A Study on Revelation 12: Part Three (The dragon and the male child)

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 70^th 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

---

[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.

A Study on Revelation 12: Part Two (Identifying the sun-clothed woman)

In his blog article entitled “The Snatching Away of the Son,” Andre Piet makes short work of the two most common theories within Christendom concerning the identity of the woman:

“The woman in Revelation 12 is, in the [Roman Catholic Church], traditionally explained as being Mary. That association is quickly made: after all, she is the woman who brought forth the son (who would be the Messiah). But that is where the explanation stays stuck, because everything else that is said about this woman is impossible to apply to Mary. The traditional Protestant explanation says that the woman pictures “the church”. To this idea they come, because they believe that “the Church” exists from the time of Adam to the last day. The “church” brought forth the Son, who will shepherd all nations…. In addition that this explanation is not able to do justice to the many details (1260 days, flight to the desert, etc.), it is not true, anyway, that “the church” would have brought forth the Son. Indeed, it is exactly the other way round.”

I think the traditional Protestant interpretation of the sun-clothed woman is closer to the truth than the Catholic view only insofar as it sees her as representing some group or category of people. But it’s simply not tenable to view her as “the church” (if by “the church” one is including that corporate group of saints described by Paul as “the body of Christ”). But if the woman doesn’t represent “the church,” then who is she?

In light of Genesis 37:9-10 (where similar imagery involving the sun, the moon and stars is used to represent the first family of Israel), I think this “woman” most likely represents Israel. Joseph and his eleven brothers are, of course, the individuals from whom the twelve tribes of Israel descended, and just as Joseph’s eleven brothers are represented as eleven stars in his dream (Gen. 37:9-10), so the woman is said to have a wreath consisting of twelve stars, representing the twelve patriarchs and tribes of Israel (and not merely the twelve apostles, as some have suggested).

In defense of the view, Andre Piet remarks as follows: “The “woman” is practically the standard reference in the prophets for Israel. The book of Hosea is completely based on that data. The LORD is the Husband and Israel His wife. He has covenanted with her a marriage covenant at Sinai. In many tonalities is this data elaborated upon by the prophets. Since the book of Revelation is the capstone of the prophetic books, we can assume in advance that where a woman is presented as symbol (“… there was a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman …”) this must refer to the people of Israel. -Hosea 3:1-5; Isa.54:4.5, etc.”

In his book The Unveiling of Jesus Christ, A.E. Knoch went so far as to say that “It seems superfluous to insist that the sun-clothed women is faithful Israel.” I agree with Knoch on this point, and it needs to be emphasized that, by identifying the woman as “Israel,” I do not mean every natural descendent of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who could claim these patriarchs as their ethnic ancestors. Rather, I mean those descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob whom Knoch referred to as “faithful Israel.” Paul had this Israel in mind when he wrote, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Rom. 9:6). In Galatians 6:16 Paul referred to this category of saints as “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). It is this Israel which, in Paul’s day, constituted the “remnant according to the choice of grace” (Rom. 11:6), and who will be enjoying an allotment in the kingdom of God on the earth during the eons to come.

Now, as noted earlier, the company of Israelites whom the sun-clothed woman represents – i.e., faithful Israel, or the “Israel of God” - has been constituted by different individuals in every generation since the nation of Israel first came into existence. Those who constituted faithful Israel in Paul’s day are not, of course, the same individuals who will constitute faithful Israel during the 70^th heptad. And yet, both groups of people can legitimately be referred to as “Israel,” or as “the Israel of God.”

If the time in history when the sun-clothed woman brings forth her “male child” (Rev. 12:5) is different than the time when the sun-clothed woman must flee into the wilderness (v. 6), then it means that two different companies of faithful Israelites living at two different times in history are in view in this chapter. Before we determine if this is in fact the case, however, we need to try and identity which company of Israelites is being represented by the sun-clothed woman in v. 6 (i.e., when she is described as fleeing into the wilderness). Does Scripture elsewhere describe a group of Israelites who, prior to the return of Christ, will have to flee into a wilderness area to escape a life-threatening situation? Yes, it does.

Just prior to the start of the second half of the 70^th heptad, there will be a company of Israelites living in Jerusalem and the surrounding land of Judea who will find themselves in the perilous position of having to flee for their lives in order to escape the persecution of the “dragon.” This flight was foretold by Christ in his Olivet Discourse as follows:

Matthew 24

15 "Whenever, then, you may be perceiving the abomination of desolation, which is declared through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him who is reading apprehend!);
16 then let those in Judea flee into the mountains.
17 Let him who is on the housetop not descend to take away the things out of his house.
18 And let him who is in the field not turn back behind him to pick up his cloak.
19 "Now woe to those who are pregnant and those suckling in those days!
20 Now be praying that your flight may not be occurring in winter, nor yet on a sabbath,
21 for then shall be great affliction, such as has not occurred from the beginning of the world till now; neither under any circumstances may be occurring.

22 And, except those days were discounted, no flesh at all would be saved. Yet, because of the chosen, those days shall be discounted.

It is this event which, I believe, is being symbolically represented in Rev. 12:6: “And the woman fled into the wilderness, there where she has a place made ready by God, that there they may be nourishing her a thousand two hundred sixty days.”

Verse 6 is likely parenthetical. After describing the destiny of the “male child” in v. 5 (which we’ll look at later), John provides just enough information to reassure his readers that the woman is safe as well (she is, after all, the main protagonist of the drama that John saw unfold in this particular vision). However, it must be noted that the fleeing of the woman does not occur immediately after the snatching away of the male child. There is, instead, another important event (or series of events) which transpire in between the snatching away of the male child and the fleeing of the woman into the wilderness. After John covers this intervening complex of events in verses 7-12 (which we’ll also be looking at in part five of this study), he then returns to the subject of what happens to the woman, and provides the reader with more information than that given earlier in verse 6. In verses 13-17, we read:

13 And when the dragon perceived that it was cast into the earth, it persecutes the woman who brought forth the male.
14 And given to the woman were the two wings of a large vulture, that she may be flying into the wilderness into her place, there where she is nourished a season, and seasons, and half a season, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent casts water as a river out of its mouth after the woman, that she should be carried away by its current.
16 And the earth helps the woman, and the earth opens its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon casts out of its mouth.
17 And the dragon is angry with the woman, and came away to do battle with the rest of her seed, who are keeping the precepts of God and who have the testimony of Jesus.

These verses correspond to the future event that will involve Israelites having to flee the land of Judea in order to survive the time of “great affliction” that will begin shortly after the “abomination of desolation” comes to be “standing in the holy place.” The 1,260 days of v. 6 and the “season, seasons and half a season” of v. 14 refer to the same period of time – i.e., the second half of the 70^th heptad. Those Israelites who, in response to the prophecy-fulfilling events going on in Israel, obediently heed Christ’s warning to flee from the land of Judea into the mountains, will at this time constitute the “Israel of God” represented by the sun-clothed woman in John’s vision. It would also appear that this company of Israelites will be provided supernatural protection both during and after their flight from Judea. But is there anything more that can be said concerning the identity of the Israelites whom the sun-clothed woman will represent at this future time? I think so.

In chapter seven of the book of Revelation, John provides his readers with two (and only two) broad categories of faithful, believing Israelites who will be on the earth during the time period with which Revelation is concerned in chapters 1-19 (i.e., the time of the 70^th heptad). It is the Israelites in these two categories who, I submit, will constitute the “all Israel” which (according to Paul in Rom. 11:25-27) will be saved at Christ’s return. The two categories of Israelites are:

1. “A hundred forty-four thousand” who are to be ”sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel” (Rev. 7:3-8; 14:1-5); and

2. “A vast throng which no one was able to number, out of every nation and out of the tribes and peoples and languages” (Rev. 7:9-17).

If, at the time period in view in Rev. 12:6, the sun-clothed woman is to be understood as representative of some or all of the Israelites that will constitute one of these two groups, it must be the 144,000 and not the “vast throng.” In order to see why this is so, let’s first consider who it is that will most likely comprise the “vast throng.”

In chapter 22 of his book The Unveiling of Jesus Christ, A.E. Knoch has, I believe, persuasively argued in defense of the position that the “vast throng” will be comprised of Israelites rather than gentiles. Knoch begins this chapter with the following remarks:

“THE hundred and forty-four thousand are the firstfruit of the millennial harvest (14:4; Lev.23:10). The vast throng are symbolized by the festival of ingathering (Lev.23:39-42). They appear with palm branches in their hands (7:9). They dwell in the tabernacle or booth of the Enthroned One (7:15). These, as well as the hundred and forty-four thousand who are sealed, are able to stand in the great day of His indignation.”

Knoch goes on to say, “All the symbolism employed places them among the saved of the sacred nation. Israel itself did not keep the feast of ingathering (Neh.8:16,17) until after the return from Babylon. Then they celebrated it with great rejoicing (Ezra 3:11,12). How can it possibly figure a company of aliens, to whom these festivals do not apply? It was never kept in the wilderness, because it was reserved for the land, when they dwelt in houses. It was to remind them of the wilderness, when they dwelt in booths.

“All this typical teaching is for naught if we transfer this scene to the nations. We have a firstfruit, but no harvest, in Israel. We have a limited number saved, all males, scarcely more than one per cent of the nation. We have the favored people doubly decimated, and bring unnumbered aliens into their fold. The vast throng, as well as the hundred and forty-four thousand are Israelites, to whom the promises pertain.”

For Knoch, the strongest argument supporting the view that the vast throng will consist of Israelites is found in the fact that they are said to be “those coming out of the great affliction” (Rev. 7:14). As Knoch points out, the expression “great affliction” is “a special phrase denoting the sufferings of the faithful in Israel at the hands of the other nations.” See Christ’s words in Matthew 24:19-21, where the same expression is found (for a more in-depth look at what this “great affliction” will involve, how long it will last and where else it is referred to in Scripture, see part four of my study on the timing of the snatching away).

The vast throng is said to consist of people who are “out of every nation and out of the tribes and peoples and languages.” Rather than identifying these people as gentiles, this language identifies them as the descendents of those Israelites who were scattered and dispersed among all the nations, and who today exist throughout the world instead of in the land of Israel (incidentally, the fact that people from all over the world will be coming out of the “great affliction” can be understood as further evidence that the great affliction will be worldwide in scope rather than merely local and confined to the land of Israel, as some have claimed). For more examples of references to the dispersion of Israelites among all the nations (or where the occurrence of such a dispersion in the past is implied), see Deut. 30:1-3; Isaiah 11:12; Ezekiel 6:8-10; 11:16-17; 20:23-24; 22:15; 36:17-20; Dan. 9:7; Acts 2:5, 8-11; James 1:1.

In contrast with the “vast throng” are the 144,000 Israelites who are first referred to in Rev. 7:3-8, and later in chapter 14.[1] Unlike the vast throng, the Israelites who will constitute the 144,000 are not said to be “out of every nation and out of the tribes and peoples and languages.” It would, therefore, be reasonable to infer that this company of Israelites will actually be dwelling in the land of Israel when they are “bought” and “sealed” by God at some point prior to (or, more likely, during) the 70^th heptad. If this is the case (which, again, seems plausible), then there can be no doubt that, when the sun-clothed woman is represented as fleeing into the wilderness for protection, she represents the 144,000 sealed and faithful Israelites, who will at this time be a “firstfruit to God and to the Lambkin.” Or, at the very least, the 144,000 will be part of the company of Israelites who are represented by the sun-clothed woman.

I think some students of Scripture may be “thrown off” by the fact that the 144,000 are said to be male, and from this fact conclude that this company of Israelites couldn’t possibly be represented by a woman (and thus making the “male child” a better candidate, in their view). However, as noted earlier, even if the 144,000 are the main ones represented by the sun-clothed woman, she could represent more than just the 144,000. There will likely be women and children who will be accompanying this faithful group of Israelites, as well. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that Israel has always been figuratively represented by a woman. This figurative imagery has never been about the gender of the people constituting Israel; even if every person constituting Israel was male, this company of Israelites could still be appropriately represented with the same figurative, feminine imagery found in Rev. 12.

Besides, what better way could a company of 144,000 faithful and “firstfruit” Israelites be represented than with that symbol which even A.E. Knoch acknowledged represents faithful Israel (i.e., the sun-clothed woman)? Such a sterling company of Israelites as the 144,000 - who are described as “flawless” in Rev. 14:5 - surely have just as must of a claim (if not more) to the privileged title “Israel of God” as any number of Israelites who came to faith in Christ through the ministry of the twelve apostles. And when we keep in mind that John has described only two broad categories of Israelites previously in Revelation, it seems unavoidable that, when the sun-clothed woman is described as fleeing into the wilderness, she - at this point in her history – should be understood as representing the first category of Israelites described by John in chapter 7 (those who are later described as “a firstfruit to God”).

That those constituting faithful Israel at the time the woman flees into the wilderness will include the 144,000 seems even more likely when we consider the distinction that is made between the sun-clothed woman and another category of saints in Rev. 12:13-17. After we read about the woman fleeing into the wilderness where she is protected and nourished for 3 ½ years, we read about a company of saints who are described as “the rest of her seed, who are keeping the precepts of God and who have the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 12:17). Since those represented by the woman in verses 13-17 are faithful Israelites who will be living in the land of Israel during the first half of the 70^th heptad (and who will be fleeing into the wilderness/mountains just before the time of great affliction begins), it follows that those in the second category referred to in v. 17 will consist of people who will, at this time, be living outside of the land of Israel (i.e., among the nations). The “rest of her seed” are, in other words, those who will come to comprise the “vast throng” described in Rev. 7:9-17. Concerning v. 17, A.E. Knoch remarks as follows (emphasis mine):

“The dragon, having been foiled in its attempts to destroy the woman, now turns its attention to those who were not included in this exodus. Doubtless there will be faithful ones all over the earth, who are not in Jerusalem or its vicinity when these things occur. These now become the object of its anger. Doubtless these are the vast throng which no one was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and languages, who come out of the great affliction (Rev.7:9-14).”  http://concordant.org/expositions/unveiling-jesus-christ/32-sun-clothed-woman-male-son/ 

Understanding the fleeing sun-clothed woman as representing the 144,000 (and possibly others who will be accompanying them) and “the rest of her seed” as the vast throng harmonizes well with the fact that the 144,000 are referred to as “a firstfruit to God and the Lambkin.” By the time we get to Rev. 12:6, the “Israel of God” represented by the sun-clothed woman will be comprised of Israelites living during the 70^th heptad. Thus, whoever it is that constitutes the “rest of her seed” in v. 17 wouldn’t be able to exist as the “seed” of the woman unless those represented by the woman were already “on the scene,” so to speak. And just as the woman during the 70^th heptad (faithful Israel) exists chronologically prior to the “rest of her seed,” so the 144,000 – being “a firstfruit to God” - are redeemed chronologically prior to the “vast throng.”

The last consideration I’ll mention in support of who I believe the sun-clothed woman represents during the 70^th heptad involves the idea of God’s providing supernatural protection to people on the earth during the day of the Lord. It would seem that the sealing of the 144,000 Israelites is for the purpose of protection and preservation during the time of great affliction (this seems to be implied by what we read in Rev. 7:3-8 and Rev. 9:1-4). We also know from Rev. 12:14-16 that the woman will be supernaturally protected by God during (and after) her flight into the wilderness, and that this divine protection will last throughout the time of great affliction. Thus, unlike those who will constitute the “vast throng,” the entire company of Israelites represented by the woman in chapter 12 will be preserved through the time of great affliction. Not a single individual in this company of faithful Israelites will be killed by the “dragon.” Thus, we find that the idea of supernatural protection on the earth (and in the midst of the time of great affliction) pertains to both the 144,000 and the sun-clothed woman. This strongly suggests that the same company of individuals is in view in both passages (with the former being a literal depiction of this company and the latter being symbolic).

In contrast with the sun-clothed woman, there is no indication that the “male child” is provided supernatural protection on the earth during the 3½ year period of great affliction. In fact, it’s clear from Rev. 12:5 that the male child won’t have to be provided supernatural protection on the earth during this time. This is because, at some point prior to when the woman must flee into the wilderness, we read that the male child is going to be completely removed from the earth (for, as we’ll see in the next section, the direction of his removal is said to be “toward God and toward his throne”). Apparently, God has other plans for this “male child” – plans that don’t involve being on the earth during the time of great affliction.

Part Three: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-study-on-revelation-12-part-three.html

---

[1] I believe there is some significance to the fact that those to whom Christ was speaking when he gave his instructions concerning fleeing into the mountains after the abomination of desolation is set up were his twelve disciples, privately (Matt. 24:1-3). The twelve disciples were, of course, all males – just like the 144,000 Israelites described in chapter 7 and 14. And, of course, the number “144,000” is 12 multiplied by 12,000. Although by no means conclusive evidence, I find this fact at least highly suggestive, and as pointing to the strong possibility that the 144,000 will be the ones who will heed the instructions that Christ gave to the original twelve disciples in Matthew 24:15-18.

Interestingly, according to the most recent statistical data, there are approximately 6 million Jews living in the land of Israel today (of this number, approximately 500,000 live in Jerusalem alone). If, at this very hour, 144,000 male Israelites dwelling in present-day Israel were to flee into the mountains beyond the land of Judea, they would constitute merely 2.4% of the total population of Jews living in Israel today.  

A Study on Revelation 12: Part One (A summary of my position and a critique of the “constellation view”)

In this five-part study I will be defending the following interpretation of the imagery found in Rev. 12:

1. The “woman clothed with the sun” figuratively represents faithful Israel – i.e., the collective entity referred to by Paul as the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Depending on the time period and generation in view, the woman that is faithful Israel has been (and will be) comprised of different individuals. For example, those individuals who constituted the Israel of God in Paul’s day are not the same individuals who will constitute the Israel of God during the 70^th heptad/day of the Lord.

2. After the snatching away of the “male child” toward God and toward his throne, the company of faithful Israelites whom the sun-clothed woman represents will consist of the 144,000 sealed and “firstfruit” Israelites referred to by John in Rev. 7:3-8 and 14:1-5. Therefore, when the sun-clothed woman is described by John as fleeing into the wilderness and being nourished for 1,260 days, she represents this particular group of faithful Israelites.

3. The seven-headed, fiery-red dragon figuratively represents the hierarchy of wicked celestial rulers (or “chiefs”) of which the one called “Adversary and Satan” is the leader and representative (Rev. 12:9).

4. The “male child” whom the sun-clothed woman (faithful Israel) is said to “bring forth” – and whom the dragon is described as seeking to devour - figuratively represents that corporate group of saints referred to by Paul as “the body of Christ” and “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body,” of which Christ himself is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-13, 27; Eph. 1:22-23).

Before I begin my remarks on the content of Revelation 12 and my defense of the position summarized above, I need to express my gratitude and indebtedness to fellow brother in Christ, Andre Piet. I have been a regular reader of his blog, GoedBericht.nl, for a few years now, and have gained many valuable insights from his articles. Andre’s blog entries on the identity of the "male child" of Rev. 12:5[1] have had a significant influence on what I’ve come to believe on this particular subject. Although I differ with Andre on a few minor points concerning the interpretation of Rev. 12 (including the issue of the timing of the snatching away in relation to the 70^th heptad), I agree with him concerning the overall interpretation of this chapter, and will be quoting from his blog articles on several occasions. Although Andre was not the first to hold to the particular view concerning the male child that he defends on his blog (it’s at least as old as the “pioneer of dispensationalism” himself, John Nelson Darby), I credit Andre as the one who first introduced me to it and motivated me to research it further.

With these preliminary remarks out of the way, I’ll begin my analysis of Rev. 12 with verse 1.

Revelation 12

1 And a great sign was seen in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon underneath her feet, and on her head a wreath of twelve stars. 2 And being pregnant, she is crying, travailing and tormented to be bringing forth.

A Critique of the Constellation View

According to some, the sun-clothed woman that John saw should be understood as a particular zodiac constellation (i.e., Virgo) that appeared in conjunction with other celestial objects and astronomical events on September 23^rd, 2017. All arguments for and against this interpretation aside, I must confess that it has never struck me as the obvious or primary meaning of the “great sign in heaven” that John saw. The woman-as-constellation theory would be, at best, a secondary (and very much inferred) interpretation of the text. At the most, I believe that one could, perhaps, say that the astronomical event that occurred on 9/23/17 should be understood as pointing us back to the symbolism of Rev. 12, and (possibly) indicating that the fulfillment of what is being symbolized in Rev. 12 was (or is) soon to take place (whatever one takes “soon” to mean).

But even this could, I believe, be too generous a response to the constellation theory. It could, in its entirety, be an erroneous and illegitimate application of the scriptural data. There are several considerations that have made me doubtful as to the validity of the theory. Among these is the fact that there doesn’t seem to be any meaningful sense in which it can be said that the sun “clothed” the constellation Virgo on 9/23/17. In every image I’ve seen, the sun was over (and not even touching) Virgo’s “left shoulder” rather than being somewhere over her “body” (a peculiar way of being “clothed,” to be sure).

Another problem with the theory concerns the twelve stars that John saw as comprising the woman’s “crown” (or “wreath”). According to proponents of the constellation theory, the stars of which the woman’s wreath consists are the nine stars that constitute the constellation Leo in conjunction with the planets Venus, Mars and Mercury. However, if the woman of Revelation 12 is to be interpreted as being a literal zodiac constellation (i.e., Virgo), it doesn’t make any sense for another zodiac constellation (i.e., Leo) to be the woman’s “wreath” (and the theory becomes even more bizarre when we take into account the claim that Leo is merely part of the woman’s wreath). As strange as it would sound, it would at least be more consistent with the constellation theory for John to have seen and described a sun-clothed woman with a lion sitting on (or, perhaps, lying next to?) her head. Why would one zodiac constellation appear as the woman associated with it, while another zodiac constellation (which is just as conventionally associated with a lion as the constellation Virgo is associated with a woman) be seen and described as a “crown” or “wreath” on the woman’s head?

What’s even more problematic for the “Leo-as-wreath” aspect of the constellation theory is the fact that there are, apparently, already twelve stars that can be understood as comprising the “wreath” of Virgo. In chapter six of his book The Star of Bethlehem, Ernest Martin remarks as follows: “And note: Professor Thorley who reviewed the first edition of my work has shown that there are exactly twelve stars surrounding the head of Virgo as we see them from earth. And indeed there are. If one will look at Norton’s Star Atlas, twelve visible stars will be seen around Virgo’s head. They are (according to astronomical terminology): (1) Pi, (2) Nu, (3) Beta (near the ecliptic), (4) Sigma, (5) Chi, (6) Iota — these six stars form the southern hemisphere around the head of Virgo. Then there are (7) Theta, (8) Star 60, (9) Delta, (10) Star 93, (11) Beta (the 2nd magnitude star) and (12) Omicron — these last six form the northern hemisphere around the head of Virgo. All these stars are visible and could have been witnessed by observers on earth.”

Thus, assuming that the constellation Virgo is even in view in Rev. 12:1, there is simply no need for the constellation Leo - in conjunction with an alignment of three planets – to form the “wreath” of twelve stars on her “head.” Whatever significance the astronomical event involving Leo and the three planets may (or may not) have had in September, I see no good reason to force it into the imagery described in Rev. 12:1. And yet, it does seem that it was forced into the imagery by proponents of the constellation theory. And it seems that the only reason it was done so was to make the astronomical event seem more “rare,” and thus of greater significance and more likely to be something that could be understood as fulfilling prophecy. However, to my knowledge, God has never revealed in scripture that the “rareness” of an event (whether it occurs on earth or in the heavens) necessarily, and without qualification, gives it some sort of prophetic significance. And the fact that nothing happens randomly or coincidentally in our universe doesn’t mean that God necessarily intends for us to know what the exact significance or meaning of a certain event is. Apart from its having been revealed to us by God in scripture, we cannot simply assume that the significance or meaning we have assigned to some naturally-occurring event (like the astronomical occurrences of September) is, in fact, correct.

These aren’t the only problems involved in the woman-as-constellation interpretation, [2] but it was these, in particular, that initially led me to doubt the validity of this interpretation. However, my main issue with the constellation theory lies in how it has been presented by some proponents of the theory. According to its most outspoken proponents, the constellation view is not just a secondary, possible interpretation of Rev. 12 (or at least the first few verses of this chapter); rather, it’s viewed as the “key” to understanding the meaning of the passage itself. The verses involving the sun-clothed woman, the dragon and her child are understood as being entirely, or primarily, about (and as pointing the reader to) a certain astronomical event that took place on 9/23/17, and which involved certain constellations and the movement/positions of other celestial objects. However, this interpretation of the imagery described by John in the first few verses of Rev. 12 just doesn’t seem to fit with the passage as a whole.

Few would deny that the various entities that John described as seeing in Rev. 12 are meant to be understood as representing something else (and thus to be symbols). But I think consistency is important in coming to a right understanding of things even of a symbolic nature. And this is precisely where the constellation view – as has been typically presented by those holding to it – breaks down. It simply fails to hold up as part of a broader and more consistent interpretation of the whole passage. If the sun-clothed woman is to be understood as being a particular constellation appearing at a certain future time, then what about the other entities and events described as taking place? It seems that as soon as we start incorporating the rest of the entities and events described by John, the constellation interpretation necessarily fades into the background (or vanishes altogether), and a more primary and consistent meaning of the symbols takes precedence in order to even make sense of what John is describing.

For example, when the same sun-clothed woman described in v. 1 is later described as being given “two wings of a large vulture” and flying into the wilderness to be protected from the dragon and nourished for "a season, and seasons and half a season" (v. 14), is she still to be understood as a constellation? And if there’s something else being symbolized here, then wouldn’t consistency demand that what was in view in v. 1 was not, in fact, a constellation (or at least, that it’s not the primary meaning of what John saw)? After all, the same sun-clothed woman who is described as fleeing into the wilderness is the woman who is previously described as bringing forth a male child. Considerations like this lead me to doubt that the constellation interpretation should be seen as the “key” to understanding Rev. 12 (again, assuming it has any validity at all).

In an article entitled, “Why the Revelation 12 Sign Can’t be Debunked,” one proponent of the woman-as-constellation theory writes, “The author of Revelation 12:1-2 describes an actual celestial event. He doesn't use similes. He doesn't call it a parable. He describes the Sun, Moon, and stars, which are real objects in space. There is nothing in the text that states the description is not to be taken literally.”[3] As a staunch proponent of the literal-historical-grammatical method of scripture interpretation, I’m all for understanding something literally, if possible. However, it is (ironically) this very interpretive principle that has led me to reject the constellation view affirmed by the author of this article.

The simple fact is that no grouping of stars – including that which is conventionally identified as “Virgo” – is literally anything other than a grouping of stars. The zodiacal constellation “Virgo” is not literally a woman (and, strictly speaking, it does not even resemble an actual woman). Nor does any constellation literally have “feet” or a “head.” The constellation Virgo is a grouping of stars that is conventionally understood to represent an imaginary woman. So right off the bat we run into a problem with the assertion of the author quoted above that there is “nothing in the text that states the description is not to be taken literally.” Even if we allowed that a constellation could literally be referred to as having a “head” or “feet,” there is no way that what we read in v. 2 could be literally applied to any actual collection of stars.  

Just as John later saw what appeared to be a woman riding a frightening beast in Rev. 17, in Rev. 12:1-2 John was clearly viewing what appeared to him to be a woman in labor, and not merely a collection of stars. In fact, based on John’s description alone, the only thing he saw that even appeared to him to be actual stars are those that were seen to constitute the “wreath” on her head! There is no indication whatsoever that the woman herself appeared to consist of stars, or to be a constellation. Thus, while it’s technically true that “there is nothing in the text that states the description is not to be taken literally” (but when is this EVER “stated” in scripture?), one can reasonably infer that the text shouldn’t be taken literally. Verse 2 (and the rest of the chapter) puts a contextual limitation on how v. 1 can, and should, be interpreted.

When we allow v. 2 to inform our understanding of what John described as seeing in v. 1, I think we can reasonably conclude that John was NOT seeing and describing a literal celestial event involving a particular positioning of literal celestial objects in space. The sun, moon and stars seen by John are, I believe, to be understood no more literally than the sun, moon and stars that we’re told Joseph saw in a dream (Gen. 37:9). The woman is not to be identified with a constellation; regardless of how realistic the woman may or may not have appeared to John, what John saw was nonetheless the image of an woman and not merely a literal constellation of stars (again, the only stars seen in John’s vision are those that constituted the wreath of the woman). And it’s equally reasonable to conclude that the woman that John saw was not a literal woman (since no literal woman can be “clothed with the sun,” have “the moon underneath her feet,” etc.). So we can conclude that the “woman” John saw was neither a constellation nor a literal woman. This means that the sun-clothed woman that John saw should be understood as a symbolic representation of something else. But what is the woman to be understood as representing?

Part Two: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-study-on-revelation-12-part-two.html

---

[1] http://goedbericht.nl/english/the-snatching-away-of-the-son/

http://goedbericht.nl/english/the-male-son-who-is-he/

http://goedbericht.nl/english/snatched-away-to-god-and-his-throne/

http://goedbericht.nl/english/with-him-appearing-in-glory/ 

[2] Another problem involves the claim that the planet Jupiter was in the “womb” of Virgo for a normal gestation period of nine months before being “birthed” and leaving the constellation. In the following video, Joel Richardson challenges this and other claims (it’s at around the 29 minute mark that Richardson begins discussing the subject of Jupiter).

[3] http://www.unsealed.org/2017/08/why-revelation-12-sign-cant-be-debunked.html