage you to read it. To say the woman is Zion though, is not fully meaningful. We all have a lot of opinions about who / what Zion is. The scripture contains the struggle between two kingdoms, two cities, two women. Babylon and Zion. Revelation reveals their final outcomes. One way to think of Zion is that she is the one true belief system - the fully grafted spiritual Israel - the Kingdom of God - the Bride of Christ - the True church from Adam to the last believer. And right now, she is within the believers. She became pregnant at Pentecost in 33 A.D. and now, 40 jubilees later (gestational period in weeks - Pentecost is also know as the Feast of Weeks), she is due to give birth. This does not fully capture what is in my mind regarding her, but it is hard to describe her in words. Perhaps I will try again later - I have to get on the road right now for an 8 hour drive. EDIT: I just realized how dogmatic this sounds. I am just expressing my opinion and welcome any enlightenment from others if they wish to express their own opinions. But that might need to be on a different thread or we may loose the 3.5 year point of this discussion.  |
|
|
|
Post by thetimeoftheend on Oct 8, 2017 9:47:53 GMT -6
@stephan and linda , In the bulk of the church the people are taught that the woman is Israel and the child is Jesus. Some teachers have realized that the child is not Jesus, he is the church. But they still hold onto the woman being Israel. In my opinion, this does not ring true. So I ask the Lord to reveal more in this area. I am not saying that this is a word from the Lord, but this is what became more obvious to me after this request. The woman is Zion. The child is Emmanuel. I wrote this up in this article which Gary posted on Unsealed.org - www.unsealed.org/2017/09/o-come-o-come-emmanuel.html. It contains some "evidence" of the child's name. I encourage you to read it. To say the woman is Zion though, is not fully meaningful. We all have a lot of opinions about who / what Zion is. The scripture contains the struggle between two kingdoms, two cities, two women. Babylon and Zion. Revelation reveals their final outcomes. One way to think of Zion is that she is the one true belief system - the fully grafted spiritual Israel - the Kingdom of God - the Bride of Christ - the True church from Adam to the last believer. And right now, she is within the believers. She became pregnant at Pentecost in 33 A.D. and now, 40 jubilees later (gestational period in weeks - Pentecost is also know as the Feast of Weeks), she is due to give birth. This does not fully capture what is in my mind regarding her, but it is hard to describe her in words. Perhaps I will try again later - I have to get on the road right now for an 8 hour drive. EDIT: I just realized how dogmatic this sounds. I am just expressing my opinion and welcome any enlightenment from others if they wish to express their own opinions. But that might need to be on a different thread or we may loose the 3.5 year point of this discussion. To the Knight who Keeps it Mum, I read your article when it first was posted and read it again just now. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think I took it too mean Emmanuel being the indwelled church. Which would comport with corporate understanding of the body of Christ. But if I am understanding you correctly, are you positing then some sort of replacement theology? (You did say this would be contentious lol) Daniel was is clear that the final "seven is to finish the transgression for Israel. The whole of salvation has been reckoned through Israel. We've grafted in, not planted in place of. I know tone can be hard to read in written word, so please know I mean no disrespect, I looking for understanding more than anything. I could be completely misunderstanding your meaning. Drive safely! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 11:55:04 GMT -6
thetimeoftheend , Thanks for your question. I abhor replacement theology, so if that is what you took from what I wrote that is merely a testament to my poor writing skills. Maybe I can make myself a bit clearer (I'm on a restroom break from driving.) The simplest explanation for who Emmanuel is is that he is the son(s) of God. But like so many terms in scripture we each have our own ideas of the meaning. What I mean is that he is the seed that was planted in each believer individually (and pictured at Pentecost corporately). Our individual Pentecost experience (I have spoken on this is several threads but could try to repeat here if necessary) is the process of nourishing this child onto maturity which is eventually born as Emmanuel at a time just before the revealing of the sons of God spoken of in Romans. You can, if it is easier, think of him as you have stated - that is, "the indwelled church. Which would comport with corporate understanding of the body of Christ. " - Where the small difference is - is that he is the new creature - not us, per se. But we are not just the body of Christ - we are not just bringing forth Emmanuel. Remember, the Kingdom of God is a hidden pearl. And it is hidden within the believers. But it has been hidden from the beginning, not just after the spirit came at Pentecost. In other words, I teach the opposite of replacement theology. There is only one way to salvation and it has been available for all of history. The church in the wilderness was just as "Christ-ian" as the church is now. I know that on the surface this seems to be not true, but though they were ignorant of the details we have now, the truth has not changed. They were still counted as righteous based on their faith. Christ has always been the way to salvation and always will be. Zion is that understanding - that belief - that truth. In that truth is all freedom and power and glory to and from God. This hidden pearl is the kingdom. And it will be revealed when the clay pitchers of our mortal bodies are shattered and the light shines forth (like the taking of Jericho). This pearl is also inside us and can be thought of as the bride, but just like Emmanuel, the bride has a name and her name is Zion. Zion has been represented in scripture by physical cities and kingdoms and people groups over time to help illustrate who she is. She will not be fully ready until Revelation 21 is fulfilled. She is truth. She is the true worship of God. Jesus speaks of her in John 4 when he talks to the women at the well. Yes, this truth blossomed on the tree of Israel and other nations and people groups are grafted into it. But it does not belong to Israel. She is but one of the daughters of Zion. It belongs to everyone! NOTE 1: Once again, I know I come off sounding dogmatic - this is just the way I talk. It is easier than sprinkling, "in my opinion" throughout what I write. Please don't let that cause hesitation on your part. NOTE 2: This is not, in any way, to be confused with the modern zionist movement - that movement has used a name, but does not operate in the power and authority thereof.
|
|
|
|
Post by MissusMack08 on Oct 8, 2017 11:58:39 GMT -6
I've always assumed that when we've said "the woman is Israel" and "the woman, Israel, flees into the wilderness" that this is BELIEVING ISRAEL—those members of all the tribes of Israel who come to saving faith in Yeshua as Messiah during the "time of Jacob's trouble." So NOT Israel as a nation, but only the believing remnant. I think they must be believers before they flee because Jesus warns in the gospel texts that "whoever is in Judea and sees the Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place to flee into the wilderness." It is NOT currently common practice for Jews to read the New Testament or have any concept of what Jesus actually said unless they are believers in Him. I doubt this will change during the Trib except by those who are searching and then they will recognize their error and believe in Him. So... only those who know Jesus' words will know to flee.
That being said, Zion to me means a group of people who worship God/Jesus in Spirit and in Truth, who are marked and sealed by Him, but who also physically belong in Jerusalem. So Zion is both spiritual and physical. The Church fulfills the spiritual aspect of it, but living (mortal) Israelite believers will fulfill the physical aspect during the Millenium. Jesus will reign from Jerusalem and be served by His people who are made up of His earthly chosen people (Israel). The rest of the Church will rule and reign with Him everywhere else on the Earth.
Back to the original question... I only see reference to one set of 3.5 years in Rev 12. The other 3.5 years (the first 1/2 of 70th week) is implied by combining the references to the woman/remnant fleeing into the wilderness. In Daniel, the AoD occurs "in the middle of the week." As mentioned in Matt and Mark, Jesus tells people to flee when they see it. This implies there is a period of time constituting a "half" that precedes the woman/remannt fleeing. This beginning "half of the week" seems to coincide with the testimony of the two witnesses mentioned later in Rev because if their 1260 day testimony is at the same time as when the woman is being nourished in the wilderness, then their death and resurrection overlaps with the assumed timing of the Great Winepress, and doesn't quite make sense, timing-wise.
edit: I should add that AFTER the Millenium, that Zion will include everyone who ever believed in Jesus. This really is a mystery and I don't think we're going to really "get it" until after we receive immortal bodies. Even then, we may still be discovering exactly what it means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 13:38:02 GMT -6
Had read your article " Come, o come Emmanuel" a few weeks ago, but somehow lost sight of it. As mike recently said, an overflow of information... MissusMack08 summed it up pretty well, this is also my view of the woman in Rev 12. I always thought of the woman as described. Even Michael Svigel put it this way in his highly recommended article A few weeks ago, I wrote a analysis on a German video on the Rev12 sign spoken by Martin Baron (thread is here), where he interpreted the woman and the child in a similar way. However, he did not put it exactly with the wording Zion and Emanuel, but the underlying message seems to be very similar. Can it be, that we are witnessing the beginning of a paradigm change regarding pre-trib, pre-wrath, mid-trib and the role of the true church in the light of the Rev 12 sign? As it was often said, no one of us got all puzzle pieces right, lots of believers are contributing to the knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by whatif on Oct 8, 2017 13:40:28 GMT -6
Can it be, that we are witnessing the beginning of a paradigm change regarding pre-trib, pre-wrath, mid-trib and the role of the true church in the light of the Rev 12 sign? As it was often said, no one of us got all puzzle pieces right, lots of believers are contributing to the knowledge. I like this thought, stephan! Tell us more! |
|
|
|
Post by linda on Oct 8, 2017 16:37:36 GMT -6
@stephan and linda , In the bulk of the church the people are taught that the woman is Israel and the child is Jesus. Some teachers have realized that the child is not Jesus, he is the church. But they still hold onto the woman being Israel. In my opinion, this does not ring true. So I ask the Lord to reveal more in this area. I am not saying that this is a word from the Lord, but this is what became more obvious to me after this request. The woman is Zion. The child is Emmanuel. I wrote this up in this article which Gary posted on Unsealed.org - www.unsealed.org/2017/09/o-come-o-come-emmanuel.html. It contains some "evidence" of the child's name. I encourage you to read it. To say the woman is Zion though, is not fully meaningful. We all have a lot of opinions about who / what Zion is. The scripture contains the struggle between two kingdoms, two cities, two women. Babylon and Zion. Revelation reveals their final outcomes. One way to think of Zion is that she is the one true belief system - the fully grafted spiritual Israel - the Kingdom of God - the Bride of Christ - the True church from Adam to the last believer. And right now, she is within the believers. She became pregnant at Pentecost in 33 A.D. and now, 40 jubilees later (gestational period in weeks - Pentecost is also know as the Feast of Weeks), she is due to give birth. This does not fully capture what is in my mind regarding her, but it is hard to describe her in words. Perhaps I will try again later - I have to get on the road right now for an 8 hour drive. EDIT: I just realized how dogmatic this sounds. I am just expressing my opinion and welcome any enlightenment from others if they wish to express their own opinions. But that might need to be on a different thread or we may loose the 3.5 year point of this discussion. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment? For as soon as Zion was in labor she brought forth her children. Isaiah 66:8 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 17:16:18 GMT -6
Exactly Linda. And there are more verses as well that can confirm this. Some of this would've been in part two of my article if I ever get around to writing it.
|
|
