Scott Clark on u-Tube’s “the Revelation 12 thief legendado”, makes the case for the rapture “harpazo” of the church based on 1 Thess’ context of the thief. In doing so he contends that the thief coming of the Lord confuses Israel who is the woman in Revelation 12, but that it does not confuse the church who he says is the son of the woman in Revelation 12. This son is according to him the church who is raptured.
So Israel he says will be confused and not know the signs of the Lords coming when the bride is raptured — “harpazoed”. But just how confused is Scott Clark on these points?
First in his argument he assumes the day of the Lord to be the tribulation, yet Paul distinctly says: 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (the day of the Lord) will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
The day of the Lord Paul says will not come until there is a falling away (apostasy) and a revealing of the Antichrist in the Temple of God. Joel confirmed this and Jesus also confirmed it when He used the signs of Joel’s prophecy to teach about His coming to gather His saints in Matt 24.
Secondly, Scott says that the son of the woman (Israel) in Rev. 12 actually as a secondary meaning represents the church who is caught up. He claims this to be a dual meaning within this prophecy. In its first meaning the son of course is Jesus. Is he right about a second meaning? Many seem to be in agreement. It is possible for God to hide other meaning within scripture, but if this is the case where is the support for this? But consider this — if the church is prophesied as being the son of Israel (the woman) in this passage; then the offspring of the woman must also represent the church. Thus his discovery if somehow were proven true, it would only further substantiates the timing of the rapture —when will it occur. He claims it to be pre-Trib. So what does this passage actually teach if the harpazoed son is Israel’s son? Listen:
Revelation 12:6, 17 Then the woman (Israel) fled into the wilderness where she *had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
17. So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
After telling us that the woman (Israel) would be protected for 1260 days from Satan, John then says that her children her offspring, as they are called in other translations, are attacked by Satan. And this attack takes place at the same time of Israel’s protection. This attack takes place during Tribulation.
So if the “son” of the woman represents the church who is harpazoed, then the son must also be associated with the offspring of the woman who are recorded here as being present during the tribulation, which for Israel is her time of protection from Satan.
Also if one accepts Scott Clarks premises that this passage speaks of the rapture of the church, then they must also accept that the passage teaches the timing of this rapture to be post-Tribulational.
I attempt to make clear all of the questions surrounding the timing of this rapture in my book, AND THEN THE END SHALL COME.
But let me conclude this by saying that no matter if Scott is right or wrong concerning the Second meaning of the son of the woman in this passage, still one must deal with the offspring of Israel, who clearly are Jesus worshipers, and who clearly remove the argument that the church is not present within the Tribulation timeline.