2 Corinthians 12:2: "I cannot tell: God knoweth such a one
caught up to the third"
2 Corinthians 12:4: "How that he was
caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words,"
1 Thessalonians 4:17: "we which are alive
and remain
shall be caught up together with them in"
[...]
Revelation 12:5: "and her child was caught up unto God, and to his"
Just noticed Apostle Paul uses the same phraseology from his 3rd Heaven experience the
same as our Lord and Saviors arrival in the clouds....
Consider also the following (particularly about the Rev12:5 reference to "caught up /
harpazo [G726]"):
LIST of those who see the IDENTITY of "The Man Child" (Rev12) as being "the Church" -
Theodore Beza [b.1519]
Hanserd Knollys [b.1599]
Matthew Poole [b.1624]
Matthew Henry [b.1662]
John Wesley [1700s]
JN Darby [b.1800]
William Kelly [b.1820]
Charles Stanley [1800s]
Edward Dennett [b.1831]
WTP Wolston [b. 1840]
William E Blackstone [b. 1841]
William Biederwolf [b.1867]
HA Ironside [b.1876] -
http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/article/5721 [with caveats ]
Richard Chester [1882 - "Old Testament Light on New Testament Prophecy" -
see quote below (next post)]
William L Pettingill [b.1886; in 1923]
Arthur Bloomfield [b.1895]
Dr Henry Morris [b.1918]
Chuck Missler [b.1934]
Barnes Notes on the Bible [Rev12:5]
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible [mentions this also; Rev12:5]
Dr Michael J Svigel [DTS;
see quote below]
____________
Dr. Michael J Svigel’s argument (a version of this paper was first presented at the Southwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Friday, April 7, 2000)
[quoting excerpt]:
[
Svigel quoting Beale] "John may intentionally have the neuter pronominal adjective ἄρσεν (instead of the masculine) irregularly modify the masculine υἱὸν. As observed above in the textual comparisons of Revelation 12 and Isaiah 66, the unusual grammar reflects the actual wording of the Isaiah text, where
both the mention of ‘male’ and the corporate plural of ‘son’ (or ‘child’) occur in synonymous phrases expressing Jerusalem bearing in travail. That John has not made a careless grammatical blunder is clear from 12.13, where the masculine τὸν ἄρσενα is
correctly used. On the other hand, some do not see a grammatical incongruity in the use of ἄρσεν, but view it as a noun in apposition to ‘son’, further describing it. . . . But this still leaves unanswered the question why the neuter occurs in 12.5
[TDW note: BibleHub shows "arsen" as "neuter" in v.5] and the masculine in 12.13; in addition, the substantival use normally would be articular, as in 12.13."
[97]
97 The reader is directed to the full discussion in G. K. Beale, John's Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 341-343.
[
Svigel] Thus, John’s use of “poor grammar” in Revelation 12:5 is intended to point the reader back to the images of Isaiah 66:7, which reads: “Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she gave birth to a boy.” The next verse demonstrates that the woman and child are not intended to represent individuals, but rather assemblies: “Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Can a land be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once? As soon as Zion travailed, she also brought forth her sons (two sons?).” The passage switches from the singular “son” to the plural “sons,” and describes the birth of “a land” and “a nation.” Therefore, given the symbolic parallels between the description of the woman of Revelation 12:1 and Israel of Genesis 37:9 as well as the intentional verbal allusion to Isaiah 66:7, where the woman is clearly the nation of Israel, “Zion,” the conclusion that best fits the evidence is that when the scene of Revelation 12 opens up, the woman primarily represents Israel of the Old Testament in travail.
[98] [...]
98 Mounce, Revelation, 232; Swete, Revelation, 148.
[...]
To take the male child, then, as only an individual man, Jesus of Nazareth, would be to break consistency within the symbols of Revelation 12:1-7. It is acknowledged that such an inconsistency is certainly the prerogative of the author, but it fails to come to grips with the fact that John is not composing the passage
ex nihilo (i.e., without a context), but (is) describing a vision we believe actually occurred. Thus, the elements of the vision
could be mixed; that is, the woman and the dragon could symbolize corporate entities while the male child is an actual human being. However, an interpretation that understands the male child to be a corporate entity does not contradict the context of the passage; it does, in fact, better suits the context.
--Dr Michael J Svigel,
https://bible.org/article/apocalypse-john-and-rapture-church-reevaluation
[end quoting]
[continued in next post for another's quote on this Subject]
2
