Rev 11, 12

[Screaming Eagle]

I hope we can all agree that in order for prophecy to be considered fulfilled, it must be completely fulfilled. With that in mind, I'd like to hear how you think Revelation 11 and 12 have been completely fulfilled in history. If it hasn't been completely fulfilled, there must be more to come. Please be specific.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I hope we can all agree that in order for prophecy to be considered fulfilled, it must be completely fulfilled. With that in mind, I'd like to hear how you think Revelation 11 and 12 have been completely fulfilled in history. If it hasn't been completely fulfilled, there must be more to come. Please be specific.
Good morning bro! :sunny:

Personally, I think it's an exercise in futility to begin a conversation in the middle of a highly symbolic book when we have such different understandings about its overall meaning, but I'll do my best to answer come what may.

Revelation 11:1-3 speaks of the Temple area being trampled by Gentiles. This coheres with the words of Christ in the Olivet Discourse:
Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
We know with absolutely certainty that these words were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70 AD. This coheres with the time statements in the Book of Revelation which states that the events it describes would happen "soon" for the "time is at hand." Note that the same Greek word for "trampled" is used in both Luke 21:24 and Rev 11:2. These passages appear to be speaking of the same event. Take special care to note that connections that I highlighted red. They all link directly to the major themes of the book of Revelation. Indeed, I could have just highlighted the entire Olivet Discourse in red! It is fully united with Revelation.

Now as for the Two Witnesses: Everyone knows that Revelation is an exceedingly symbolic book (beast with seven heads, woman clothed with the sun, etc.). No one (Futurist or Preterist) has any certain knowledge about the meaning of the Two Witnesses. They could be symbolic, they could be two literal people. But no one knows because Scripture does not say. Futurists can indulge themselves in speculation and declare that they will be fulfilled "literally" but there is no way to prove that assertion so it is no better than any other guess. When Scripture is silent, so am I. We would all do well to follow this principle.

Beginning in Rev 11:15 we have a scene in heaven, so there is no literal earthly fulfillment to account for. It is a major "articulation point" in the book of Revelation that states the fulfillment of the entire vision, declaring that the "kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ" and that the time to judge the dead and reward the saints had come. This indicates that the visions in Revelation are not given sequentially but cyclically since this vision of the end is given in the middle of the book.
Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. 16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, 17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. 18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. 19 ¶ And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
I will explain my understanding of Revelation 12 in another post.

All the very best!

Richard

[Screaming Eagle]

Richard,
I'm glad to hear you admit that you don't know what is meant by the 2 witnesses. That alone should be enough to give pause about what the power that He describes there is. Certainly, if it had been fulfilled naturally, we would have known about it. Even if it's symbolic, there would be a clear historical witness. As far as I know that has not come forth.
But that's not all of the chapter. There's the small matter at the end of 11 that is yet to be seen and described as having 'been fulfilled' prior to or near 70 AD.
When you make your comments about chapter 12, please address the 'manchild' that's also referred to in Isaiah as well as the 'gaster' child of the woman. That child is 'taken up' just as the tares were removed from the wheat. There's also the 'travailing in birth' and 'paining to be delivered' to be addressed prior to the dragon showing up. What is the 'woman that fled to the wilderness' to a place prepared by God? And Michael (the angel that protects Israel Da 10, 12) that stands up (Da 12) to fight on Israel's behalf. In Da 12 the result is a national salvation. Jesus specifically tells us to look to Daniel for wisdom about the last days.
And there's this matter to be clearly addressed also. Hint, you can't get there if you believe all of this already happened. It's impossible. Please just ask Him for clear direction and revelation of what this truly means. Please. It can only come by revelation from His heart.

Re 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (KJV

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
I'm glad to hear you admit that you don't know what is meant by the 2 witnesses. That alone should be enough to give pause about what the power that He describes there is. Certainly, if it had been fulfilled naturally, we would have known about it. Even if it's symbolic, there would be a clear historical witness. As far as I know that has not come forth.

I'm glad you appreciate my effort to be open and honest! A lot of people are afraid to admit things they don't know on an internet forum because their unscrupulous opponents will abuse them and attempt to use their honesty against them, to defeat them with unrighteous tactics. This used to happen to me all the time when I spoke on other forums.

But I hope you also noticed the fact that I said no one knows the meaning of the Two Witnesses with any certainty. Your assertion that "Even if it's symbolic, there would be a clear historical witness" has no foundation in fact. For example, some folks believe the Two Witnesses are the Old and New Testaments, others believe they are the Jews and Gentiles (two Olive Trees, just like in Romans 11). Your claim that there would be "clear historical witness" means nothing in these scenarios.

Bottom line: No one knows the true meaning of the Two Witnesses, so no interpretation of the Two Witnesses can help us discern which eschatological system is correct.



But that's not all of the chapter. There's the small matter at the end of 11 that is yet to be seen and described as having 'been fulfilled' prior to or near 70 AD.
"Small matter" - I love it! That's the understatement of the millennium! :lmbo:

But seriously, from my point of view the Kingdoms of this earth really did become this Kingdoms of God and His Christ when the stone cut without hands (Christ) smashed the Image of Daniel 2. The correspondence is extremely significant and confirmed by many witnesses. I am currently exploring the vast array of parallel passages that confirm this understanding in another thread called The Four Gospels and Daniel's Four Beasts (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1506).



When you make your comments about chapter 12, please address the 'manchild' that's also referred to in Isaiah as well as the 'gaster' child of the woman. That child is 'taken up' just as the tares were removed from the wheat. There's also the 'travailing in birth' and 'paining to be delivered' to be addressed prior to the dragon showing up. What is the 'woman that fled to the wilderness' to a place prepared by God? And Michael (the angel that protects Israel Da 10, 12) that stands up (Da 12) to fight on Israel's behalf. In Da 12 the result is a national salvation. Jesus specifically tells us to look to Daniel for wisdom about the last days.

Yes, I will address all these issues. But as a prelude, note that the New Testament defines the "last days" as the time from 30-70 AD. For example:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is [now, in the first century] the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is [now, in the first century] the last time.
How did John know it was the "last time" (literally, the last hour)? He knew because there were many antichrists, which he defined as false teachers. This coheres precisely with the words of Christ in the Olivet Discourse:
Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before.
Thus we see that John knew it was the "last hour" because he saw the signs predicted by Christ! These verses are mutually confirming and they both confirm the first century timing of these events. The evidence is overwhelming and impossible to refute. I would be exceedingly interested to know how you deal with these passages.

It's great to be digging deep into God's Word with you bro!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

When you make your comments about chapter 12, please address the 'manchild' that's also referred to in Isaiah as well as the 'gaster' child of the woman. That child is 'taken up' just as the tares were removed from the wheat. There's also the 'travailing in birth' and 'paining to be delivered' to be addressed prior to the dragon showing up. What is the 'woman that fled to the wilderness' to a place prepared by God? And Michael (the angel that protects Israel Da 10, 12) that stands up (Da 12) to fight on Israel's behalf. In Da 12 the result is a national salvation. Jesus specifically tells us to look to Daniel for wisdom about the last days.

Here is my understanding of Revelation 12.

The first thing to note is that it begins a new series of visions. The Book of Revelation is divided into two great halves at the end of Chapter 11 which presents the consummation of the whole story. The story is picked up again in Revelation 12:1 with a new vision that goes back to the birth of Christ and his ascension to his throne in heaven.

The Woman is Israel. The symbols of the Sun, Moon, and 12 Stars are unmistakable. God used them in the dream he gave to Joseph, one of the Patriarchs of Israel. The 12 Stars represent the 12 Tribes. The meaning of the sun and moon can be disputed, so there is no need to enter into that right now.

The Woman (Israel) gave birth the the manchild (Christ). Satan sought to "devour her child as soon as it was born" (Rev 12:4). This coheres precisely with the record of Christ's birth when Herod destroyed all the sons two years old and younger.

The "manchild" is explicitly identified as Christ because the text says that he would "rule all nations with a rod of iron." The text then speaks of his ascension to his throne: "and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." This coheres precisely with the record of the Gospels.

You asked me to speak of "the 'gaster' child of the woman." That request make no sense. There is no "gaster" child. The text says "And she being with child (en gastri) cried." The Greek phrase "en gastri" simply means "pregnant." That's how it is translated in many versions of the Bible.

You also asked me to address the manchild in Isaiah 66, and I'm glad you did! There is profound connection there. The 66 chapters of Isaiah correspond to the 66 Books of the Bible (this is called the Isaiah-Bible Correlation (http://biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Isaiah/IsaiahBible.asp)). Isaiah 66 corresponds to Revelation:
Isaiah 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. 8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
I understand that you are reading this as a prophecy of the future restoration of the nation of Israel. But that fails for a number of reasons. First, the manchild is clearly Christ. He is not going to be born as a baby a second time. So we know this is speaking of his advent in the first century. Also, Paul explicitly identifies the "children" as Christians:
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we [Christians], brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
So it seems to me that we have many mutually confirming verses that fit perfectly with the Preterist view.

I could go on through the rest of the chapter, but it probably is best to wait till you respond to what I have written so we don't get too far out of sync.

All the best!

Richard

[Screaming Eagle]

I'm following your line of reasoning.

Have you ever gone through the words in Greek that describe 'sons' from being produced to infants to young children learning how to talk to 'sons' and 'mature' sons? That word used for children in the Gal 4 passage is 'teknon' which is simply 'produced'. To me it indicates being 'capable' of growing to maturity.

I won't be able to respond again until Saturday.

[Screaming Eagle]

Look at how Rev 10 ends:

Re 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings. (KJV)

Prophesy 'again'. I hope we can agree that the two witnesses that he prophesies about (in exquisite detail with unmistakable earth shaking events) are not 'loose' words. God does not play loosely with His word or visions. Each of those is full of meaning that has yet to be manifested on earth. The word used for 'little book' in Rev 10 (and only there) is worth noting. I'm not sure exactly what that means but it's rich with implications.

The reason that 'noone' knows who the two witnesses are is because they have not been completely revealed yet (emphasis on the *yet*). It's part of the parable of Elijah's life. He was hidden at the brook Kerith/Cherith in the face of the Jordan (representing going down or death) until God sent him to the widow.

I'd like to ask you to look at the word used for 'a mistress' in 1 K 17. Look at the other places that word is used. There's something there yet to be made clear to me. I'm thinking it's connected with the Syrophoenician woman but the connection hasn't completely 'gotten in' yet.

1Ki 17:17 ¶ And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. (KJV)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Look at how Rev 10 ends:

Re 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings. (KJV)

Prophesy 'again'. I hope we can agree that the two witnesses that he prophesies about (in exquisite detail with unmistakable earth shaking events) are not 'loose' words. God does not play loosely with His word or visions. Each of those is full of meaning that has yet to be manifested on earth. The word used for 'little book' in Rev 10 (and only there) is worth noting. I'm not sure exactly what that means but it's rich with implications.

I agree completely that "God does not play loosely with His word or visions." But that does not mean we will be able to say with certainty what he meant. That's why the world is filled with different interpretations of the Bible, and that's why we need to adhere to the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics when laying the foundation of our understanding of Scripture. We must establish with great certainty and clarity what God has taught us with many mutually confirming verses. Then when we have a solid understanding of the "Big Picture" of what the Bible is all about, we will have a context in which to understand the more enigmatic passages.



The reason that 'noone' knows who the two witnesses are is because they have not been completely revealed yet (emphasis on the *yet*). It's part of the parable of Elijah's life. He was hidden at the brook Kerith/Cherith in the face of the Jordan (representing going down or death) until God sent him to the widow.

I grant that would be a valid reason if we did not have the contextual evidence that shows the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in the events leading up to and including the Great Tribulation that attended the destruction of Jerusalem.

For example, the Jews could not understand the real meaning of Psalm 22 until its fulfillment was revealed in the NT.



I'd like to ask you to look at the word used for 'a mistress' in 1 K 17. Look at the other places that word is used. There's something there yet to be made clear to me. I'm thinking it's connected with the Syrophoenician woman but the connection hasn't completely 'gotten in' yet.

1Ki 17:17 ¶ And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. (KJV)
That is a very interesting parallel! There are a number of elements in common, such as mention of feeding, a bed, and the healing a woman's child. But it's way off topic, so I don't think I'll pursue it in this thread.

All the best,

Richard

[Screaming Eagle]

Richard,
That still does not explain why such a clear vision has not been 'made real' in history as yet. It seems to me that you are 'reading into' the events of Rev 11 because of what 'must have' happened one time (which is still not verified). If we just take the plain words of the vision of Rev 11 as truth, there are yet parts of that vision to be mainifested. There's way too much detail in there to completely dismiss it.
If my understanding is incorrect, I'll watch with nothing to lose and behold yet the more of Him. If it's 'all done', it seems to me that you have nothing to 'watch' for. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,
That still does not explain why such a clear vision has not been 'made real' in history as yet. It seems to me that you are 'reading into' the events of Rev 11 because of what 'must have' happened one time (which is still not verified). If we just take the plain words of the vision of Rev 11 as truth, there are yet parts of that vision to be mainifested. There's way too much detail in there to completely dismiss it.

You are assuming that it was not "made real in history" because you are imposing a literal interpretation on the Two Witnesses. But you don't know that the Two Witnesses are any more literal than the Red Dragon with Seven Heads.

You are free to believe whatever you want about the Two Witnesses because God has not explained what He meant in that passage. That's the beauty of futurism - you can believe whatever you want because it can not be confirmed or tested.

Bottom line: The passage about the Two Witnesses can not help discern between Futurism and Preterism because we have no certain knowledge about what they mean. But when we focus upon the things that can be confirmed with great certainty, we see that Preterism is the plain teaching of Holy Scripture.



If my understanding is incorrect, I'll watch with nothing to lose and behold yet the more of Him. If it's 'all done', it seems to me that you have nothing to 'watch' for. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
That is not correct. You have already lost a great deal - namely, a proper understanding of what the Bible is really all about. You have lost the proper respect for God's Word that refuses to add speculations to what God has revealed. If futurism were based on what the Bible really says, I'd have no problem with it. But you have proven, time and again, that your futurist theories are based more on what the Bible does not say than what it does say.

We could have this all sorted out in short order if you would simply agree to adhere to the Fundamental Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics.

All the very best,

Richard

PS: I trust you do not mind that I speak as plainly as you about these questions.