Greek Study - Man Child

First topic message reminder :



(I wrote out the text & times for study)




2:50 Quotes Michael Svigel...
"I argue that the symbol of the male child in Revelation 12:5 is best identified as the body of Christ, the church and the the child's catching up to God and His throne is best identified as the catching up of the body of Christ elsewhere described in 1 Thessalonians 4:17."

3:25 The man child is Christ, you only see it in the Greek

Revelation 12:5
And she brought forth a man child (Huios) [Strong G5207], who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.


Greek Huios - a masculine noun, Strongs G5207

4:25 Huios always refers to Christ, not to the church
Huios is found in
Son of man 87x
Son of God  49x
Son of David 15x
My Beloved Son 7x
Only Begotten Son 3x

Gives examples of the use Huios...

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son (Huios), and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son (Huios), in whom I am well pleased.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son (Huios), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

6:09 Never is the church referred to as Huios, only Christ is.


6:20 Back to Revelation 12:4
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child (Teknon) as soon as it was born.

7:00 Revelation 12:5
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child (Teknon) was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

7:25 Teknon means offspring, a neuter noun - Strong's G5043
Teknon is found 99x in the New Testament
Child - Teknon 77x
Son - Teknon 21x
daughter - Teknon 1x

7:35 Huios is masculine, always refers to Christ.
Teknon is never used for the title of Christ.
Teknon is always used for His people who believe in Christ.

8:20 examples of Teknon
Matthew 9:2
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son (Teknon), be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. 


Mark 10:24
And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children (Teknon), how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!


John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons (Teknon) of God, even to them that believe on his name:


Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children (Teknon) of God:


1 John 3:1 & 2
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons (Teknon) of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Beloved, now are we the sons (Teknon) of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.


10:30 Teknon is used for the believers in Christ.   Huios is used for Christ alone.


10:50 Revelation 12:4-5
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman (Israel) which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child (Teknon, the church) as soon as it was born.
And she brought forth a man child (Huios, who is Christ), who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child (Teknon, the church) was caught up (Harpazo) unto God, and to his throne.


11:40  "This is the clearest perspective on the rapture of the church."

Askakido wrote:More on Rev 12:4-5 and the Greek

Rev 12:4-5 KJV  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.  (5)  And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

(Rev 12:4 GNT-TR)  και η ουρα αυτου συρει το τριτον των αστερων του ουρανου και εβαλεν αυτους εις την γην και ο δρακων εστηκεν ενωπιον της γυναικος της μελλουσης τεκειν ινα οταν τεκη το τεκνον αυτης καταφαγη
   [teknon] --> noun - accusative, singluar, neuter.

(Rev 12:5 GNT-TR)  και ετεκεν υιον αρρενα ος μελλει ποιμαινειν παντα τα εθνη εν ραβδω σιδηρα και ηρπασθη το τεκνον αυτης προς τον θεον και τον θρονον αυτου
   [hion] --> noun - accusative, singular, masculine
   [arrena] --> adjective - accusative, singular, masculine.
   [teknon] --> noun - accusative, singular, neuter.

Strong's has this G730 as " ἄῤῥην (arrhen) / αρσεν (arsen)" whereas the Textus Receptus (TR) has it as αρρενα (arrena), the Byzantine (BYZ) has it as αρρενα (appena) , Westcott & Hort (WH) have it as αρσεν (arsen), the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (ABP) has it as αρρενα (arrena), -- just to show that there is some variance in spelling or word choice between the various Greek critical editions' text.  Though there seems to be no variance with the hion nor with the teknon as far as spelling or word choice is concerned between these four Greek critical editions' text for these two verses.  The Westcott & Hort is often called, of the "Minority Text."  The Strong's form is more of the "root" form's spelling.

Just to give one a small example of the application of the Matrix of Meaning, the syntax and the semantics.

Thanks for taking the time to do this Aska!

Jarhead wrote:Ask, I certainly see the distinction here.  To put it simply, Mary gave birth to Yeshua the hios, her and Joseph's son.

The corporate Jewish mother (israel) gave birth to the corporate son, teknon.

Israel, too, could have given birth to the Huios, and it would have been grammatically correct in the Greek.

The thing to ponder is why teknon is used in this passage.  Huios would have left no doubt as to Whom it refers.  Teknon, on the other hand is the fuel for the 'corporate' application.

There is not one jot or tittle in Scripture that is meaningless.  The language is not sloppily applied.  Casual readers beware! 

Causal reader here... 

Tryphosa wrote:

Askakido wrote:Back on the issue of 'The Man Child" and that word " Huios ".

I went to Luke 3:23-ff and looked at the Greek for the word son there.  It is " huios".

Luk 3:23 KJV  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son [υιος - huios] of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,


Then all the way down to the need of Luke 3:38 this phrase 'the son of' is extended all the way down.  So we get even Adam being the son of God.  By extension that 'son' would be the Greek huios as well.  This entire family line from Jesus ('step-son' of Joseph) to Adam all would by extension that word, huios.  Needless to say, Jesus is not the only one called a huois in the Gospels or the New Testament.

"4:25 Huios always refers to Christ, not to the church"  Well, the church is never called a Son of any form at all in the Scriptures, so of course huios never refers to the church.

However, this assertion, "6:09 Never is the church referred to as Huios, only Christ is." is not true as we see from Luke -- although it is implict in the language there that all of these sons are a huios.  If one will accept that.

The KJV's supplied terms, as if often shown in italics, has all of these "the son" insertions into the English text of this later part of Luke Three.  Starting with part, "... Joseph, which was the son of Heli ..." on down to the last verse of that chapter, where we find the same use, "... Adam, the son of God"  These all have been suppled by the translators but are not actually found in the Greek text source.  Some will automatically accept such translators' "supplied words", some don't automatically do so and check the Greek for find out more and how justified they think the translators were in adding in those particular additional words, and a very few almost automatically gloss over the italics as having relatively little merit or "authority".   This is what I had meant about, "If one will accept it."

Myself, where I find italics in a particular edition, publication, and printing of a KJV English Bible that does bother to use the italics, I find myself going back to the Greek text source of that translation -- which in the KJV is commonly the Textus Receptus Greek critical text edition -- just to see if that supplied word is fully justified.  

An example of such can be found in 1st Cor 12:1 in its handling of the Greek word, pnuematikos, which is handled in that place by the KJV as "spiritual gifts"... And yet in 1st Cor 15:46 this same pnuematikon is handled with , "which is spiritual" without any supplied words like gift, or even body.  It is beyond me why in 1st Cor 12:1 they saw a necessity to add in the word gifts, and not just leave it as "spiritual".  As least in 1st Cor 15:46 there would be reason to add in body, as "which is a spiritual body..."

The relevant question then is:  Can one extend the huios of Luke 3:23 all the way down in the supplied "the son" of all the other verses on down from that verse, so that we could leglitmately state that Adam was the huios of God?

Tryphena wrote:
(I wrote out the text & times for study)

Thank you for writing up some of the stuff found in this video. It is quite helpful.

Ask, to me, it's the context of the passage.  If you take 'gifts' out of the 1Cor12 passage it doesn't make sense.

Likewise, adding gifts to the 1Cor15 passage would be equally nonsensical.

Jarhead wrote:Ask, to me, it's the context of the passage.  If you take 'gifts' out of the 1Cor12 passage it doesn't make sense.

Likewise, adding gifts to the 1Cor15 passage would be equally nonsensical.

My point was basically that one perhaps should question the supplied words of the translators and see if one can see where the translators choices for the supplied words they came up with came from.

An aside, in its context,  it could be more effective to have put the supplied word there in 1st Cor 12:1 as "spiritual matters", or "spiritual things".

1st Cor 12:2-3 is speaking of a spiritual matter or thing (in this case two different types of worship and 'speaking':


1Co 12:2-3 KJV (2) Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. (3) Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.


These are spiritual matters, but these two verses are not talking about any 'gifts'.  I see these two verses speaking much to 'worship' and the two types of worship in contrast set forth between the two verses.



But I will not go further into that issue, at this point, lest I rewrite my nearly 500 page analysis of 1st Cor 12-14 into this forum.  (Too many rabbits to chase for this forum and this thread.  LOL -- besides that Book has been a work in progress for nearly 25 years now, and extremely technical and the apparatus with all the language and font switches is daunting at the present.)





Those three chapters should have been divided up as one chapter, together they are a whole, chapters 12, 13, and 14.  Just my opinion. All three speak to spiritual matters and not only 'the gifts'.

I wish to get back to the topic of this "man-child".

Jarhead wrote:Likewise, adding gifts to the 1Cor15 passage would be equally nonsensical.

I do concur there. 

1Co 15:42-44 ---　 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 　(43)　 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 　(44)　 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.


"There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual gift body." would indeed be 'strange' but we do see there that there is a spiritual matter, one of a spiritual body.. so having a spiritual body would be a spiritual matter -- and perhaps by extension such a spiritual body might be seen as a form of a spiritual gift.. but that takes some deeper thinking to get there.





BTW. the verse 44's Greek does reveal something that is somewhat hidden in most of the English translations.  I bring this up because I see some relevance to Rev 12:4-5.

I preface this with that fact that most of us, when seeing the term natural body, will be thinking of the physical body, that of flesh, bone, and blood.  But the Greek does not use the term for the physical.


1Co 15:44 GNT-TR σπειρεται σωμα ψυχικον εγειρεται σωμα πνευματικον εστιν σωμα ψυχικον και εστιν σωμα πνευματικον

A soma psuchikon, a psyche-i-cal body, a body of soul, not physical flesh, bone, and blood body.  A Psychical Body and there is a Spiritual Body.   Psyche is the Greek word for the Hebrew Nephesh in the LXX for 'a living soul' of Genesis Two.  From the Greek one could have translated that as "a living psyche" and be saying the same thing.  As least as far as the priests doing that LXX's Hebrew to Greek translation were concerned.

Robert's morphology at least has psuchikon as an adjective, nominative, singular, neuter. 

Jesus Christ born of Mary, with a physical body of flesh, bone, and blood, taking part of his flesh from Mary.  The First Birth, the birth through water.  Then at his baptism of John having the Spirit come down upon his, can be seen as a gift, a unique gift of from the Holy Spirit, has this spirit upon him.  On his death and resurrection, however, this is a type of new-birth, and he is then in a sense born-again of the Spirit of God, now getting his Spiritual Body.  Linguistically speaking a switch from Jesus Christ a linguistic singular, masculine, to a linguistic singular, neuter as the linguistic gender is neuter that of the spiritual body.  Perhaps this effectively deals with the linguistic gender switch from the linguistic masculine to the linguistic neuter.  Perhaps this help 'solve' the problem of the gender switch in Rev 12:4-5.  Christ Jesus now having a spiritual body, the linguistic gender would be neuter.  Whereas Jesus Christ before his resurrection before his death had the physical body (an a psychical body?) would in that case have the linguistic masculine gender.

This approach is something I have been working over for the past 15 or some years, as a thesis.

Christ Jesus is the first with a spiritual body, we at this point are yet yearning for our own spiritual body that we have come to believe will be given to us at our gathering together unto our Lord, Christ Jesus.

There are some theologians of the Roman Catholic Church that have this Woman in Rev 12, be attributed to Mary.  Many other theologians see her being Israel, yet without, in many cases, dealing with the problem/issue of which Israel they are speaking about.

Paul tells us in so many words, and yet we do have to derive this understanding from his words, that the Gentiles (that is all the nations of the earth) are grafted into the natural olive tree which represents the 'family tree' of Israel-Jacob and his descendants.  In that figure the wild olive tree represents all of the Gentiles.  

I ask you: "What you are meaning by the term "corporate" Israel?, just for some clarification.

Once the Gentiles are grafted into that Israel (the natural olive tree spoken of by Paul) then it would appear that all mankind now is a part of the natural olive tree, and hence all mankind is that particular "Israel".  The question then becomes when and if a particular individual of this 'modified natural olive tree" has accepted the Messiah of Israel, that is to say, Israel's Messiah.  If one of this modified Israel has not yet accept  Jesus as the Christ, then at this point in time one could call them one of the Unfaithful of Israel.

In this thesis then, one of the modified natural olive tree that has or does accept Jesus as Christ, he now is no longer Jew nor Gentile but as Paul puts it 'a new man now being in Christ and Christ in him'.  Such a one I would classify as one of Faithful Israel.

Still this is yet just a thesis.



In the next post I will set forth a possible handling of Rev 12:4-5 that might as an application of some of the principles of semantics and syntax with the meaning folded back to reveal something  that might be interesting and perhaps helpful.

In short, it might be possible and valid to derive an understanding of Rev 12:4-5 in the sense of:

-amplified- (4) And this dragon's tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast that third part of the stars of heaven to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her being-born again child of God as soon as this being-born again child of God was born.  
(5)  And the woman brought forth a man child {meaning a son, Jesus Christ}, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron {who had not yet ruled -- even though having been born -- because he had not yet ascended to heaven}: and her newly born-again child of God * {now styled as Christ Jesus} was caught up unto God, and to his throne. {and then having ascended he, Christ Jesus, begins his ruling.}

Given this derived interpretation and understanding based on the grammar and word meanings, one would see that perhaps thinking of this "Child", as not the Church. But rather the individual born-again Christian... the first to be born-again of the Spirit being Jesus Christ himself, hence the switch from the phrase "Jesus Christ" to "Christ Jesus".  Even in this view it remains difficult to see who the woman represents.

"In Christ Jesus there is neither Male nor Female but one new Adam-kind."*

Another way to handle this is this second version:

-amplified v.2- (4) And this dragon's tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast that third part of the stars of heaven to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour the Church as soon as the Church was born.  
(5)  And the woman brought forth Jesus Christ, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron {who had not yet ruled -- even though having been born -- because he had not yet ascended to heaven}: and the Church was caught up unto God, and to his throne. {and then having ascended the Church, begins its rule.} 

In that view, those that would argue that 'the woman' is the Church would then have the Church giving birth to itself.

In that view, those that would argue that "the woman" is Mary, well, it would then have Mary giving birth to Jesus Christ and the Church.

In another of that view, those that would argue that "the woman" is Israel, then would have Israel giving birth to the Church.  And if Israel is the Church then we are right back to the Church giving birth to the Church.

In over 1,700 years this issue of who the woman represents has had three main candidates for her identity, 1.) The Church, 2.) Mary, 3.) Israel.

Under item 3 there is a sub-set of those that think this woman represents the psyche of Israel, as a form of psychical body, the faithful psyche (i.e., soul) of Israel one that is looking forward to the Messiah such as Elizabeth and Mary as well as John the Baptist, and Simeon, and Zacharias, such as we find in Luke's account in his Gospel.

As an exercise one can recast the entire chapter and substitute in the identify of the woman, as each of these four possibilities and then one will see where the problems are with each possibilities.   One might discover just why this issue as to her identity has remained mainly unresolved over the past at least 1,700 years.  This is a tough nut to crack.  Some have even advocated that she is as if a type of a Wife of God -- perhaps a usage like Sophia (Wisdom) is portrayed in the Old Testament.  Some have thought that she is not Israel per sae but rather Judah -- or even the House of David, and as the King of Kings has twelve vassal kings or princes of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.  

One thing which remains with me on this issue is that this woman is not of the realm of flesh and blood, but of the Soul -- I cannot see her being 'corporate Israel' unless one is speaking of a collective corporate Soul -- are souls to be called 'corporate'?  I do not know.

Quote Askakido:

>>I ask you: "What you are meaning by the term "corporate" Israel?, just for some clarification.

Once the Gentiles are grafted into that Israel (the natural olive tree spoken of by Paul) then it would appear that all mankind now is a part of the natural olive tree, and hence all mankind is that particular "Israel".  The question then becomes when and if a particular individual of this 'modified natural olive tree" has accepted the Messiah of Israel, that is to say, Israel's Messiah.  If one of this modified Israel has not yet accept  Jesus as the Christ, then at this point in time one could call them one of the Unfaithful of Israel.

In this thesis then, one of the modified natural olive tree that has or does accept Jesus as Christ, he now is no longer Jew nor Gentile but as Paul puts it 'a new man now being in Christ and Christ in him'.  Such a one I would classify as one of Faithful Israel.<<

For purposes of the Rev 12 discussion, I'd classify corporate Israel as 'religious' Jews as well as those of Hebrew genetic identity.  (The 'Jewish' component of triptych Jew/Gentile/New Man.)

To my way of thinking 'Faithful' Israel are those Messianic believers in Yeshua, which of course would put them in the New Man category.

However, 'faithful' could also mean 'religious' Jews ~ those observant to the Jewish religion still awaiting Messiah.

An unbelieving (in Yeshua) and unreligious Jew remains a Hebrew subjected to the promises of God.

God will sort it out. 

Ask, perhaps a touch of Occam's razor is needed for this one.

The Apostle John wrote all this circa 90AD ~ it's clearly identified as prophecy, therefore cannot be speaking of Mary's birth of Yeshua.

The Book of Revelation describes very clearly, a time of hell on earth ~ God's wrath upon all evil.  Other prophets also describe this time, and they described it as coming to Israel.

Isaiah 66:7-8

Before she was in labor, she gave birth;
Before her pain came,
She delivered a male child.
Who has heard such a thing?
Who has seen such things?
Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day?
Or shall a nation be born at once?
For as soon as Zion was in labor,
She gave birth to her children.



Revelation 12:1-5

Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.  She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.  Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.


Daniel Matson comments clearly:



When John uses huios with male (arsen) in verse 5, he is “guilty” of bad grammar. Huios is masculine and arsen is in the neuter, but this is not a mistake in the least. John is basically copying the Greek from the LXX in Isaiah 66:7. He is using an Old Testament reference that he wants the reader to understand and see the parallel. This will then unlock why he used huios first with teknon at the end of Revelation 12:5.



Isaiah 66 coupled with Revelation 12 is amazing. First we see that the Woman delivers the Male-Child before the pain of childbirth. Isaiah makes it clear that this is not natural that the Child comes before the labor. This fits the scenario of Revelation 12:5 where the Child is born and taken to God before the Woman (Israel) goes into the Tribulation (labor). Isaiah then makes clear that this birth happens in one day and that the earth gives this birth (Isaiah 26:19-21). Furthermore, this is the birth of a nation. This male child is thus a corporate body. Therefore, the Male-Child of Revelation is a corporate body and this agrees with the similar corporate imagery of the Woman and Dragon. The Woman is the Nation of Israel and the Dragon is Satan heading up his whole world system. The Male-Child is then the corporate Body of Christ with Christ as its head and the Church as its body. The consistent New Testament picture of Christ and the Church is of one body (1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12:4-6, Ephesians 5:23). The Church is also called His bride, but this is the same concept since a man and woman are to be unified in one unit–the two shall be one flesh. This unity is strengthened by the Book of Revelation 2:26-28.



The Body of Christ, the Church, is caught up to Heaven to join the Lord. The corporate body is unified before it can conduct its judgement and rule.  As Isaiah 66 says, this nation will be born in one day. In one day, in the twinkling of an eye, the Church will be born again through its promised resurrection and rapture to the Lord. Before Jesus Christ breaks the seals of Revelation, the Church will be there at God’s throne as the corporate body. This fits the scene of Revelation 4-5.

It must also be noted that harpazo is the word reserved for the Rapture and it refers to the snatching away by a thief. This word was not used in the Ascension of Christ. The thief imagery is also consistent with the fact that the Day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5). But be careful, Paul explains further that those in the light should not be caught by surprise. Those caught in the world system will be.

It is also important in understanding the Man-Child concept to consider Micah 5:2-3.    


But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting.”

Therefore He shall give them up,
Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth;
Then the remnant of His brethren
Shall return to the children of Israel.


Jesus was born in Bethlehem and He was to be ruler, but instead was rejected, died, and ascended to heaven. Jesus then gave up Israel and called out a people for His name (Acts 15:4). Jesus gives Israel up until the time the Woman gives birth. That birth then is the birth of the Man-Child–the Church, the Body of Christ when it is transformed and taken to heaven. After that birth, the remnant of the Nation of Israel will return. The remaining entire Nation of Israel will be saved after the seven years.

Clearly then, Revelation 12:5 is the description of the Rapture of the Body of Christ to the throne of God. With the Sign of the Woman this September 23, 2017, it is time to be Rapture ready. The Church will soon put on what is incorruptible via the Rapture and then the rest of the world will face the Tribulation of seven years. These final seven years are for Israel (Daniel 9:24, 27) who will become the primary source for evangelism in a world under judgement. Christ will be preparing the way to rule the planet and will rid the earth of the wicked, then the Messianic Kingdom will exist with the ruling of the Man-Child. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven!



I refer you to his article: Rev 12 ~ Birth Before Labor?


http://watchfortheday.org/manchild.html

Definitely some iron sharpening iron going on in this thread.

Awake.Sleeper who produced the video said several times "Jesus Christ is always Huios, never teknon." Seems it was John who uses Huios for Jesus Christ only. Looks like at least in Matthew huios is used for son other than Jesus Christ. Appreciate you pointing that out Ask. 


From Strong's, under the G5207 Huios entry...
(3) The Apostle John does not use huios; "son," of the believer; he reserves that title for the Lord; but he does use teknon, "child," as in his Gospel...


Iron sharpens iron,
So one man sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17

Jarhead wrote:Ask, perhaps a touch of Occam's razor is needed for this one.

The Apostle John wrote all this circa 90AD ~ it's clearly identified as prophecy, therefore cannot be speaking of Mary's birth of Yeshua.

The Book of Revelation describes very clearly, a time of hell on earth ~ God's wrath upon all evil.  Other prophets also describe this time, and they described it as coming to Israel.

Isaiah 66:7-8

Before she was in labor, she gave birth;
Before her pain came,
She delivered a male child.
Who has heard such a thing?
Who has seen such things?
Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day?
Or shall a nation be born at once?
For as soon as Zion was in labor,
She gave birth to her children.



Revelation 12:1-5

Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.  She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.  Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.


Daniel Matson comments clearly:



When John uses huios with male (arsen) in verse 5, he is “guilty” of bad grammar. Huios is masculine and arsen is in the neuter, but this is not a mistake in the least. John is basically copying the Greek from the LXX in Isaiah 66:7. He is using an Old Testament reference that he wants the reader to understand and see the parallel. This will then unlock why he used huios first with teknon at the end of Revelation 12:5.



Isaiah 66 coupled with Revelation 12 is amazing.
<snip>

Occam's razor insists that we do in fact use all of the available data.  In study of Scripture that really means using all the Scripture, not merely snippets of it.  And it is a tough task, indeed.  Leaving that alone, I thank you from bringing in Isaiah 66:7-8 in specific.

(I will be reading through Mason's commentary -- have no further comment on his comments at this time.)


But to not belabor the point about the "male-child" nor the "children" further, because I want to bring up the given 'identity' of the Woman in Isa 66:8:

I want to focus on the pronouns here.

Isa 66:7-8 KJV  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.

Or should we back up a verse to perhaps get a better context?

Isa 66:6 KJV  A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.

In the LXX of this, the word used for the city is poleoos (a noun, genative, singular, feminine.)
In the LXX of this, the word used for the temple is naou (a noun, genative, singular, masculine.)

The "she" (in the LXX it is there Grk: then, a definite article, accuastive, singular, feminine -- 'she') of verse 7 could be referring to this city, but not to this temple.  Begging the question of which city it is speaking of.  So we read and analyze onward.

The answer to that question of "Which city?" is found in verse 8 "... as soon as Zion travailed, she (Zion) brought forth her children."  Perhaps a child, a male-child being born, first, but wait.. don't close the womb, there are more children 'in there" waiting to also get born.

The city is Zion. 

(The LXX spells it as Sion, with a Sigma, not a Zeta, the Hebrew has the Z spelling, Zion -- fwiw)

What is Zion? 
(A word search of the whole Scriptures might be appropriate in one's study on the term Zion. There are 153 verses in the KJV Old Testament with the word, Zion, in them.  Perhaps study every single one of them, in context, in their semantics and they syntax.)

Is Zion a City? 
Was there, is there, a City called Zion?  Yes.  It is otherwise known as the City of David -- If I am not mistaken.

Isn't Zion a city within the City of Jerusalem?

Is Jerusalem ever symbolized also as a Woman in the Old and New Testament?  But the verse says, Zion, and not Jerusalem.  The verse says Zion and not Israel.  But is Israel in the Old Testament also symbolized as a Woman?  Yes.  But here in verse 8 it speaks of Zion, not Jerusalem, and not Israel.

John in Revelations Twelve is pretty much quoting or even copying Isaiah 66.  In Isa 66:8 we see Zion, not Israel, not "the Church". And here in Isaiah 66:7-8 the figure is that of a woman going into labor.  This Woman of Isa 66:8 is Zion!

So, riddle me this:  Who is the Woman in Revelation Twelve in that part?

Is she Israel?  Is Israel ever called a City, like the City of Israel?  We do find a Kingdom of Israel.

Is she the Church? Is the Church every called a City, like the City of the Church?

Is she Jerusalem? Is Jeursalem ever called a City, such as the City of Jerusalem? Of course,

Or is she Zion?  Is Zion ever called a City, such as the City of Zion?  In that context we do find a City of David. (e.g., see 2nd Samuel 5:7 and 1st Ch 11:5, many other examples)

Throughout the whole of the Old Testament, Is Zion ever symbolized as a Woman?


And as has pointed out, this prophecy mostly is yet future in this 21st Century, except for the birth of Christ Jesus which has been fulfilled, and the many have already been born-again -- there are more to come. 

Why?  Because not all of Zion's children have been born yet!  The first born of Zion was Christ Jesus -- the first born son.  I could almost put that as "the first born-again son."  Except that 'born-again' was perhaps not from the same 'gift of the holy Spirit' as would come on the day of Pentecost.. at least I don't think so.  Would have to dig much deeper to defend that assertion.  Christ Jesus had to send that 'gift of the Holy Spirit" from GOD on tha today of Pentecost -- in the fullness of time.

Jesus Christ first born of a physical body (taking part of the flesh from Mary, as such a son of Adam (as Mary was a daughter of Adam and Eve). yet begotten by the Spirit of God and hence the uniquely begotten son of God -- unlike Adam's being called a son of God -- Adam being completely formed, made, and created without any being born of a daughter of Eve), and a pychical body (a Soul Body, if one could put it that way)... but until his death and resurrection not yet having recieved his own Spiritual Body. Upon Jesus' resurrection Paul applies a lingusitic shift from "Jesus Christ" to "Christ Jesus", perhaps to show that now when Paul was writing, Jesus had been resurrected and having received his spiritual body and then ascended into heaven. Flesh and blood of the physcial body cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.


This Woman is definitely not Mary.. Mary is never alluded to in the Scriptures as a City.

Substituting back the noun for the pronoun of Isa 66:7-8 we get:

-- 66:7-8 ---  Before Zion travailed, Zion brought forth; before Zion's pain came, Zion 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, Zion brought forth Zion's children.

Isa 66:9 KJV  "Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth?" saith the LORD.  "Shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb?" saith thy God.

Nooo.. there are more yet "in there" soon to come out.  The LORD as if a Husband delivering children.

Praise the LORD for his abundant grace and mercy.

Jarhead wrote:I refer you to his article: Rev 12 ~ Birth Before Labor?


http://watchfortheday.org/manchild.html

Thank you, I will be reading that too.

In the vernacluar to me, its like a woman who is pregnant just sitting down one day, just to rest, no contractions at all have started: and Behold, the baby just falls out... no labor, no pain... just 'plop' yet baby is just fine and so is she.  Yikes!  At least that is the mental picture I get when I read that. (had to add in that in this case the Husband was right they to keep the baby from hitting the ground.)

First, the man child:

Isa 66:7 KJV  Before she [Zion] travailed, she [Zion] brought forth;
before her [Zion's] pain came,
she [Zion] was delivered of a man child.

Yet, it is a bit different where the rest of the births of Zion's other children are concerned.  Zion does travail when bringing for her other children.

Isa 66:8 KJV  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.

Tryphena wrote:Definitely some iron sharpening iron going on in this thread.

Awake.Sleeper who produced the video said several times "Jesus Christ is always Huios, never teknon." Seems it was John who uses Huios for Jesus Christ only. Looks like at least in Matthew huios is used for son other than Jesus Christ. Appreciate you pointing that out Ask. 


From Strong's, under the G5207 Huios entry...
(3) The Apostle John does not use huios; "son," of the believer; he reserves that title for the Lord; but he does use teknon, "child," as in his Gospel...


Iron sharpens iron,
So one man sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17

 A quick search of hios in the Gospels of the TR gives 134 verses found.  The  hion search reveals 57 verses. Then there are the hiou uses, 16 verse found in the TR Gospels.  Three different Greek parts of speech in those three spellings.  And not all of the refer to Jesus.

On thing about using a computerized Bible system (offline or online) is that doing the searches with them can reveal all sorts of things, and help one to get sharp.

So one man sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17. 

And thank you.

I wish we were on the same page Ask, here on NRD we have shared much joy and excitement pertaining to Revelation 12, especially verses 1-5 these past 5 months as September 23, 2017 approaches. A couple of other articles posted & discussed are from the website A Little Strength, 2 articles in particular The Sky Don't Lie & Rapture Redux.

http://www.alittlestrength.com/articles/2017/1703-sky-dont-lie.htm

http://www.alittlestrength.com/articles/2016/1607-redux.htm


Here on NRD...
https://narrowroaddepot.forumotion.com/search?search_keywords=Rapture+Redux