Revelation 12:1-7

                                MICHAEL AND THE MALE CHILD

            One of the few readings that get to mention Jesus Christ and Michael the archangel in the same passage which is also outstanding in its kind is Revelation 12:1-7. It is vital that we track down passages like this to get the message(s) and see if in one way or the other, JM believers are proven right or wrong. I will be quoting the full passage from verse 1 to verse 7 and would also expound where need may be.

I "Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars."

            In this very vision, we have a "woman" clothed with the sun and with the under her feet and is also said to have a garland of twelve stars on her head. This is absolutely symbolic, of course, since such a thing is impossible in the literal sense. Some see this to refer to Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, since it is stated that she was to bear a male child who would shepherd all nations (v.5 cf. Psalms 2:9). Others, however, see this to refer to Israel in "her" glorious state; since it is said that she is with a garland of twelve stars on her head (which may be a reference to the twelve tribes of Israel; each representing the sons of Jacob while the sun and moon representing Jacob and his wives, Genesis 37:9). For some reasons, I prefer the latter interpretation since vv. 5-6 talk of the persecution of Israel as so on which the Bible never records happened to Mary.

II. "Then being with  child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth."

            This "woman" was said to be about to bring forth a child and such pains of labour made her cry out. I can't say for certain what this might refer to but I guess it might be referring to the suffering state of Israel before the coming of the Messiah.

III. "And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon appeared having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems of his heads."

            In this very vision, we have a "dragon" endowed with seven heads and ten horns, having crowns on each of its head. This, also, is another symbolic sign but there seem to be a general agreement between all Christian and non-Christians alike that this refers to the Satan, the Devil (as v.9 affirms). However, in visions like that of Daniel suggest that this very dragon (or perhaps, the beast in latter passages) could also refer to a king who would appear in latter times with so much power, yet evil, and would be in control of all the parts of the earth as his kingdom prior to the coming of the Kingdom of God.

IV. "His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born."

            This part seems a little mysterious in meaning. Some view this to be in relation with the Devil's deceit by which he won over a third of the angels of heaven. Some, however, see this passage to reflect that of Daniel 8:10, perhaps, referring to conquering the a third of the angels of heaven by a means which I think may refer to his deceit ("tail" could stand for "deceit" as well as "strength"). These angels that fell to the ground are widely referred to as the fallen angels or watchers.

            As regards to the dragon waiting on the woman's delivery so that it may devour the child upon delivery, it may be a reference to how the Devil used king Herod, in his time, to attempt wiping out the Messiah Child on hearing that there was a King being born. This could have been one of the means through which the Devil tried terminating the mission of God to redeem mankind.

V. "She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God's and His throne"

            From the Bible, there is only one such Child that is said to rule all nations; and that's the Messiah (Psalms 2:9). Thus, this very Child that was born in this very vision that John is telling us about is Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:16). In this very part, the dragon fails to terminate the mission of the Messiah, thus, the Child is taken up to God and His throne. This may be a reference to the acension account where Jesus was said to have gone to sit at God's right hand (Acts 7:55) after accomplishing is divine mission.

VI. "The woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days"

            The reading from this very verse is what made me accept that the "woman" is indeed referring to Israel. Going through Revelation 11:2-4, you'd realize that th "forty-two months" in which the Holy City was is said to undergo persecution is indeed equal to one thousand two hundred and sixty days which is the exact number of days for the persecution of the woman at Revelation 12. This is an indication that God is not going to abandon her during those times of persecution.

VII. "And war broke out in heaven in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought back"

            As soon as the Child of the woman is taken up to God's throne and the woman flees to the wilderness, a war breaks up in heaven and this war was between Michael with his angels and the dragon with his angels also.

Now, the question we keep asking is "Is Michael the archangel the same as the male Child?"

Notice, in all writings of apostle John, this is the very first place where he mentions Michael by name and it is quite unlike John not to have make an indication like "The male Chile, who is now Michael and his angels..." or something similar. Whenever apostle John  wanted to mark connotations, he always made sure he did. Back then at his gospel (his Epistles and even here in Revelation), marking connotations meant business to him and he never let any ambiguous statements, words or names go unattended to. (Read the following verses John 1:38, 41, 42, 44; 2:9; 3:23-24; 4:7-8, 9; 6:1, 5-6; 11:16; 13:10-11; 14:22; 18:8-9; 19:17, 34-35 Revelation 8:11; 9:11;19:8, 20; 20:14). Terms like "Lamb", John made sure he depicted it as "Once dead but now alive" (of course, only Jesus bears that, Revelation 1:18); "Male Child" he depicted as "Who wasto rule all nations" (definitely Jesus as well, Psalms 2:9) and Rider on the horse at Revelation 19:14-16, he identified as "King of kings and Lord of lord" (Revelation 1:5; 17:14) and "Word of God" (John 1:1) which only refers to one person, Jesus Christ.

It is a bit odd that John would talk about another name of Jesus for the first time without indicating that either it was another name or a switch especially as it was the first time he mentioned it. Unless, of course, Michael was not another name for Jesus Christ who is Lord over all.

Now, from the above passage, Michael battles the dragon upon the ascension of male Child to heaven; thus, if Michael were the male Child, then it would be that Michael got caught up to heaven to fight the dragon. Is this what the scripture teaches?

It is important that we recognize what Jesus went to heaven to do and then compare with what Michael did upon Jesus' ascension. The Scripture never teaches (nor did Jesus ever tell his disciples) that he was going to heaven to battle anyone. The only battle Jesus ever promised was that of his second coming which he would bring to earth not in heaven. Therefore, it would be odd and strange that Jesus got up to heaven only to start a fight (as though the "male Child" was saying "Pay back time!" to the dragon for trying to "eat" him). On the contrary, the Bible informs us that Jesus didn't go up to heaven to fight but to "Sit...WHILE God made his enemies his footstool" (Hebrews 10:12-13 cf. Psalms 110:1; Acts 2:34-35; I Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 1:20-22; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:13; 8:1). Thus, at Jesus' ascension, Michael the archangel battled the dragon upon God's command WHILE Jesus "sat down", watching his enemy become his footstool. If the "Male Child" was the one who went up to battle the dragon, John would have said so or even indicated it.

From the above, if I were a JM preacher, I'd definitely be bewildered as to why John never made any link between the male Child and Michael the archangel.

Jesus is not, has never been and will never be Michael the archangel.

STAY BLESSED