Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Revelation 12, past or future?


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

READ THIS:I am not dogmatic about this. A person can have a walk with God, go soul winning, live a christian life, without every studying Revelation. I don't insist that I'm right, I don't think I'm wrong, I don't care either way. IF YOU SEE a biblical problem with this, please point it out. IF you see a hole in logic, point it out. Please don't just attack me because your opinion is different, or because you where taught otherwise. I'm not saying works salvation here, it's not a dogmatic issue. I only say this because I don't want 200 posts of calling me a doodie head.

This is a long post, because this is the result of a bible study. If you're not interested in deep studies on the topic, by all means skip it. I tried my best to back everything up with bible, not opinion, please do the same if you disagree.


Is Revelation chapter 12 past present or future?

It is said that the devil's greatest trick, was to make men think he doesn't exist.
I say his next best trick, is to fool the church who knows he exists, that he's not here all the time

Chapter 12 of revelation is preceded by the ending of chapter 11:
Revelation 11:19 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.

This is what John sees through chapter 12, this opening of the ark of his testament. There are 3 opening in the book of revelation:
Revelation 4:1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I do not have the time to refute your whole post - and frankly, I disagree with most of it, therefore it would take a lot to refute. But here is one point which will affect some interpretation of Revelation chapter 12:

Genesis 37:9-10 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

Revelation 12:1-2 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

The woman is Israel - the twelve stars represent the twelve tribes according to Joseph's dream. We are to rightly divide the Word of truth by comparing Scripture with Scripture - and Genesis 37 is the only other place in the Word of God where we will see the symbolism in Revelation 12:1 used.

The 1260 days refer to 3 1/2 years (42 months times 30 days each) - this is also equivalent to the term time, times, and half a time used in the book of Revelation. These all refer to one half of the seven year Tribulation period - split in half by the abomination of desolation where the Antichrist desecrates the temple and sets himself up as God, gets indwelt by Satan, then goes on a rampage killing Jews and Christians worldwide.

Revelation 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

As this period of 3 1/2 years is half of the tribulation period - it obviously refers to the future, not the past. Yes, the first few verses in the chapter refer to the past - ie. Israel having a child (Jesus, the Messiah) who was then caught up to Heaven (His ascension). But as the chapter bears out, the war happens after this point in time, THEN immediately after he goes after the women (Israel) and attempts to wipe her out.

Revelation 12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

Revelation 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

These time periods refer to either the first half or the second half of the tribulation period - therefore they are not past events, but still future.

Notice the connection to the following verses:

Revelation 12:7-9 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 12:12-17 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. 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.

Immediately after being cast out he went on his rampage and sought to wipe out the woman for 3 1/2 years. If that referred to the past, then this 3 1/2 year period was also past - in fact, it would have happened before John even penned this book - which would have been pointless to give us the prophecy of these events then.

P.S. The remnant of her seed is the remnant of Israel - those believing Jews who get saved during the Tribulation - those will be the ones protected if they flee to the place prepared for her. All other true believers will face possible martyrdom by beheading through the activity of the false prophet when the mark of the beast is introduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I've seen these arguments, mostly in Dr.Penticost's books, and I'm very familiar with them. I will wait for you to finish your rebut, instead of answering these, and the argument becomes only about these points. I mainly take this stance to see what you'll say about the other points, but also so I can take any problems you see and answer them one by one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am finished. If we can't agree that the 1260 days refers to the tribulation period, then we won't get too far in this thread. You say it is past, I believe it is still future - not much common ground there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

:amen: Jerry.

QG,

After Rev. 3 is past then everything else in Revelation is future. I.E. Rev. 4:1 is the Rapture, which is still future for us.

No, you cannot ignore or disregard Revelation and expect to be a good and true Bible student, or a good soul-winner, or a good Christian, or a good anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That's a good point, PE. Chapter one gives John an explanation of the book of Revelation:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

the things which thou hast seen - ie. the risen Christ.

the things which are - the seven churches (ie. the church age).

the things which shall be hereafter - the events of the tribulation as covered in the remainder of the book.

We are still in the church age, so there is no way the events of the rest of the book have happened yet. Look at this verse:

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

After the church age, then the rapture (being caught up to Heaven), then the tribulation unfolds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
No' date=' you cannot ignore or disregard Revelation and expect to be a good and true Bible student, or a good soul-winner, or a good Christian, or a good anything else.[/quote']

I don't need a retraction on this, I just need to point out that you need to be watchful of what you post. First, I don't ignore nor disregard Revelation, this post was started ABOUT revelation. Second, soul winning is to bring people to accept the salvation offered by the sacrifice of Jesus for the sin of man, and this can be done without the book of revelation if needed; to say I am wrong about something in revelation makes me a not a good soul winner, is to say because I don't conform to either a populous view, or your view, I am some how not a good Christian. Third.. not a good anything else; this is, at it's very foundation, it's walls, and it's ceiling; insulting, low brow, ignorant comment that you need to think upon your saying of it. You are making a blanket comment that I fail at my service to God, my service to my earthly employer, my service to family, to friends, to strangers, all because I dare to question points about a chapter of Revelation.
Advice to you:
Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Reason I don't accept the "status quo" without personal study:
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Why I would use a IFB forum to do the above:
Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

ok.. now, I wouldn't be so bold as to point all that out so harshly, except that I made it clear in the very start of the post what I expected. Now lets move on:

Jerry.. First, thank you very much for the time put into this, you've obviously read my post to fruition, disagree, and would like to point out errors you see, which is what I had requested.

Lets address the 1260 days as you have pointed out. Now, I cannot afford the time right now to go into detail, so I shall submit my plans, because you may have knowledge I do not know that you can save easily give answers to these:
1) How long were Mary, Joseph, Jesus in Egypt after the birth, to flee from Herod. Could this be 3.5 years? Secular dating puts the death of Herod 2 years before the birth of Jesus, which could not be because it was the original Herod they fled from. I trust the bible, not secular dating on this one, so I need to research more, if possible, how long they where in Egypt. I take into account the sons of Herod, who are also known as "Herod".
2) A double meaning on the time-line, like many things in the bible. A time in the past mimics a time in the future. I can give examples if you wish, but I don't think I need too with you.
3) I put Revelation Chapter 12 at the time of the birth/life of Christ. This would fit with your quote of revelation 1:19
4) I have made a strong case for the tie between chapter 12, and the last verse of chapter 11. I have not said the woman is not Israel, I have made it a point to clarify that for my argument, who the woman is does not matter. God being just, and thorough, my argument is that chapter 12 of revelation in whole or in part shows the spiritual background to what was happening at the time of Jesus, to give that understanding to man. On the surface, this is apparent to any layman, but you refute it with "this is that and that is this" meanings in deep biblical study. This is the argument, that God's word is hard to understand, that the common man is below the word of God, and that only special people are gifted with this knowledge. Showing a flash back, a right of action, a reason for authority, would not be against God's character. I have given simple arguments for, and you have refuted it with complicated arguments against. I believe that God gave us His word so that all could understand, so if something is not literally apparent, please give your scriptural backing.

(Note: You did this greatly with the genesis/revelation link to show that the woman is Israel, good form! Second, I'm not trying to be insulting or dismiss what you're saying, I just would like the greatest of care put into all things said.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

God wants His people to understand His Word - but He does not want them to do so without time and effort put into studying and meditating upon it. In the book of Revelation is much symbolism - comparing the symbols used in Revelation with the rest of the Bible will give us the true meaning of each symbol.

As far as possibly Mary and Joseph fleeing to Egypt - that doesn't fit. The woman fled to the wilderness AFTER the child is caught up to Heaven (ascended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Yes, obvious point that I if I wasn't posting at 1am, I would of never brought up lol. Sorry about that.

We could examine though, the persecution of early Christians by the synagogues, Romans, and others, as well as the persecution of the Jews because of the revolt against Rome not too long after Christ. I' m pretty sure those that none of these would fit the time line without some serious manipulation and not literal examination.

The problem that arises though, is we have this woman in revelation 12 giving birth to the Christ child, and after Christ goes to Heaven, a war breaks out. Losing the war, Satan goes after the woman, but she is protected. Between the casting down of Satan, and the hiding of the woman, we have verse 10, declaring that salvation has come. The time that salvation came to earth, was when Jesus paid the price. This would put the war in heaven in the past at the very least.

You've said that verse 1-3 is past (I think it was you)
If verse 5 though is future, then Jesus will be making a third coming at the end of the tribulation, with a second coming via birth in the middle of the tribulation.

Now, you can also look at it as a replay, that the thousand two hundred and threescore days is the exact same as the time, times, and half a time. If the war in heaven by earth's view happened instantly, over at the same time it started (time was invented by God, we have no way of knowing if time in Heaven passes like time on earth)

How it would read, is that God sends the woman into the wilderness for 3.5 years, and then it talks of the war in Heaven. The war is won and Satan is cast down. Satan, angry over this goes after the woman, which is why God sent her to the wilderness for 3.5 years. It can very easily be seen as a linear story with flash backs for causes of effects.

We can touch on some of these explanations later, I put them out mainly so you can mull them a bit. My main question for you is, at what point does Rev 12 go from past, to future, in your opinion. It can't all be future, so where do you draw the line, and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Just so you guys don't get bored in an almost solo conversation there are those that posit the woman is the church. The 1260 are the years she spent in the wilderness - Catholic Church becomes formal in the 300's, 1260 years later the church quits "dwelling in the wilderness" and comes out in the "protestant" reformation. Not positing an opinion, just giving info on another view. I myself will state I have no "firm" opinion as I am still researchng the subject - which is why I am reading and commenting now.

Wayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The child referred to in Rev. 12 has confused me - it says, Rev. 12.5, "And she brought forth a man child who was to rule over all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up unto God and to His Throne." I thought at first this was about the one world ruler, until the rest of the verse, about the child being caught up unto God. Still a little unclear, lol, but I can see where the Child could be Jesus.

I've been watching for the one world ruler, though - not too hard I hope, lol!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
The child referred to in Rev. 12 has confused me - it says, Rev. 12.5, "And she brought forth a man child who was to rule over all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up unto God and to His Throne." I thought at first this was about the one world ruler, until the rest of the verse, about the child being caught up unto God. Still a little unclear, lol, but I can see where the Child could be Jesus.

I've been watching for the one world ruler, though - not too hard I hope, lol!


Based on the description used there, it is referring to Jesus Christ:

1) Born of the woman mentioned at the start of the chapter - Genesis 37 is a parallel passage showing the woman is Israel.

2) Jesus is her child - the child that is to rule all nations. See Psalm 2.

3) Jesus ascended to Heaven (no one else ever has).

4) Also, the dragon sought to kill the child - the dragon is satan, but it also is the empire ruled by him at the time (Rome - and Herod was ruling under Rome).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Just to be certain...so the woman in Rev.12 is Israel, correct? Because the church did not bring forth Christ, but rather He brought forth the church. Is this correct? because I'm reading several commentaries that it insist the woman is the church. Thanks in advance!

Love,
Madeline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think we would all agree that any symbolism in the Bible is also explained elsewhere throughout the Bible.

Revelation 12:1-2 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

This symbolism is only used in the following passage:

Genesis 37:9-10 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

According to Joseph's dream, the sun, moon and twelve stars represent Jacob and Rachel, and Jacob's 12 sons. Therefore the woman only fits Israel. That makes sense - because the Messiah came through Israel (and there are OT passages that talk about the nation giving birth, etc.). As a child, the devil (and the empire ruled by him) sought to kill Him, and later He ascends to Heaven. Fits Jesus. He is to be the one who would rule the nations with a rod of iron - again, only Jesus fits this description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just to be certain...so the woman in Rev.12 is Israel, correct? Because the church did not bring forth Christ, but rather He brought forth the church. Is this correct? because I'm reading several commentaries that it insist the woman is the church. Thanks in advance!

Love,
Madeline


Jerry said it greatly with biblical reference, but I'll just spell it out:
Jesus came from Israel the woman of rev chapt 12, and it was Jesus that started the church.
The woman, in revelation chapter 12, is attributed to Israel by most biblical scholars, with deviation mainly coming from apocalyptic churches (ones who think the end is near, we're at the end, know the date of the end, ect ect. )
The church couldn't of brought forth Jesus, sins had not been paid for yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...