War in heaven.

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Revelation 12:
7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”

1. Of all the angels, why was it Michael who fought Satan and threw him and his angels out of heaven?
2. Did this happen before creation week? If not, when did it happen, or when will it happen?
3. Does Satan and his angels still have access to God's throne?
4. In context what is chapter 12 and 13 about? That may help answer these questions.
 

Lion IRC

Active member
1. Of all the angels, why was it Michael who fought Satan and threw him and his angels out of heaven?

Maybe Michael was the first to volunteer.

2. Did this happen before creation week? If not, when did it happen, or when will it happen?

I think it happened the moment satan discovered God was about to create humans.

3. Does Satan and his angels still have access to God's throne?

You mean able to approach God? Communicate with God?
I would say so, yes.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Maybe Michael was the first to volunteer.



I think it happened the moment satan discovered God was about to create humans.



You mean able to approach God? Communicate with God?
I would say so, yes.
Interesting thoughts, but Michael had the authority to do it. Why? What was going on that would involve Michael, and not Gabriel or one of the other unnamed archangels.

Interesting thought about man.

Yes, the angels still have communication with God and is the accuser of the brethren, but for how long?
 

Lion IRC

Active member
Couldn't God grant whomever He wished the authority? Obviously, I don't know but I like to think Michael was the first to volunteer for the task. :)
 

Lion IRC

Active member
So I take it you don't think Michael could volunteer to fight satan and/or that God could allow him (authorise) him to do so.
Fair enough. I don't agree. But hey...this is theology 🙂
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
So I take it you don't think Michael could volunteer to fight satan and/or that God could allow him (authorise) him to do so.
Fair enough. I don't agree. But hey...this is theology 🙂

There is another reason why Michael was chosen by God. Every country has a presiding arch angel over it. Pagan countries have demon angels over them, like the Prince of Persia in Daniel 10 or 11. Michael is the archangel over Israel. This war will be right before the Great Tribulation when the blindness of Israel will be lifted and all Israel will be saved. It will be starting soon. Anyway, heaven will be cleansed of all demons.
 

cjab

Well-known member
1. Of all the angels, why was it Michael who fought Satan and threw him and his angels out of heaven?
Michael had a history of being appoint to exact vengeance on fallen angels or men.

In the Enoch and in Jude, there are references to the angels who fell to earth and defiled themselves with women. This may however be an allusion to the Anunnaki, a group of gods or demons in the Mesopotamian pantheon, who may have been later deified descendants of Adam who had sinned by contracting polygamous marriages with non-Adamic humans, cf. Nephilim & Gen 6:1-7.

Enoch Ch 9: "And the Lord said unto Michael: 'Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves 12 with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is 13 for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and 14 to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all 15 generations. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the Watchers, because 16 they have wronged mankind. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and let every evil work come to an end: and let the plant of righteousness and truth appear: and it shall prove a blessing; the works of righteousness and truth' shall be planted in truth and joy for evermore."

2. Did this happen before creation week? If not, when did it happen, or when will it happen?
Rev 12 is clearly alluding to Christ & his church.

3. Does Satan and his angels still have access to God's throne?
No, as Jesus saw satan fall from heaven light lightening.

In context what is chapter 12 and 13 about? That may help answer these questions.
Likely designed to represent the various forms of opposition which Satan would make to the church of Christ, under paganism and the papacy, after the fall of satan with the advent of Christ.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Rev 12 is clearly alluding to Christ & his church.

Of course, but not His Church's beginning, but its end. Revelation is about the second coming of Christ, not the first, and when the partial blindness of Israel will be removed so the rest of national Israel will come into the Church. They will recognize the two witnesses as the prophesied two olive trees of Zechariah 4.

You must be Preterist if you can't see this. They see all of Revelation as already happened.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Of course, but not His Church's beginning, but its end. Revelation is about the second coming of Christ, not the first, and when the partial blindness of Israel will be removed so the rest of national Israel will come into the Church. They will recognize the two witnesses as the prophesied two olive trees of Zechariah 4.
I don't follow you here. I have never come across your interpretation before. Where do you source it from?
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
I don't follow you here. I have never come across your interpretation before. Where do you source it from?
Revelation 11 is in reference to Zechariah 4.
The partial blindness being removed is from Romans 11 so all Israel shall be saved.
And the book of Revelation is about the Day of the Lord. 1 Cor. 1:7 eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (This is one of the Semitic writing styles called a parallelism. Here is shows revelation and day as referring to the same thing. It is also why Revelation is about the Day of the Lord, the second coming, and not Christ's first coming as Preterists believe.)

There are also other verses in the gospels and Thessalonians that help make my whole interpretation, which is much more than what I posted. BTW, I believe the two "witnesses" are Moses and Elijah who were with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. They are very important to Israel, and if anyone can turn their minds around it is them.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Revelation 11 is in reference to Zechariah 4.
The partial blindness being removed is from Romans 11 so all Israel shall be saved.
And the book of Revelation is about the Day of the Lord. 1 Cor. 1:7 eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (This is one of the Semitic writing styles called a parallelism. Here is shows revelation and day as referring to the same thing. It is also why Revelation is about the Day of the Lord, the second coming, and not Christ's first coming as Preterists believe.)

There are also other verses in the gospels and Thessalonians that help make my whole interpretation, which is much more than what I posted. BTW, I believe the two "witnesses" are Moses and Elijah who were with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. They are very important to Israel, and if anyone can turn their minds around it is them.
Zechariah 4 is referring to the building of the temple of the Lord. The analogy would be to building the temple of the church of God, the body of Christ. Every commentary I have ever read sees the church of Jesus being referred to in Rev 12.

This is the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary Overview
CHAPTER 12
Re 12:1-17. Vision of the Woman, Her Child, and the Persecuting Dragon.

1. This episode (Re 12:1-15:8) describes in detail the persecution of Israel and the elect Church by the beast, which had been summarily noticed, Re 11:7-10, and the triumph of the faithful, and torment of the unfaithful. So also the sixteenth through twentieth chapters are the description in detail of the judgment on the beast, &c., summarily noticed in Re 11:13, 18. The beast in Re 12:3, &c., is shown not to be alone, but to be the instrument in the hand of a greater power of darkness, Satan. That this is so, appears from the time of the eleventh chapter being the period also in which the events of the twelfth and thirteenth chapters take place, namely, 1260 days (Re 12:6, 14; Re 13:5; compare Re 11:2, 3).


As for Rev 11: there's scope for several interpretations. There are useful commentaries on biblehub for these chapters. I agree with the Revelation 11 / Zechariah 4 parallel. But not everything in Revelation concerns the day of the Lord itself. Zechariah 4 is about building up the church on earth. There's scope within Revelation to cover Christ's first and second coming and many things in between also. The two witnesses are likely symbolic: may be figurative for a small token church on earth cf. Jesus "Where two or three are gathered together in my name..." Also two witnesses was the minimum number of witnesses needed to establish truth. Deut 19:15, 2 Cor 13:1, I would prefer to see them as "the remnant church" rather than specific individuals.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Zechariah 4 is referring to the building of the temple of the Lord. The analogy would be to building the temple of the church of God, the body of Christ. Every commentary I have ever read sees the church of Jesus being referred to in Rev 12.

This is the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary Overview
CHAPTER 12
Re 12:1-17. Vision of the Woman, Her Child, and the Persecuting Dragon.

1. This episode (Re 12:1-15:8) describes in detail the persecution of Israel and the elect Church by the beast, which had been summarily noticed, Re 11:7-10, and the triumph of the faithful, and torment of the unfaithful. So also the sixteenth through twentieth chapters are the description in detail of the judgment on the beast, &c., summarily noticed in Re 11:13, 18. The beast in Re 12:3, &c., is shown not to be alone, but to be the instrument in the hand of a greater power of darkness, Satan. That this is so, appears from the time of the eleventh chapter being the period also in which the events of the twelfth and thirteenth chapters take place, namely, 1260 days (Re 12:6, 14; Re 13:5; compare Re 11:2, 3).


As for Rev 11: there's scope for several interpretations. There are useful commentaries on biblehub for these chapters. I agree with the Revelation 11 / Zechariah 4 parallel. But not everything in Revelation concerns the day of the Lord itself. Zechariah 4 is about building up the church on earth. There's scope within Revelation to cover Christ's first and second coming and many things in between also. The two witnesses are likely symbolic: may be figurative for a small token church on earth cf. Jesus "Where two or three are gathered together in my name..." Also two witnesses was the minimum number of witnesses needed to establish truth. Deut 19:15, 2 Cor 13:1, I would prefer to see them as "the remnant church" rather than specific individuals.

As I said in #10, yes it is about the Church, but the book of Revelation has to do with not only the entire church history in Revelation 2 and 3 - the seven church ages, but the leading up to the second coming, namely the Great Tribulation referred to in chapter 7, and detailed in chapters 12 and 13.

Are you also a Preterist or "partial" Preterist? Only seeing the beginning of the church sounds like it. I hope you don't let the Great Tribulation sneak up on you unawares like a thief in the night.

I don't need to refer to commentaries of doctrines of men as most are filled with doctrines of demons being passed down to every denomination. James 1:5-6 is the best commentary in the universe.
 

cjab

Well-known member
As I said in #10, yes it is about the Church, but the book of Revelation has to do with not only the entire church history in Revelation 2 and 3 - the seven church ages,
Who said anything ago seven church ages? Sounds gnostic.

but the leading up to the second coming, namely the Great Tribulation referred to in chapter 7, and detailed in chapters 12 and 13.
Re the "great tribulation." Why do you suppose there is only one "great tribulation?" Revelation comprises a whole series of tribulations. There was the great tribulation on the nation of Israel, which itself was a presage of great tribulations on subsequent unbelievers down the ages.

I do not subscribe to simplistic theories of just one "great tribulation" but I do believe that for the church, the first three or four centuries of the Roman Empire comprised a special tribulation, giving rise to many martyrs. I believe Revelation alludes to this specifically.

However I am open to being persuaded of other theories, but currently this one seems to be a good one. The severity of the persecutions levelled specifically on Christians in Roman times were scarcely equalled until Islam came along, which opened up new series of persecutions on Christians. Even before Islam, the Persians massacred circa 70,000-90,000 people in Jerusalem, many of them Christians, in one of their campaigns.

As for tribulations on the world in general, doubtless at the end, there will be a great tribulation; and many in between.

Any interpretation of Revelation will have to account for there being many great tribulations down the ages.

Are you also a Preterist or "partial" Preterist? Only seeing the beginning of the church sounds like it. I hope you don't let the Great Tribulation sneak up on you unawares like a thief in the night.
I concede that in respect of Matt 24, there was a partial fulfilment in AD70 in respect of the Jews, but by no means a complete fulfilment of the Matt 24 prophecy, which was a dual fulfilment prophey: part in AD70 (undeniably) with a second fulfilment on the return of Christ.

I don't need to refer to commentaries of doctrines of men as most are filled with doctrines of demons being passed down to every denomination. James 1:5-6 is the best commentary in the universe.
But on the other hand, even Jesus spent his youth being instructed in the scriptures. As for calling bible commentaries "doctrines of demons:" that is a gross exaggeration and ridiculous as a generalization. Many modern commentaries may well be that in offensively repudiating bona fide doctrines, such as women's headcoverings etc, which is an archetypal case of protestant antinomianism. But in the case of those predating the modern era of apostasy, they tend not to be so offensive. In the case of Revelation, their scope is usually limited to making bona fide suggestions, rather than providing definitive answers.
 
Last edited:

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Who said anything ago seven church ages? Sounds gnostic.

The Book of Revelation are prophecies. Revelation 2 and 3 are three-fold. Cities, types of Christians, and prophetic ages from the first century to the end, in order. And if you study church history you can see them plainly. Also by the wording which ones are over, and which ones overlap to the end. The last four starts with the RCC and Orthodox (Thyatira) which are the two legs of iron in Daniel, then the Reformation (Sardis), then the holiness age (Philadelphia) and lastly the lukewarm church (Laodecia) which we can plainly see when even old denominations which started out holy are allowing abominations spliting those denominations down the middle. The little Methodist church I sometimes go to left the United Methodists denomination over a practicing homosexual bishop. They are now a community church and will be affiliated elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Zechariah 4 is referring to the building of the temple of the Lord. The analogy would be to building the temple of the church of God, the body of Christ. Every commentary I have ever read sees the church of Jesus being referred to in Rev 12.

This is the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary Overview
CHAPTER 12
Re 12:1-17. Vision of the Woman, Her Child, and the Persecuting Dragon.

1. This episode (Re 12:1-15:8) describes in detail the persecution of Israel and the elect Church by the beast, which had been summarily noticed, Re 11:7-10, and the triumph of the faithful, and torment of the unfaithful. So also the sixteenth through twentieth chapters are the description in detail of the judgment on the beast, &c., summarily noticed in Re 11:13, 18. The beast in Re 12:3, &c., is shown not to be alone, but to be the instrument in the hand of a greater power of darkness, Satan. That this is so, appears from the time of the eleventh chapter being the period also in which the events of the twelfth and thirteenth chapters take place, namely, 1260 days (Re 12:6, 14; Re 13:5; compare Re 11:2, 3).


As for Rev 11: there's scope for several interpretations. There are useful commentaries on biblehub for these chapters. I agree with the Revelation 11 / Zechariah 4 parallel. But not everything in Revelation concerns the day of the Lord itself. Zechariah 4 is about building up the church on earth. There's scope within Revelation to cover Christ's first and second coming and many things in between also. The two witnesses are likely symbolic: may be figurative for a small token church on earth cf. Jesus "Where two or three are gathered together in my name..." Also two witnesses was the minimum number of witnesses needed to establish truth. Deut 19:15, 2 Cor 13:1, I would prefer to see them as "the remnant church" rather than specific individuals.

I have this commentary, but haven't found much true understanding in it.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The Book of Revelation are prophecies. Revelation 2 and 3 are three-fold. Cities, types of Christians, and prophetic ages from the first century to the end, in order. And if you study church history you can see them plainly. Also by the wording which ones are over, and which ones overlap to the end. The last four starts with the RCC and Orthodox (Thyatira) which are the two legs of iron in Daniel, then the Reformation (Sardis), then the holiness age (Philadelphia) and lastly the lukewarm church (Laodecia) which we can plainly see when even old denominations which started out holy are allowing abominations spliting those denominations down the middle. The little Methodist church I sometimes go to left the United Methodists denomination over a practicing homosexual bishop. They are now a community church and will be affiliated elsewhere.
Really can't understand this at all. The seven churches are types of spirituality relating to churches, certainly; but to assign them as sequential? I think you are just seeing what you want to see. These churches have existed in every age.
 

CharismaticLady

Well-known member
Really can't understand this at all. The seven churches are types of spirituality relating to churches, certainly; but to assign them as sequential? I think you are just seeing what you want to see. These churches have existed in every age.
Well, if you can't discern it, then you can't. I can. It is plain as day.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Well, if you can't discern it, then you can't. I can. It is plain as day.
Too many generalizations. Given the sheer number of believers, and the number of different churches, to pretend to be able to classify "all" churches in every age into one of these types is beyond human ability.

Obviously one can attempt to categorize the hierarchies of the principal denominations as this or that, but even within one single denomination, individual churches are often like chalk and cheese when it comes to spirituality.

I fear this kind of thing quickly turns into a purported demonstration of one's own spiritual superiority.
 
Top