A number of prophecy teachers including Joel Richardson and Jack Hibbs have dismissed the upcoming Revelation 12 Sign by suggesting it isn’t unique and that conservative evangelical scholars have taught that the male child of Revelation 12:5 is not the Church. We have already demonstrated that they are mistaken about the Sign’s uniqueness (it is completely unique) and Revelation 12 Daily has uncovered numerous examples of conservative scholars who taught that the male child is the Church. As a matter of fact, these prominent examples are so numerous one must wonder if it would be more accurate to say that there was widespread agreement among conservative evangelical scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries that the male child is in fact the Church.
The first two arguments Jack Hibbs presents
to debunk the Revelation 12 Sign are as follows:
First of all, every conservative theologian that’s worth reading does not interpret Revelation chapter twelve, the woman and the stars and all, as this young man [Steve Cioccolanti] has just stated. It refers to the nation of Israel. It’s a eschatological, parenthetical insert. It’s an announcement that the nation of Israel will bring forth the man-child, the Messiah. The Messiah came from Israel. The twelve stars representing the twelve tribes. This is longtime-held conservative, orthodox eschatology of the book of Revelation. Number two: It’s Revelation chapter twelve. It’s very clear that this is during the Tribulation period, Jan, and this young man says it’s going to happen soon…
For starters, having seen Brad’s research, I’m concerned that Hibbs is being disingenuous at best here (I won’t go into at worst). He makes a bold statement that has now been shown to be patently false. Why is a man of God making such a patently false statement? Could he not have at least said “I think” or “I bet” that “every conservative theologian… does not interpret Revelation chapter twelve [this way]”? No, he stated something as cold, hard truth that is anything but.
Secondly, it seems a little (or a lot) convoluted to state that Revelation 12 is a “parenthetical insert” in dealing with the birth of the man-child because the child is supposedly only Christ, but then turn around and take issue with Cioccolanti because Revelation 12 is only about the Tribulation. That is completely illogical. We all agree the passage deals with the Tribulation, but it’s unfair to say it can’t be parenthetical for us (those teaching the man-child is Christ and
the Church), but it can be parenthetical for you (Hibbs’ belief that the man-child is only
Christ and not His Body). That’s hypocrisy. What we can determine from this debate is that there is just about universal agreement on all sides that Revelation 12:5
is parenthetical. The question is: is it speaking of Christ or the Church or both?
Going back to the initial claim, I want to challenge Pastor Hibbs. Tell us which of the following men of God are not conservative theologians worth reading: (Click to Site