We're going to be reading a passage that shows God bringing His kingdom through our weakness. Revelation 12, 1 through 6. A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being pregnant, she was crying out in labor, being in great pain to give birth. And another sign appeared in the sky. Behold, a dragon, huge, fiery red, having seven heads and ten horns, with seven diadems on his heads. And his tail grabbed a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth in order to devour her child as soon as she gave birth. And she bore a son, a male, who would shepherd all the nations with a rod of iron. And her child was snatched up to God, even to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness to where she has a place prepared by God so that they may nourish her there 1,260 days." Amen. Father, we thank you for your word, and as we dig into it, I pray that you would keep me from preaching error, that you would enable us to understand and to obey your word, to be changed by your word. Conform us to the image of your Son more and more, and we pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. Well, we're entering into a new section of the book that takes us back in time, even to before the time of Jesus' birth. And this section, chapters 12 through 15, constitutes the heart of the book of Revelation. Now let me remind you quickly of the structure of the book. I have passed out that big 11 by 17 structure in the past. There's extra copies in the back. But unlike Western ways of writing where we typically will start with the theme sentence and fill that out in the paragraph or start with a theme chapter and fill out the book, the Hebrews tended to, at least it was one of their methods of writing, was they tended to write the whole book toward the center of the book being the theme. So everything leading up to it would be leading to the theme and then it would lead away from that theme. We call that a chiastic structure. And so we saw that you can label the parts of Revelation as A, B, C, D, E, F. And then the second half fills out those themes in a parallel structure that's in reverse, E-D-C-B-A. And each of the seven main sections of this book starts with an introduction that gives really the heart of that section. Well, since this is the introduction, this whole chapter is the introduction to the section 12 through 15, to the heart of the book, you can really call chapter 12 the heart of the heart of the book. It means it's a really important chapter and it's important to understand it so we're not going to breeze over it quickly. Now one of the controversies that needs to be settled is the identity of the three main characters of this chapter. the dragon, the man-child, and the woman. And surprisingly, even though verse 9 clearly identifies the dragon as being Satan, there are a number of strange theories out there on how the dragon really is somebody else. And even though the man-child is clearly identified as Christ in verse 5, there are commentaries that say that the man-child is not Christ. It's something else. But today I want to focus on the identity of this fascinating woman in verse 1. And there actually isn't a huge amount of controversy on who she is. If you just discount all of the cultic views, there are a bunch of weird cultic views out there, many of whom claim that their particular leader, like Christian Science claims that their leader was the fulfillment of this symbolic woman here. So we'll discount those. We'll discount the dispensational, at least the historic dispensational view that says that this whole chapter is talking about the preservation of national Israel, unbelieving Israel for the future. But there are so many parts of this chapter that speak against that, that nowadays dispensationalists are even embarrassed by that and they're saying, no, that doesn't hold. But amongst Orthodox commentaries there are four main views. Most of the early church Most Protestants, even some Roman Catholics, have taken the woman as a corporate representation of God's people. Some say it's the Old Testament people. Some say it's the New Testament people. And some say it's both. I take it as referring to both as actually being a picture of the heavenly Zion. The Old Testament pictured Zion as being a woman who would have travail and birth prayings as she gave birth to Messiah. It was a very common picture in the Old Testament. But because the arguments in favor of this woman being Mary are considerably strong, I want to deal with that theory first. Before we dive into the meaning of the first two verses, Roman Catholic dogma claims that this passage clearly proves that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. In fact, they use this passage to prove that she was without sin, was assumed bodily up into heaven. heaven by way of a miracle. Some say shortly after her death and others say no she didn't die. She was assumed bodily up to heaven without dying. But they say it's clearly a bodily resurrection because her feet are on the moon. So she's got feet. She's not a disembodied person. They teach this chapter shows that she rules over all the universe as the queen of heaven. That she is the co-redemptrix with Christ and that she is the mother of the church. Now obviously there's plenty of other scriptures that I would disprove that Marian theology, but this is usually their go-to passage. In forums, on the books, you'll see this is a go-to passage. But even those who don't buy into Marian theology might be tempted to think that the woman must be Mary. After all, verse 5 clearly identifies the child as being Jesus. Who's the mother of Jesus? It's Mary. So it's a no brainer and isn't exactly the same word for sign used to describe the virgin birth. And I would say yes it is. In Isaiah 7 verse 14 in the Septuagint, you know, it talks about there being a sign, same word as here. And that sign is that a virgin would conceive and bear a child, Jesus. So what could be a greater sign than the virgin birth? And I think it's actually a pretty strong argument. We know from verse 9 that the dragon is a symbol for Satan. So when the dragon attempts to kill the man-child in verse 4, it makes sense to apply that to Herod's attempt to kill Joseph, Mary, and Jesus as soon as Jesus was born in Matthew 2. Verse 4 of our chapter says, And his tail grabbed a third of the stars of heaven, threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth in order to devour her child as soon as she gave birth. So what could be a more straightforward interpretation than the Roman Catholic literal application of this to Mary? Satan stood behind Herod the Great. He sought to kill Jesus as soon as He was born, and that's true. Next week, Lord willing, we will look at that. I'll be preaching on that passage, and we're going to be demonstrating that that's part of what's being taught here is showing what's going on in the heavenlies, what's going on in the spiritual realm when Herod tried to kill. You know, the Gospels present the flesh and blood, but this is presenting the principalities, the powers that were coming against Christ at His birth. But we also believe that it gives a spiritual behind-the-scenes picture of the heavenly Zion bringing forth the incarnation. But anyway, back to their interpretation. On the surface, it does seem like a fairly solid argument. Yet another argument in favor of the Mary interpretation is it makes sense to apply verse 6 to her flight into Egypt after they get news that Herod's going to kill all of the babies in Bethlehem. Verse six says, and the woman fled into the wilderness to where she has a place prepared by God, so that they may nourish her there 1,260 days. So on some levels, it really does make sense to apply this to Mary. I've considered that, I've considered every option. But while Protestants do not deny that Mary was the specific vehicle through whom Zion brought Jesus into the world, the immediate context Christ's own words and the Old Testament symbolism that is used here have convinced most people that Mary is actually not directly in view. Most take this as either the Old Testament Israel, the New Testament church, God's people of all ages, or the heavenly Zion, which is the mother of us all. So let's look at four hints in the immediate context that militate against the Roman Catholic interpretation. First problem with their interpretation is the order of the events. Verse 1 has the woman appearing in heaven before she gives birth to the child, whereas Roman Catholics say that verse 1 is describing her bodily assumption up into heaven at the end of her life. or after she dies. But verse one occurs before verse two. There is an order in these verses. Whoever this woman is, she appears in heaven before Christ is born on the earth. That's, I think, a major problem for the Roman Catholic view. The second problem is that verse six says that the woman flees into the wilderness where she is protected for 1,260 days. And verses 13 through 17, apply that period of time to the trouble from AD 67 through 70. But was Mary even alive during the time of that war? And the church fathers and history clearly, emphatically say that she was not alive during that time. She seems to have died sometime in the 50s. Even Roman Catholics teach that she died at the age of 72 sometime in the mid-50s, and simple math would demonstrate that. If Jesus was born in late 5 BC or in 4 BC, those are the two main arguments, if she was conceived at the age of 12, he was conceived at the age of 12, her age of 12 or 13, which is about the earliest that I've seen anybody saying that Mary could have been at that time, then according to Roman Catholic teachings, she would have been assumed to heaven in AD 56. That's far too early for the Roman Wars. The immediate context of the war of AD 67 through 70 does not fit their interpretation. Actually, it doesn't fit the non-Roman Catholic interpretation of it being Mary either. As I mentioned at the beginning, Roman Catholics try to rescue their theory by saying that verse 6 applies to her flight into Egypt, not to the church's flight from Jerusalem during 67 through 70. Egypt is a wilderness. So voila, she stayed in Egypt for three and a half years. Well, the problem is that Matthew 2, verses 19 through 23 makes it crystal clear that as soon as Herod died, the angel said to Joseph and Mary that they needed to come back to Israel and they immediately did so. Well, here's the problem. Herod died in 4 BC. Right? So if you count forward from the absolute earliest date that Jesus could have been born, and then you add the 40 days mentioned in Luke 2, which the law prescribed before Mary could present Jesus to the temple, and then you have them ambling as slowly as possible from Egypt up to Israel, you're around a year. That's it. On some dates, it's much less than a year for his birth. And so if Jesus was born in 4 BC, they were less than a year. And on the web, there are various chronologies that work these early events out for you. Answers in Genesis, I think, has a very clear one. But assuming the earliest possible date, then they would have gotten back from Egypt in early 3 BC. And that would be barely over a year. And yet verse 6 is quite explicit that it's exact number of days, 1,260 days that the woman is hidden in the wilderness. That adds up to, what, three and a half years. So her stay in Egypt is two and a half years short of what was required by the text. So that does not fit. In any case, interpreting the three-and-a-half years as being in Egypt in 4 BC, as I mentioned, contradicts the parallel part of the chiastic structure of this chapter, where verses 13 through 17 interpret those three-and-a-half years as being precisely the three-and-a-half year war against Jerusalem. That's a major problem to the Mary interpretation, and it's forced me to see the woman as being something that goes beyond her. But even if you were to ignore that problem, there's another problem for the Roman Catholic theory. Verse 17 says, So the dragon was furious with the woman, and off he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, those who keep the commands of God and hold the testimony of Jesus. Now, the problem for Roman Catholics is the Greek word for offspring is sperma, a word that if taken literally would apply to her biological children. They don't believe she had any other children, and yet the word rest in the rest of her children would indicate, if you're going to take this literally, that she would have had to have had some literal children. And so that's not a problem for them. They take it symbolically. What's the problem is they keep going back and forth from literal to symbolic. They're not consistent in their interpretation. If Roman Catholics wanna take Mary as the only referent rather than as the literal symbol, which you could do, as the literal symbol of something else that is going on, then they should acknowledge that Mary had other children, was not a perpetual virgin, and they're not willing to do that. But even if you're not a Roman Catholic and you believe that Mary had other children by Joseph, something that is clearly affirmed in several scriptures, verse 17 still does not make sense. According to history, according to the church fathers, none of her children survived up through that period of time. They all died. They all died prior to that. Now I'm not saying that we should take it literally. John doesn't want us to. He calls this a sign or a symbol. And commentators point out that the rest of her offspring in verse 17 is grammatically defined by the next clause, all those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. In other words, the children appear to be a reference to the corporate people of God, not simply Mary's literal children. So that argues for a corporate or a symbolic interpretation for the whole passage. Now there's yet another problem for the Roman Catholic view. Verse 2 says, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. Now if you read much on Roman Catholic forums, I like to poke around in their forums, you'll discover this is actually a rather embarrassing verse for them because people will bring it up and they don't quite know how to answer it. Because Roman Catholic dogma says that Christ came out of the womb without any childbirth pains. and indeed without any vaginal delivery whatsoever. Here's how the Catechism of the Council of Trent words it. But as the conception itself transcends the order of nature, so the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine. Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, he is born of his mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as he afterwards went forth from the sepulcher while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which his disciples were assembled, the doors being shut. Or, not to depart from everyday examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Spirit, who at the conception and birth of the Son so favored the virgin mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity." A lot of words, but basically they're saying God produced a miracle and he just kind of miraculously passed through the walls of her abdomen straight into her arms and so she didn't have any childbirth pains. So how do they reconcile that doctrine with verse 2 which says that this woman cried out in labor and in pain to give birth? Well their response is Well, that's actually referring to her giving spiritual birth at the cross as she encompasses Christ at the cross and shares in His sufferings and atonement at the cross. And I think, now wait a minute, you just used verse 2 to try to prove that it had to be Mary since Mary's the only one who gave birth to Christ. Now you're saying verse 2 is at the cross? And verse 4 is the birth? That makes no sense. You see that spiritual interpretation undermines their insistence that it was Mary and Mary alone who could give birth. You can't spiritualize verse 2 and literalize verses 4 through 5. They're all referring to the same birth. You can't have it both ways. Either verse 2 refers to the birth of Jesus or the death of Jesus, but it can't be both. If it refers to the death of Jesus, it completely undermines the strongest argument that they have, that this is literally Mary exalted to the heavens rather than Zion. Okay, so those are the four hints in the immediate context that there's something bigger going on here than Mary's giving birth to Jesus. I don't have a big issue if you want to say that this is Mary. I do have a big issue with the Roman Catholic perversions and add-ons to it. Protestants don't deny that Mary was the mother of Jesus, but they say this passage seems to be pointing beyond her in some way. She may be the literal sign. There's three theories on that. She may be the literal sign, but what was symbolized? She doesn't symbolize herself. Okay? And Jesus gives the answer of what was symbolized in Matthew chapter 12. He doesn't deny that Mary was his mother, but in various places in the gospel, he downplays that role and he upplays the role that Zion, the people of God, had. And I'm going to read verses 46 through 50 of Matthew 12. While he was still talking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and brothers stood outside seeking to speak with him. Then one said to him, look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak with you. But he answered and said to the one who told him, who is my mother and who are my brothers? And he stretched out his hand toward his disciples and said, here are my mother and my brothers. for whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." So I want you to notice how Zion fulfills the role of being both mother and brothers just as we'll see in Revelation chapter 12. Zion plays the role of both mother and brothers of Jesus. And Christ's last words there that I read are almost identical to Revelation 12 verse 17 that defines the offspring of the woman as being those who keep God's commandments. In other words, they are the brothers of Jesus. You see, where Roman Catholics exaggerate the importance of Mary, Jesus actually downplayed, very deliberately downplayed, her importance in the Gospels. For example, who did Jesus appear to in his resurrection appearances? Not to Mary. He appeared to four women and several men, but not once did He appear to Mary. Why? And when Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, He told her to tell His brothers about His appearance, as John 20, verse 17. Then you keep reading in the context, and it appears that the brothers are His disciples. So He's calling His disciples His brothers. At that point, His physical brothers didn't even believe in Him yet. But it illustrates that it wasn't flesh and blood relationships that played the highest role. At the wedding in Cana of Galilee, when his mother asked him to do something about their having run out of wine, he says to her, woman, what does your concern have to do with me? Why does he call her woman instead of mother? I don't think he's trying to insult her. What I think he is doing more and more is he is seeking to move her and to adjust her thinking away from her physical relationship to him to being under his lordship in the same way that any other believer would be. It's no longer an issue, he's in effect saying, of how I can serve you, but how you can serve me, your concerns. How do they relate to me? How do your concerns relate to my calling? Are you seeking first my kingdom and my righteousness, is what he was saying. In fact, at the cross, Jesus tells the apostle John that from now on, John was to think of Mary as John's mother, okay, and Mary was to think of John as her son. Can you see the distancing? The distancing of physical relationship. Now it's not as if Jesus didn't take his responsibilities as a son seriously. He provided for his mother. He made sure that John would provide for his mother after his death. But there is not a shred of evidence in the Bible that Mary is supposed to play the high exalted role that the Roman Catholic Church has her play. On the way to the cross there was a woman who was blessing Mary saying, "'Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts which nursed you.'" Luke 11 verse 27. Now, if Roman Catholic blessings of Mary are correct, you would expect Jesus to encourage that kind of language. It's almost identical language to what Roman Catholics recite every day to Mary. But rather than encouraging that, Jesus corrects her sharply. Jesus said, on the contrary. Now some versions kind of soften that, but the Greek is menunga. The dictionary says it's a very strong correction. On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the words of God and keep it. Now what's going on in all of those passages and why does Revelation 12 emphasize the corporate Zion giving birth to Christ rather than Mary giving birth to Christ? Well, I believe 2 Corinthians 5.16 gives the answer. It says, therefore from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. Okay, the relationship of flesh and blood to Christ is not to be emphasized. Rather, the spiritual relationship of Christ to His people is to be emphasized, and that is exactly what Revelation 12 does. So the words of Christ negate the Roman Catholic interpretation which exalts her to a position, you know, almost it seems like more important than what Jesus Christ himself has. But the Old Testament symbolism that stands behind this passage all points to a corporate interpretation as well. These were symbols of Israel. Commentators point out that the only, and let me emphasize that, the only Old Testament passage where all of these symbols occurs is Genesis chapter 37. What was the dream that Joseph had of Israel in Genesis 37? It was the sun, moon, and the 11 stars bowing down to him. The sun was said to represent Jacob, the husband. The moon was said to represent Rachel, the mother. And the 11 stars plus Joseph represented the 12 tribes of Israel. But commentators like Beal point out that the vision as a whole showed Jacob, Rachel, and the 12 patriarchs to be symbols of something. They are symbols of Zion. If you take these symbols as the background to Revelation 12, verse one, then the woman has to be Zion. And Zion was portrayed as a woman. Now in your notes, I give sample scriptures of how Israel was portrayed as a woman over and over again. And I've also listed a bunch of verses where God's people are called the virgin daughter of Zion. Very, very common theme in the Old Testament. In fact, it was so common that many commentators, most commentators insist that this image in Revelation 12 would have instantly, automatically, very naturally conjured in Jews' minds who read this passage, Zion. Not Mary. They wouldn't have thought of Mary. They would have thought instantly of Zion because the symbolism points to Zion. But more to the point of our passage, this Old Testament woman called Zion was often represented as a woman in labor pains giving birth to a man-child who would bring them deliverance. Very common usage and some of the labor passages have messianic tones. I'm not going to go over all of the references in your outline, but at least you got those there if you want to study it more. But even the non-messianic passages that have these labor themes, which relate, for example, to coming out of exile back into Israel, they're still beautiful symbols of the coming of Messiah. And interestingly, in light of Revelation 12, verse 17, which speaks of the seed or the sperma of the woman, commentators note the numerous passages which speak of Zion being a mother with seed, and that's translated as sperma in the Septuagint. All true believers are said to be the offspring of Zion, the mother of us all. That would be seed, corporate. But the coming Messiah was her seed, singular. So there is a seed of Zion, singular, Messiah, who has brothers and sisters. They're the seed corporate. And you find that in the Old Testament. Of the corporate seed of Zion, the Apostle Paul says in Galatians 4 verse 26, the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. And if you want to get into the technical details, you'll have to study it out for yourself from those scriptures that I've given to you. But there is overwhelming evidence that the woman should be seen as Zion giving birth to the Messiah. And based on both Christ's references to birth pangs, and I should have put some of these verses into your outline, I ran out of time last night, but, and based on the Old Testament passages that deal with birth pangs, these represent the hundreds of years of persecution and suffering that the church endured as they waited and they prayed for and they long for Messiah to come. Now rather than going through a bunch of Old Testament verses at this time, I'm gonna reference a few as we go phrase by phrase in a couple of minutes through the first two verses. The Old Testament symbolism so strongly points to a corporate interpretation that in recent years there have been many Roman Catholics who have been forced to conclude that they can no longer use Revelation 12 to teach their Marian theology. Instead, Revelation 12 is, in effect, giving an exposition of Psalm 48 and Psalm 87, both of which give the theology behind the hymn we're gonna be singing, Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken, Zion City of Our God. Verse one especially helps us to value the bride of Christ. This is how God sees the bride. We may see her as messed up, but God sees her as being gloriously clothed in the garments of Jesus. Now, there's two more quick arguments I'm going to give in favor of the corporate interpretation. The whole structure of the book points to a corporate interpretation as well. And on the outline that's on the back table there, I point out that the book was written as a chiasm with the B and the E sections pointing to the church and the C and the D sections pointing to the enemies of the church. Well, this is a section that's dealing with the church. So it would be very odd that the introduction to the section dealing with the church doesn't deal with the church. It deals with an individual. So I think even the structure of the book lends some weight. And then lastly, the chiastic structure of chapter 12 points to a corporate interpretation. Verses 1-11 can be divided into an A, B, C, D, E, F sequence. And verses 12-17 perfectly reflect backwards E, D, C, B, A structure. And you can see that on that outline as well. Everything is laid out for you in that massive outline. But each of those sections in that chiasm, they're parallel to and they interpret each other. Well, when you examine the sections of that chiasm of this chapter that deal with the woman, the woman in the beginning, the woman at the end, the woman at the end, even Roman Catholics acknowledge, is a corporate woman. It can't be other than a corporate woman. Well, if the end is interpreting the front, if the parts of the chiasm are parallel to each other, that argues strongly that the woman at the beginning has to be corporate as well. This is almost the universal interpretation of the church in the first centuries and it's been the dominant view of the church of all ages. Now hopefully some of the background of meaning will pop out as we go through this phrase by phrase. Verse 2 is as far as we're going to be able to get this morning. So let's go through it phrase by phrase. John begins by saying, a great sign appeared in the sky. First of all, it's called a sign. John had already warned us in chapter one that this book is gonna be absolutely filled with signs or symbols. But here he wants to make doubly sure we do not interpret this in a literal way, okay? The woman is a sign, it's a symbol. Now we did see that in Revelation, these signs and symbols still point to a literal historical event, so it's not either or. So you might ask, okay, Where did the sign appear in history? And then we look at what does it symbolize? And Chilton thinks that the literal sign that appears in the sky was astrological. It was the zodiac, the constellations of the stars. And it's a fascinating discussion when you look at how that is the one time, at the time of his birth, was the one time in history when all of the stars lined up in exactly the right sequence. Now, he does some weird stuff with it in terms of the birth of Christ and things like that, but that could be the sign. Other people say, well, no, there may have been a vision in the sky just like happened with Christ. There was a huge man leading armies. There was a vision in the sky that the Romans saw, the Jews saw in AD 66. Maybe there was a vision in the sky And I'm open to that, too. I don't see any historical evidence that that was the case. And then there's a third possibility. Some people say, well, the Virgin Mary was a sign of something that was going on even bigger from the time of Genesis 3 of the seed of the woman, of this Zion giving birth to the Messiah. So I'm not gonna be dogmatic on what the literal sign has been. But I want us to understand what it symbolized. Second, notice that this sign appeared in heaven. Isaiah 7, 14's sign of the virgin birth appeared on earth. This one appeared in heaven. So I tend not to think that it's actually the virgin birth that's the sign. I think it's actually something in heaven that was a sign. Now Pickering's translation translates it as sky. I guess you could do that. Ouranos is the Greek word for heaven. That's normally how it's translated. Could God have made a literal vision in the sky? Yes, he could have. I'm not going to be dogmatic on that, but let's consider the meaning of what is symbolized. In Philippians 3, verse 20, Paul says, our citizenship is in heaven. We are part of the kingdom of heaven invading earth, and it shouldn't surprise us if the citizens of this earth fight back. They persecute us. They don't like us invading their territory. Zion's identity is with heaven. Psalm 87, another fabulous psalm that stands as background to this passage, not only speaks of the Messiah as having all of his springs in the beautiful and glorious heavenly Zion, but says that believing Jews and Gentiles alike are all born in Zion. As Jesus told Nicodemus, you must be born from above. Now the King James translates it as born again, but virtually all of the new translations take it more literally, born from above. Every time a person becomes converted, spiritual Zion has produced a birth. You're born from above. So Psalm 87 speaks of this heavenly Zion, says of believers from Philistia and Tyre, this one was born there. And when he registers the peoples, this one was born there. So the heavenly Zion, heavenly Jerusalem, the heavenly bride finds its origin in heaven even though they may dwell on earth. And that's why Colossians 3 says we must seek those things which are above where Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father. Our resources, our legal power, our citizenship protection, our financing, our everything comes from heaven. If you're a part of Zion like Jesus Christ, you can say my kingdom does not derive from this world. But hey, it sure invades this world. It doesn't derive from this world, but it invades. The next two words in verse 1 are a woman. As I've already mentioned over and over, Zion is referred to as a she in the scripture, the virgin daughter of Zion. And in my notes, I don't know if I put it into your bulletin, but I have 25 references to the daughter of Zion. Next, this woman is clothed with the sun. Now, that's a fascinating, fascinating image. This woman is reflecting the glory of her husband, the Lord Jesus. Now, you'll remember in the vision that Joseph had in Genesis 37, that Jacob, the husband, was the son. Well who is the husband of the spiritual Zion? Jesus. Now it might be objected that the Zion, the specific Zion that travails and brings forth Jesus is the Old Covenant community. So how could it refer to Jesus? Now it certainly includes the Old Covenant community, but commentators point out by the time you get to verse 6 and following It's clearly this woman is the new covenant community because it's the church that's fleeing from the beast and being protected in the wilderness. So which is it? Some commentators argue that the woman is the Old Testament Israel. Others say, no, no, no, it's the New Testament church. Look at verses six and following. And covenant theologians say, no, it's both. It's the people of God and the whole, every believer from Genesis 1 through to the end of history, Revelation chapter 22, is part of the bride of Christ. And this woman radiates the glory of her husband. In the Old Testament, Jehovah was the Son. In this book, Jesus is the Son. No contradiction because Jesus is Jehovah. He preexisted as the Son of God. Revelation 1.16 says of Jesus that His countenance was like the sun, shining in its strength. Revelation 21.23 says that the temple of heaven is not going to need any sun because Jesus is going to be that sun, that light. And just as chapter 10, we saw that the angel that stood in the presence of Christ could not help but reflect some of the light and the radiance and the glory of Jesus, this woman, this bride, because of her presence, being in Jesus' presence, she is clothed with His brightness and glory. Now let's consider that for a little bit. While we're here on earth, we struggle to find 2 Corinthians 3 to be true of us. We struggle with that. In that chapter, Paul says that Moses' face shone because of being in God's presence. Then he goes on to say, But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." He's saying the same thing that happened to Moses can happen to us. Now I've met people who have spent so much time with the Lord that it's almost as if they are radiating the Lord's presence. And when I'm talking with them, I say, oh Lord, I wish I had that kind of a relationship with you. I wish I could radiate your love, your character, like this person radiates that character. but you've probably run across people like that. Well, this bride in heaven is so close to her husband, it's as if she is clothed in the sun. If there was ever a glorious image of Zion, this would be it. Isaiah 60 predicts the new covenant and says that Christ's light will be the glory of the bride. Numerous passages point to Jesus as the son, and I should have put these into your, I've got 28 passages that say Jesus is the son. But how can Jesus, here's an apparent contradiction, how can Jesus be both the Lord of the woman and the offspring of the woman? Well, that's exactly the same question that Jesus asked the Pharisees. He stumped them. How can the Messiah be both the Lord of David and the Son of David? But miraculously, He was. He originates Zion, and in some sense, Zion originates Him, at least as to His humanity. From Genesis 3 and on, he is the seed of the woman, but it is Zion above that was symbolized by Eve, that was symbolized by Sarah's conception, that was symbolized by Mary. Anyway, the passage goes on to say, "...with the moon under her feet." Now what does the moon do? Where does the moon get its light? The moon reflects the light of the sun. And so if the moon stood as the Old Testament era that faintly reflected the light of the sun through the temple rituals and types and symbols, then to have the moon under her feet shows that the Old Covenant is not yet finished, but it is certainly waning. It is ready to pass away in one generation. And of course Christ said he was, Christ is said to be born in the last days of the Old Covenant. And of course, this book is preoccupied with the glory of the new covenant outshining the old. The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament are still useful, but they only faintly reflect the light of the sun, Jesus. It goes on, and on her head, a crown of 12 stars. Now most commentators take that either as the 12 tribes of Israel, represented by the 12 patriarchs who are explicitly called stars, or the 12 apostles. Now, because of the timing of this passage as being before the time of Jesus, and because of Genesis 37 being the background, I take it as being a representative of the 12 tribes of Israel, a symbol of the unity of God's people. See, the conflict didn't start at the time of Jacob. The conflict goes all the way back to Genesis chapter 3 where God cursed Satan and said this, That's very interesting. He's talking to Satan. He says, I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed, and he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel. Eve became a symbol of Zion's war with Satan's kingdom. Now, the way Roman Catholics interpret Genesis 3, Mary has the serpent under her feet, and Mary would have been somebody who preexisted. But it was Zion that was at enmity with the serpent and Zion's children. Verse two goes on to say, and being pregnant, she was crying out in labor, being in great pain to give birth. Now in verses two through six, what we're doing is we're moving from heaven to earth, from the glories of the ideal Zion to the sufferings of the earthly Zion. And most commentators draw dozens of Old Testament passages that predict that Israel would travail with birth pangs as the time of the Messiah began to appear. Those birth pangs represent the true Israel's persecution and suffering. Here's what Leon Morris says. The time of birth is near. Israel is about to give birth to the Messiah. For the early Christians, there was an important continuity between the old Israel and the church, the true Israel. Here, the woman is undoubtedly Israel who gives birth to the Messiah, but later in the chapter, she is the church who was persecuted for her faith. Faithful Israel had longed for the coming of the Messiah who would provide salvation, reverse the curse brought upon the earth. They endured a great deal as they by faith looked to His coming. And God promised that those sufferings would not be in vain. In Isaiah 66, He guaranteed that those Zion was suffering in labor pangs, she would give birth. Ian Boxall in his commentary says, she represents the community which through a long and often turbulent history prepared the way for the Messiah's coming and now continues His witness. In her story, John sees the sweep of salvation history from Eden to New Exodus in Christ. Her labor pains are particularly acute because the dawning of the Messianic age brings with it intense tribulation for the people of God. The birth pangs of Mark 13, 8. That's as far as I'm going to go this morning. Next week we're going to look at some of the incredibly intense spiritual warfare that this event began to precipitate. But I wanted to at least settle the question of the identity of the woman today because this is something that has stumbled a lot of people. But I do want to conclude with one additional admonition, and that is that we should value the church of Jesus Christ just like verse 1 values the church of Jesus Christ. Is the church perfect? No. It is majorly messed up. That's why it needs to be clothed in the righteous garments of Christ. The church's glory is what? It is Christ's glory. That's the only glory that is worth looking at anyway. But it's important that we learn to see Christ in the church and to see His glory in the church. Now, verse 1 shows she is glorious, that her destiny is glorious, and it's very easy to get frustrated with how far short the modern church falls of that glory. But it helps us to not get as frustrated if you'll remember three things. First of all, verse 1 describes the church as she appears to God, clothed in Christ Jesus, clothed in the Son. This is not just her destiny, this is her legal status. The church shares in the glory of Christ. She is secure in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And hey, if God does not cast away the church, even when she's messed up, we should not cast away the church just because she is messed up. We need to look at a messed up church through the eyes of her position in Jesus, and I think it'll help us to love the church of Jesus Christ much more. Second, remind yourself that you too fall far short of the glory that is mentioned in this passage. And this ought to give you humility. God looks past the unpleasant aspects of travail and birth pangs and the blood and the perspiration that come with it, and He sees the woman for who she is, and we need to try to do the same. Third, pray that the church would more and more reflect the glory of heaven, that God's will would be done on earth, in the church on earth, just as it is being done in heaven. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word and the reminders that it gives to us. that our past is not our destiny, that the future is our destiny. And help us to not get discouraged when we look at some of our messed up past and feel like we can never live up to the ideal that you set before us. Help us to realize that first of all we are secure as we are clothed in the righteous garments of Jesus, but secondly that we can, as 2 Corinthians 3 says, be transformed by faith as we come into your presence daily from glory to glory. May your Holy Spirit do a powerful work in the church of Jesus Christ, turning her more and more into the glorious bride that you have destined her to be. And in the meantime, may we value the bride, pray for her, and have faith that if you are for her, who can be against her? Bless this, your people, this portion of your glorious bride. In Jesus' name.