Revelation 12
3 And seen was
another sign in heaven, and lo! a great fiery-red dragon, having seven heads
and ten horns, and on its heads seven diadems.
4 And its tail is
dragging a third of the stars of heaven, and casts them into the earth. And the
dragon stands before the woman who is about to be bringing forth, that it may
be devouring her child whenever she may be bringing forth.
5 And she brought
forth a son, a male, who is about to be shepherding all the nations with an
iron club. And her child is snatched away to God and to His throne.
The “great fiery-red dragon
having seven heads and ten horns” is later referred to as “the ancient serpent called Adversary and Satan, who is
deceiving the whole inhabited earth” (Rev. 12:9). However, as is the
case with the seven-horned, seven-eyed Lambkin (Rev. 5:6-7) and the seven-headed,
ten-horned wild beast (Rev. 13:1-2), the fiery-red dragon is most likely a
composite figure that symbolizes not only an individual but a particular
category or group of beings. A.E. Knoch remarks that the dragon’s “seven heads and ten horns introduce us to the great Satanic
confederacy which will control the earth at the time of the end.” When
John identified this dragon as Satan, he was probably using the figure of
speech known as metonymy (according to which an element or part of something –
usually well-known or easily recognizable - is used to refer to the whole).
The leader of the organized
group of wicked celestial beings represented by the dragon is clearly Satan
himself (whom Paul referred to as “the chief of the jurisdiction of the air” in
Eph. 2:2 and the “god of this eon” in 2 Cor. 4:4). But we know that he is
merely the chief of an entire hierarchy of evil celestial beings, some of which
are also referred to as “chiefs” (see Daniel 10:12-14, 20-21). Elsewhere, Paul
described the hierarchy of wicked celestial beings headed up by Satan as
follows: “Put on the panoply of God, to enable you to
stand up to the stratagems of the
Adversary, for it is not ours to wrestle with blood and flesh, but with the sovereignties, with the authorities,
with the world-mights of this darkness, with the spiritual forces of wickedness
among the celestials” (Eph. 6:11-2). Notice how Paul first referred
to “the Adversary” (singular) and then went on to refer to a hierarchy of
wicked celestial beings. This suggests that Paul not only viewed Satan as the
leader but also the representative of this group.
But who is the “child” of the
woman, whom the dragon is represented as being so eager to devour in v. 4? This
question brings us to what is perhaps the most controversial verse of this
chapter. Here, again, is v. 5: ”And she brought forth
a son, a male, who is about to be shepherding all the nations with an iron
club. And her child is snatched away to God and to His throne.”
What seems to be the most
widely-held view among Christians today (as well as throughout Christian
history) is that the male child represents Jesus Christ himself. At first
glance, it may seem obvious to some that the male child represents Christ.
Certainly, of all the individuals
that the male child could be understood as most easily representing, Christ is,
of course, the most likely candidate. Concerning Christ’s connection to the
male son, Andre Piet remarks, “The mention of the
“male son” refers directly to Psalm 2. After all, Revelation 12 says: “that He
will shepherd (rule) the nations with a rod of iron” which is derived from
Psalm 2:8-9. It is about “the anointed one” (Hebrew: Messiah; Greek: Christ)
Who was resurrected by God. -Rev.12:5,
Rev.19:15-“
Thus, there is a clear
connection between the male son and Jesus Christ, as both are directly
associated with the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy found in Psalm 2:9-9.
However, as Andre goes on to note, the view that the male child represents
Christ – and Christ alone - runs into a few serious problems. Most of those who
see the male child as representing Christ view the “snatching away” of the male
child “to God and his throne” as a reference to Christ’s ascension to heaven.
The problem with this view is that the verb translated “snatched away” in Rev.
12:5 (harpazō) is simply not an appropriate word with which to
describe Christ’s ascension to heaven, and is never used elsewhere in Scripture
to describe Christ’s ascension.[1] On the other hand, one of the
words that is used elsewhere to describe
Christ’s ascension (anabainō) was used by John just twelve
verses before we read of the male child being “snatched away.” In Rev. 11:12,
we read: “And they
[the two witnesses] hear a loud voice out of
heaven saying to them, ‘Ascend here!’ And they ascended (anebēsan) into heaven in a cloud, and their enemies behold
them.” This same word is used
elsewhere by both John (in John 20:17) and Paul (in Eph. 4:8-10) in reference
to Christ’s ascension (these verses also suggest that Christ’s ascension was an
event in which he was actively involved, rather than something he passively
underwent, as the word harpazō
would suggest).[2]
Since it’s highly likely that
John would’ve used the word anabainō (rather than harpazō) had he understood the removal of the male child toward God
and his throne to represent the ascension of Christ into heaven, we can
reasonably conclude that John did not, in fact, understand what he saw to have
been a representation of this historical event. Unlike the words used in
reference to the ascension of Christ, the word harpazō never includes the notion of a person’s merely relocating
(whether actively or passively) from one spatial location to another, in an
upward direction. Rather, harpazō
is consistently used in reference to someone or something’s being suddenly seized
and forcefully removed. The CLNT Keyword Concordance defines harpazō as “seize with a sudden grasp and carry away, as a
wolf its prey” (see John 10:12). While the word is highly appropriate to
describe an action performed by someone or something having malicious or
destructive intent, it was also used to describe someone’s being quickly and
forcefully rescued from harm or a dangerous situation (e.g., Acts 23:10; Jude
23).
As with the two verses
referenced above, the context in which harpazō in used in Rev. 12:5 seems to involve someone’s being
rescued from a perilous situation. For the snatching away of the male child in
Rev. 12:5 is the means by which the child is rescued from the threat of the
dragon that is eagerly seeking to devour him. But Christ was in no danger
whatsoever prior to his ascension; there was no perilous situation from which
he was rescued, or some threat from which he narrowly escaped by means of his
ascension to heaven. One of the last things Christ said before his ascension
was that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him (Matt.
28:19)! Assuming Satan posed some sort of threat to Christ prior to his death,
it’s inconceivable that any such threat remained after Christ was roused from
among the dead and made “Lord of all.”
Thus, not only is the word harpazō in itself not appropriate for describing the
ascension of Christ, but the use of harpazō
in the particular context of Rev. 12:4-5 (which involves the male child’s being
rescued from a perilous situation involving the dragon) makes its application to
Christ even less appropriate and plausible. Given these considerations, I
think we can conclude with a reasonable degree of certainty that the male child
of Rev. 12 does not represent Christ, individually. And if that’s the case,
then we can also conclude that the male child doesn’t represent an individual at all (for, as noted
earlier, if an individual were being
represented by the male child, Christ would be the best candidate). Whom or
what, then, should we understand the male child as representing?
As with the woman and the
dragon, I think it is best to understand the male child as representing a group
or category of people, as opposed to a single individual. This view of the male
child is most consistent with the rest of the symbolism of this chapter; if the
first two symbolic characters appearing in the narrative are best understood as
representing groups/categories of people (whether human or otherwise),
consistency would naturally lead one to the conclusion that the third character
described in the vision should also be
understood as representing a corporate entity. And, as is the case with the
woman (the “mother” of the male child), it would also be reasonable to
interpret the male child as representing a certain company of saints. But which
saints?
A.E.
Knoch identified the male son with the company of 144,000 Israelites referred
to in Rev. 7:3-8 and 14:1-5.
However, as argued in part two of this study, I believe it is actually the sun-clothed woman herself who,
during the time period in view in Rev. 12:6-17, figuratively represents this
particular company of faithful Israelites (along with any others who may be accompanying them when they flee into the mountains). Although Knoch considered the gender
of the male child as supportive of his view, I noted earlier that the nation of
Israel
has, from ancient times, been figuratively represented by a woman, and that this
figure has never been based on the gender of the people constituting Israel.
Given this fact, there is absolutely no reason why an all-male company of
faithful Israelites could not be appropriately represented by the same
figurative, feminine imagery found in Rev. 12 (however, it's likely that the 144,000 will not be the only Israelites who will be fleeing into the wilderness, and who are represented by the sun-clothed woman).
In addition to the arguments
made in defense of the position that the sun-clothed woman represents the
144,000 during the 70th heptad, I think there is one consideration
in particular that rules out the position that the male child represents the
144,000. One of the keys (if not the
key) to understanding the identity of the male child is, I believe, found in
the fact that the male child is described by John as being “snatched away to
God and to his throne.” Any interpretation of the male child that ignores (or
has to explain away) the specific wording used by John in Rev. 12:5 is, quite
simply, exegetically inferior (and less faithful to the text) than one that
places an emphasis on what the text actually says. And that’s what I want to do
here.
In v. 5, John described what
happened to the male child as his being “snatched away to (literally “toward”)
God and to (toward) his throne.” With the exception of chapters 21-22 (after
the “new Jerusalem” has descended out of heaven from God), the location of “God
and his throne” are consistently depicted in Revelation as being in heaven
rather than on the earth (see, for example, Rev. 4:1-2; 8:1-2; 12:10; 13:6,
etc.). Thus, if the language of Rev. 12:5 is to be understood as conveying
anything meaningful at all, it conveys the idea that the male child will being
suddenly and forcibly transported away from the earth in an upwards direction (i.e., “toward God and
toward his throne”).
Knoch seemed to interpret the
snatching away of the male child toward God and toward his throne as meaning
that the 144,000 Israelites will be “separated from
the mass of the nation, which flees into the wilderness” and then “sustained by
divine sovereignty, in a place where the dragon dare not follow.” This “place
where the dragon dare not follow” was understood by Knoch as being “mount
Zion,” which Knoch suggested would be “the first spot on earth to be seized and
held subject to God's throne.” It is here (according to Knoch) that God “will
sustain a select company with power while the rest of His faithful followers
flee into the wilderness or give their lives for their faith.” The problem with
this view is that we’re not told in Rev. 12:5 that the male child was snatched
away to “mount Zion” (which is a place on earth located in Jerusalem). John, of
course, could’ve easily written “mount Zion” rather than “God and his throne”
had he seen, in the vision presented to him, the male child being snatched away
to (or “toward”) this location. But apparently, that’s not what John saw.
When Knoch
formulated his theory concerning the 144,000 being supernaturally sustained on
mount Zion during the time of great affliction, he undoubtedly had Rev. 14 in
view. In v. 1 we read that the 144,000 will, at some future time, be found
standing on mount Zion: “And I perceived,
and lo! the Lambkin standing on mount
Zion, and with It a hundred forty-four thousand, having Its name and Its
Father's name written on their foreheads.” However, as with what is said concerning the
vast throng in Rev. 7:9-17, the event prophesied in Rev. 14:1 will be fulfilled
sometime after the time of great
affliction has already ended. We know this because the 144,000 will be standing with Christ (“the Lambkin”), after having apparently
followed him to this location (14:4). The scene being described in Rev. 14:1
will, therefore, come to pass at some point after
Christ has returned to earth. Given this fact, we can also conclude that the “mount
Zion” on which Christ and the 144,000 will be standing at this future time will
be the “mountain of Yahweh” referred to in Isaiah 2:1-3 (which will be the
sight of the future temple in Jerusalem during the eon to come):
“The word that Isaiah the
son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. It shall
come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of Yahweh shall be
established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the
hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall
come, and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the
mountain of Yahweh, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us
his ways and that we may walk in his paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem.”
Apparently,
major topographical changes will occur in the land of Israel at the time of
Christ’s return to the earth (Zech. 14:3-5). These changes will result in
Jerusalem’s becoming elevated above the rest of the surrounding land (which, in
Zech. 14:10, we’re told will be turned into a plain). At this time, mount Zion
will be the most elevated location in Israel, and it is here that the prophecy
found in Rev. 14 concerning Christ and the 144,000 will be fulfilled. Where,
exactly, the 144,000 will be prior to
this time is not here revealed by John. However, as I’ve argued in part two of
this study, the 144,000 will most likely constitute the company of faithful
Israelites represented by the sun-clothed woman during the time of the end.
Thus, their place of protection during the time of great affliction will be
somewhere in the mountainous wilderness region outside the land of Judea. After
Christ returns to earth and defeats the hostile forces from which this company
of faithful Israelites had to be supernaturally protected in the wilderness,
they will then join Christ on top of mount Zion in Jerusalem and celebrate his
victory.
Part Four: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-study-on-revelation-12-part-four.html
Part Four: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-study-on-revelation-12-part-four.html
[1] The three terms used to describe the ascension of Christ are
found in Mark 16:19 and Acts 1:11 (analambano,
“to take up”); Acts 1:9 (epairo, “to
be lifted up”); and John 20:17 and Eph. 4:8-10 (anabaino, “to ascend”).
[2] Moreover, in contrast with the suddenness that
the word harpazō conveys, we also have some reason to believe that Christ’s ascension to
heaven was relatively gradual rather than being an event that involved his
being suddenly and forcefully removed from the earth. In Acts 1:9-11, we read: “And saying these things, while they are looking, He was
lifted up, and a cloud took Him up from their eyes. And as they were looking intently into
heaven at His going, lo! two men stand beside them in white attire, who say
also, ‘Men! Galileans! Why do you stand, looking into heaven? This Jesus Who is
being taken up from you into heaven shall come thus, in the manner in which you
gaze at Him going into heaven.’” The fact that Christ begins to be “lifted up” while he is
still talking to his disciples (“and saying these
things…He was lifted up”) implies that the ascension did not involve
Christ’s suddenly travelling a great distance before the disciples knew what
was happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment