• Home  / 
  • Debunking
  •  /  What The September, 2017 Revelation 12 Sign Tells Us

What The September, 2017 Revelation 12 Sign Tells Us

Revelation 12 describes a heavenly sign of a ’woman clothed with the sun’ at the time of Jesus’ birth. An earlier theory gaining popularity states that the same constellation sign is coming Sept 23, 2017 and not ever again for a hundreds of years. Is it right? What does it mean - the rapture, the Great Tribulation, or abomination of desolation or what? Let’s examine the evidence and understand an epidemic of theories like this better...

Revelation 12 In The Sky Again?

I decided to write this article after several people asked me regarding speculation that September 23, 2017 is prophetically significant. For example, one person sent me a link to an article entitled, "What Is The Revelation 12 Sign In 2017 Telling Us?" with the following question:

In two years, there will be what seems to be exactly what Revelation 12 is picturing in the constellations. This is extremely rare, even more rare than the blood moon tetrads. I think this has only happened one other time in history, which is at the birth of Jesus. What do you think this says, if it's too late for the 70th week to have started?

Ahh, the "it's very rare" card... It's fitting he mentions the four blood moons/tetrads theory because rarity was the main argument of legitimacy for that theory, too. Many people believed in the four blood moons based on that rarity rationale. However, once the last blood moon passed, the theory was relegated to the same trash heap that all invented prophecy theories do. They all fail to predict anything specific in any specific timeframe because men cannot accurately predict the future, even when improvising from a Biblical basis.

What about this one? Is it being "even more rare" rare enough to make it significant and worthy of belief? Let's take a look.

Revelation 12 - September 2017 Theory

Although it does not give credit, the article referenced above is just another take on previous Revelation 12 speculation. I first saw it in a Scottie Clarke video in 2013 on his "Eternal Rhythm and Flow" YouTube channel and website. (I was informed by Mark Chiswell that Luis Vega put out the theory earlier.)

Whoever originated the theory, what it gets right is that the constellation of Virgo (the virgin) fits the heavenly woman spoken of in Revelation 12:1:

Revelation 12:1 — And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

The woman being clothed by the sun with the moon at her feet makes sense literally when you understand the woman as Virgo the constellation. Every year somewhere from mid-August through mid-September the sun is mid-body to Virgo and the new crescent moon is at the bottom of Virgo. It literally happens in the sky just as Revelation 12 depicts.

But what about her "crown of twelve stars?" According to Clarke there are nine stars from the constellation Leo above. The other three stars are supplied by a conjunction in Leo of Venus, Mars, and Mercury, aligned with Regulus. And "Scott has looked for this formation in other years and cannot find it"(!).

Problem #1: Ignoring The Very Next Verse

There are many problems with this theory we can discuss. The very first one is typical to these theories and another one it has in common with the blood moon and shemitah theories of 2015: It's ignoring the context. Look at the very next verse tying the Woman sign to a birth:

Revelation 12:1-2 — 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth.

If we doubt that the birth is meant literally, the next few verses dispel that. They show Satan wants to kill the son who is clearly identified as a very well-known person:

Revelation 12:4-5 — 4...And the dragon [Satan] stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. 5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne

This "male child" that comes from the woman is depicting the birth of Jesus. Who is also the one person in history destined to rule all nations (Mt 28:18; Rev 19:16; Eph 1:21) and who has ascended to heaven (Jn 3:13) as verse 5 also says.

"Caught Up" vs "Ascended?"

If you want to reject this idea because Revelation says the male was "caught up to heaven" not "ascended" like Jesus predicted of himself, then don't stop there. Consider the actual gospel record of the event Jesus referred to beforehand in John 3:13 above:

Luke 24:50-51 — When Jesus had led them out as far as Bethany, He lifted up His hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

Mark 16:19 — After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God

Acts 1:9 — After He had said this, they watched as He was taken up, and a cloud hid Him from their sight

As you can see, Jesus really was "taken up" just like it says the male child was (even if different Greek words are used by the different authors, the meaning is the same). Jesus was the male child of Mary who was taken up to Heaven. It fits.

The End In 2026? It's Now Possible

Since learning in 2001 that Yeshua must return in a Sabbath year, I've had to rule out three Sabbath year cycle windows for the final 7 years (2003-2009, 2010-2016, 2017-2023). With the next window (2024-2030) less than 7 years away, I'm ready to share why I believe, based on the real end time sign of Mt 24:14, that this can be the one. If it is, the "birth pains" (WW3 + Wormwood, Lk 21:10-11) would hit near its middle in 2026 with Yeshua returning in 2030. Find out what's changed to convince me about 2026 and what you can do about it...

Therefore, this all connects the Woman directly to the birth of Jesus in the first century. Jesus' mother was Mary, a righteous woman of Israel. This is what the Woman fully represents, the faithful church, founded through Israel in 30 AD.

"Revelation Can Only Cover Things 'After This', Not In the Past" / Revelation 4:1!

Some doubt that Mary is the woman giving birth, confused over a past event being found in a prophecy book like Revelation. They often note how John records early on in the book that an angel told him would be shown things "that must happen after this" (Rev 4:1). They expect this rules out anything in Revelation happening before John's time (90AD), such as Mary giving birth to Jesus (1 B.C. supposedly).

My response to that is twofold. First, it does not say "I will ONLY show you things coming after." The exciting part to mention is of course the future things, but it does not preclude showing other things, too. Secondly, the Book is a Book of revelation, not "future prophecy." There is much in the past that is a mystery which humanity needs revelation on, including the key players of the righteous vs Satan and the work of Christ. This revelation from the past establishes the characters for the future part of the revelation. In other words, for John to be shown the key things in the future, some explanatory revelation of the past is appropriate and reasonable to facilitate that.

Anyway, scholars have found that the sky on September 11, 3 BC to show the exact picture of Revelation 12:1, pointing to the birth of Christ on that day:

Jesus Birth 9-11-3BC (Credit: AskElm.com)

The Star of Bethlehem conjunctions before 3 BC led the Magi to depart in time to come see the baby Jesus. For more on Jesus birth in Rev 12 and the Star of Bethlehem before that, see Ernest Martin's excellent free book on the.

Clarke's theory, like all invented prophecy theories, depends on taking a verse out of its context and re-purposing it to serve some new theory. When you ignore the context of a verse, you are set up to misinterpret it. That's how you turn a solid reliable Bible prophecy into an unreliable quasi-biblical man-made prophecy interpretation.

Is it any wonder that all predictions based on this approach fail?

Could Revelation 2:26 Indicate the Church is the Male Child?

I'm adding this section after a couple of people raised an objection to the above identification of Jesus as the male child of the Woman who rules all nations with an iron scepter. The following passage made them doubt this:

Revelation 2:26-27 — And to the one who is victorious and continues in My work until the end, I will give authority over the nations. 27 He will rule them with an iron scepter ...—just as I have received authority from My Father

The confusion comes from how it says the saints will rule with "iron scepters" over "nations" making Jesus not the only one to fit the scepter-wielding aspect the male child's profile in Rev 12:5.

But if the church is what is intended, why does the Greek go out of its way to say the child is "male?" The church in other human metaphors is given a female sex, as in the "bride of Christ," right in Revelation itself (Rev 21:2). For this to be clear and defensible, it should have left it as "child" of unspecified sex. The male adjective clashes with the church interpretation, directing you to look elsewhere for the identity (call me crazy...but how about a male person like a man?).

Another issue is that there is no rapture in the Bible before the Great Tribulation. Therefore Rev 12:5 cannot be the rapture (of anyone) when the 3½ year Great Tribulation (Rev 12:14) during which Satan tries to attack the church (Rev 12:13-16), comes later chronologically in the narrative.

The other conflict in this interpretation is what to make of the Woman who continues on after the supposed rapture of the "male child church." How does the male child "church" go on to heaven and then this righteous faithful Woman continue on earth to receive the favor of protection during the 3½ year Great Tribulation (Rev 12:14)...unless the Woman is actually the faithful church? The church giving birth to the church and splitting between heaven and earth makes no sense.

The most natural explanation for all this is that the Woman is the faithful church of God among and from whom Jesus, a male person, was born (through blessed Mary). Jesus ascends to heaven and the faithful continue on the earth through the Great Tribulation.

Of course, the church later does receive the promise of glory with him "ruling the nations" (Rev 2:26) which is why Jesus is "King of kings and Lord of  lords" (Rev 19:16). We are the kings and lords that he is King and Lord over once he returns from his throne in heaven (Rev 12:5) he is still on to this day (Acts 3:20-21).

Problem #2: Adding to the Bible

For me the next problem is how Clarke has added elements to the biblical text that are not there, allowed for by problem #1 in ignoring verse 2 and 5.

When he says this may be the rapture or second coming you would rightly ask, where does it say this in Revelation 12? Nowhere. It's added.

Why do we tolerate people adding to the Bible? Especially when it plainly warns in the same book against doing that (Rev 22:18-19). I understand why. It's mainly because they sound authoritative. Appearing on video helps. Putting your ideas in images helps. Also we assume they know more than us and who are we to disagree with someone who studies more than us?

It would do us well to remember that we're called in NT to question and judge what those in the church proclaim, even when prophets (1 Cor 14:29), proving or disproving them by Scripture (Acts 17:11). This is what I did above with my first objection to the theory.

Problem #3: The Woman's Crown Already Has 12 Stars

I think Scottie Clarke was so excited to find something "extremely rare" to combine with a Bible prophecy (namely, those three planets appearing in Virgo) that he missed something huge. There are already always twelve stars crowning Virgo, depending who you ask it is either the constellation called "Berenice’s hair".

Ernest Martin in his book The Star That Astonished the World cites the twelve stars as follows:

And note: Professor Thorley who reviewed the first edition of my work has shown that there are exactly twelve stars surrounding the head of Virgo as we see them from earth. And indeed there are. If one will look at Norton’s Star Atlas, twelve visible stars will be seen around Virgo’s head. They are (according to astronomical terminology): (1) Pi, (2) Nu, (3) Beta (near the ecliptic), (4) Sigma, (5) Chi, (6) Iota — these six stars form the southern hemisphere around the head of Virgo. Then there are (7) Theta, (8) Star 60, (9) Delta, (10) Star 93, (11) Beta (the 2nd magnitude star) and (12) Omicron — these last six form the northern hemisphere around the head of Virgo. All these stars are visible and could have been witnessed by observers on earth

Either way, there is no need for a "rare" conjunction of three planets to fill out the crown of twelve stars.

Problem #4: "It's Extremely Rare" Is Not Scriptural

It's worth noting that something being rare does not make it miraculous or divine or prophetically significant. Yes, miracles are rare and sometimes rare events are significant. But rare events like conjunctions are not miraculous or supernatural. They happen quite naturally, as rare as they are.

The Bible does not tell us to look for rare events or rare signs in the heavens or rare signs of the rapture in the heavens. Some will say in response "what about the Star of Bethlehem? Wasn't that a unique event they spotted in the sky and acted on?"

It's true that the Star of Bethlehem must have been a rare event. It had to be for the Magi to see it and know it was the time to pick up and travel hundreds of miles to meet Jesus. But I can assure you they did not travel all that way because they saw something rare or unique in the sky and decided what it meant like our modern Christian prophecy speculators do (justifying this by taking Genesis 1:14 out of its "day, month, year/calendar signals" context to make it about a "heavenly billboard of prophetic signs").

They must have had some authentic prophet tell them exactly what to look for in the sky and exactly what it meant: the Messiah's birth. If I knew a sign in the sky meant the Son of God was on earth, I'd make the trek to meet him, too.

To be sure, the Magi had much more revelation about Christ's birth sign in the sky than we have recorded in Revelation 12 written after the fact, coupled with some kind of weird speculation like this Rev 12 - Sept 2017 theory offers.

Let's not fall for the unscriptural rarity argument for a prophecy theory.

Problem #5: The Sun Does Not "Clothe the Woman" on Sept 23, 2017

As the picture above shows, the position of the sun does not match Rev 12:1 which says the sun clothes the woman. As the image above shows, the sun is over her left shoulder. For the sun to clothe the woman, it would be on her body. Not at her head like the crown; not at her feet like the moon. In the middle where her body is; where clothing goes.

If you want to see what it should look like, compare that to the picture of the sky on September 11, 3 BC when (I and many think) Jesus was born:

Jesus Birth 9-11-3BC (Credit: AskElm.com)

How could Scott Clarke miss this? I think the proximity of the timing of the conjunction of those planets to the Jewish holiday of Rosh HaShanah was too tempting to pass up. He stretched the definition of "clothed with the sun" to include Rosh Hashanah in his rapture theory, a huge rapture magnet always.

Problem #6: Rosh HaShanah Is Not Biblical

By doing so, Clarke makes the same mistake that Jonathan Cahn, Mark Biltz, John Hagee and so many pretrib rapture theorists have made. They take Rosh HaShanah to be significant prophetically when it's just as much a manmade invention as their own theories are.

Rosh HaShanah means literally "head of the year" in Hebrew. It's a two day holiday celebrated by the Jews on the first and second day of the 7th lunar month as their new year's day.

It's not found in the Bible, except where it informs Israel that another month six months earlier (Aviv 1) shall be the "head of the months" (Rosh Chodashim) (Ex 12:2). In other words, the Jewish Rosh HaShanah breaks Scripture by declaring a New Year's day in the Fall.

Worse, this invented holy day masks the real holy day of start of the 7th month: Yom Teruah/Day of Trumpets. Despite having the same date, these days hardly ever coincide. That's because they use different calendars. The Jewish calendar is based on precalculated starts to the months, much like the Gregorian calendar. The Biblical calendar uses the sighting of the crescent moon to determine months and leap months added when the barley is still not mature at the end of the 12th month. (The first month of the year requires ripe barley for the wave sheaf ceremony mentioned in Leviticus 23:11-12). This results in the true first day of the 7th month (Day of Trumpets) coming in most years a day or two after Rosh HaShanah is celebrated as the first day of the 7th month.

In other words, when the rapture really does come on Day of Trumpets (1Cor 15:52=Rev 11:14-19) it will be a day or two past when people watching Rosh HaShanah are looking.

So you see, Rosh HaShanah is certainly not worthy of adjusting ones prophecy theories to. But I will grant that it sounds good to most people who have not studied how the Jewish calendar has corrupted the biblical calendar.

So...What Does It Mean?

In the end, what does this September, 2017 sign tell us? If this event is only a sign because a Christian says so, then it tells us more about Christians than it does about when to expect the rapture or anything else prophetic.

What we have is once again is another example of how Christian prophecy students can't seem to resist taking something from Scripture and combining it with something extra-biblical they subjectively and/or arbitrarily view as significant. A Jewish holiday. A (brief) historical pattern of economic downturns. A rare conjunction. Or three more blood moons. =)

Speaking of the four blood moons, if you get nothing else from this article, the one point I want you to take away is the same point I made about that prophecy theory. The demonstrable rarity of an event does not equate with divinity or prophetic significance! That is the underlying false assumption of both the failed four blood moons theory of 2015 and this Revelation 12 theory for 2017.  Nowhere does the Bible tell us to look for rare events for signs of the end. Instead, it tells us specific events that will start the end, which have nothing to do with Revelation 12 showing us only events from the latter half of the 70th week (Satan coming down and chasing the saints who God gathers to a place prepared for 3½ years).

Therefore, what this Sept 2017 "sign" tells us is that the speculation engine of Christianity is still alive and well, learning nothing from the failed speculation just two years earlier. In fact, as someone who has been interested in prophecy since before the Internet broke out in 1995, I can tell you that speculation is increasing. More theories catch on, spread and worry people than ever before. (September 2015 even saw two different biblical prophecy theories converge, a first in my recollection.)

It will either make you fed up with prophecy or make you wiser--in both cases faster than ever before. =)

Oh, and by the way, several people have mentioned a fear of dismissing rapture dates, citing the Parable of the Ten Virgins and the desire to have "oil in their lamps" when the time came. However, as this article on the Ten Virgin Parable shows, it has nothing to do with being ready by being open minded to prophecy date setting!

Now, if you want to know what Revelation is really predicting through the woman, see my article on the 144,000 and the Woman.

Receive Tim's Prophecy Updates By Email

Join 30,000 subscribers receiving Tim's new articles and updates by email. Understanding Bible prophecy better will dispel your end time fear and bless you (Rev 1:3).

About the author

Tim McHyde

Tim is the author of this site (since 1999) and the book Know the Future that explains Revelation literally at last--including the key event of Wormwood (Rev 6-8). To read more from Tim and not miss a single new article, sign up for his free newsletter above.

loren martell - November 27, 2016

Come quickly YAHSHUA…

    Leo Peters - March 30, 2017

    How can the Rapture or the Lord return in Rev 12:1 When the church has been Raptured in Rev 4:1 where it reads: After this I looked, which speaks about the church being in heaven , or the Rapture. And behold a door was opened in heaven this gives John the ability to see what is taking place. And the voice which I heard was as it were a trumpet talking me which said, come up hither, and I will show you things which must be hereafter. this voice is Jesus speaking after the church has been Raptured, so as you can see Rev 12: 1 has nothing to do with the Rapture, the church was Raptured in Rev 4:1 Rev 12:1, is sparking of the birth of Jesus, and the nation of Israel. at this point we are in the middle of the great tribulation where all the judgements fall on the wicked. and Antichrist is ruling, this is when he breaks his treaty with Israel.

      Tim McHyde - March 30, 2017

      Leo, agreed, there is no rapture in Rev 12. But I hate to break it to you, but there is no mention of the rapture or reward of the saints in Rev 4, either. John went up to heaven. John. Not the church. John. The rapture is found in Revelation at the 7th trumpet (Rev 11:8).

        Jon - April 10, 2017

        “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” on Google is a great insight into many leading pretrib rapture teachers! http://www.poweredbychrist.com/Pretrib_Rapture_Dishonesty.html

          tim jordan - April 27, 2017

          I asked a question in a prophecy conference to Zola Levitt. I asked him what was his number one reason for believing in a pretrib rapture. he said “that it has to be a surprise. Then he explained that the prophet Daniel explained that Jesus would arrive 7 years after the Jewish people sign a peace treaty with the Antichrist. He then said an angel said blessed is he who waits the 1440 days. So he said anyone on the tribulation could know the date of the end of the tribulation. He said that meant there had to. be a return that Jesus spoke about that no man could know the date. What do you think about Zola Levitt’s response?

          Tim McHyde - April 28, 2017

          Tim Jordan, I love your anecdote! Zola Levitt’s answer gives an authentic demonstration of just how nonexistent the Biblical support is for the “pretrib rapture.” Rather than give the answer I would give that “The #1 reason for believing the post-tribulation rapture is Scripture, plainly read! Jesus and Paul plainly taught Antichrist/Tribulation ‘first,’ and gathering/rapture ‘after.’ Every Bible verse talking directly on the rapture or the near-simultaneous first resurrection explicitly affirm this order in any Bible.”

          Because there is no verse plainly supporting pretrib (as some pretrib rapture teachers even admit), Zola had to invent something, as all must do. “It has to be a surprise,” is an invention. You won’t find that in the Bible. You will find only that at the time of Jesus “no man knows the day or hour.” That will change. Paul instead said it won’t be a surprise to us (1Th 5:4) but only on those alive still under the Antichrist when Jesus comes (1Th 5:2-3). Those under the Antichrist have the mark which completely deceives them and even involves mind-controlled (nobody can repent Rev 16:9,11), so yes they will be surprised after 3.5 years of rebuilding the world by Satan’s design.

      Kayla - May 6, 2017

      Wow explains a lot. I’ve always thought that revaluation was wrote to tell what has already happened. So much to learn & understand when wrote so long ago & things have been added & taken away. Even I didn’t know about all the books taken out, not sure of which ones and why they took the book of Enoch out. Never really read the whole book but wonder why they took it completely out and who done this.

R. Wiesinger - December 9, 2016

Could the ‘Sign of the Woman’ in Revelation 12 represent the heavenly sign indicating both the First and Second Coming?

Verse 2 and verse 5 points to the birth of Jesus the Messiah from the ‘woman’ representing both Israel and Miriam while verse 5 also alludes to the Ascension of Jesus followed by verse 6 which would appear to point to the Jewish nation fleeing to Selah/Petra (the wilderness) at the half way point (1,260 days) of the seven year faux peace covenant mentioned in Daniel 9:27.

Side note: Regarding the ‘gathering of the elect’ recorded in Matthew 24:31, I would have to hold to the ‘post-trib’ interpretation as Jesus Himself had prefaced this event with His remark ‘Immediately, after the tribulation……’ (Matthew 24:29).

It appears you’re not ‘pre-trib’ as well, so that is something we share in biblical eschatology.

I’m on a quest to study and better understand this ‘Sign of the Woman’ in Revelation 12 as well as other eschatological topics. As I read and (best as I can) understand it, the early portion of Revelation 12 just doesn’t seem to merely point to the First Coming alone.

I’m not given in to dogmatism regarding the more difficult biblical passages dealing with eschatology, so I’m analyzing the interpretations of other believers who subscribe to a conservative theological position. And so I am humbly seeking to understand the ‘end-times’ prophecies more fully as it appears the times we live in – Beginning of Sorrows? – could very well possibly/probably be those ‘end-times’ written in scripture so long ago.

Just to clarify, right now I hold to my interpretation that the ‘Sign of the Woman’ signifies both the First Coming and the approaching Second Coming.

In the context of both the First and Second Coming, verse 6 points to the ‘woman’ (Mary/Israel) fleeing to ‘the wilderness’, which for Mary was Egypt following the birth of Y’shua; but for Israel will be Selah/Petra upon the son of perdition entering the third Temple, which will occur at the half way point of the seven year faux peace covenant – a UN resolution to create Palestine, divide Jerusalem and allow Israel to build their third Temple on the north side of the Muslim Dome of the Rock Shrine in accordance with Revelation 11:1-2?)

I believe this ‘Sign of the Woman’ could very well mark the time of the signing of the faux peace covenant written in Daniel 9:27 or the halfway point of the Daniel 9:27 covenant.

The Second Coming of Jesus would occur after the tribulation of those 1,260 days. Daniel 12:11-13 also provides some interesting information in possible relation to the Second Coming.

    Tim McHyde - December 12, 2016

    Revelation 12 is completely chronological in context. The end times begins in verse 7 with Satan being cast out by Michael (yet future). Therefore, there is no space in there for the sign shown at the beginning at the birth of Yeshua to happen again, in the end times at his second coming. It’s just speculation that says this. Also, we have elsewhere in Revelation and Matthew 24 the signs of Jesus’ coming. No need to insert it into this special chapter.
    Now is not yet the “beginning of sorrows” Jesus spoke of because we are not seeing “earthquakes in all places” yet. See http://escapeallthesethings.com/sign-of-jesus-coming-end-age for more on that.
    Also there is no “peace treaty” anywhere in Bible prophecy. That’s more speculation ignoring context. See http://escapeallthesethings.com/antichrist-myths
    Hope this helps.

      B.W. - January 1, 2017

      Thank you for your work on the subject. I am also trying to figure out the Revelation 12 Sign, but which also seem to point to the future. Then;
      Have you ever though of a celestial body – brown dwarf – planet X (9) – Niburu between earth and sun for three dark hours on the day Jesus died on the cross followed by eathquakes, – as the great read dragon ? Could it be the same “planet” during time of Joshua when the sun appeared to stand still (gravity) with more people killed by meteors than in battle ? It seems that “The winged destroyer” is a highly real body ref. Sky News, RT-News, China B. News.
      Picture after 7 min. 10 sec. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxmUnhJqcEI
      Could it be that Jupiter, the king planet, will be hit by planet X after it leave Virgo ?
      How then do you view Israel in Bible prophecy ref. to UNESCO vs. Mt.Moriah
      and UN against settlements in Judea and Samaria ?
      Then man has turned the colours of the rainbow against God celebrating same sex marriage when braking the very circle of live ref. Days of Noah ?
      It seems that the wrath of the Lamb is to be poured out and shall we not be delivered as the church of Philadelphia ( the early church fathers believe in rapture as Polycharp, Ireneus ) ?

      – For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be quiet, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as …” Isaiah 62.1

      “Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home ….” Council of the League of Nations which UN failed in 1947 in spite of UN art. 80

Douglas Hamp - December 31, 2016

Hi Tim,

I would like to invite you to be on my show, The Awakening Report to talk about your book



    Tim McHyde - December 31, 2016

    Would be happy to after I finish a few pressing matters with my website.

Robert DeHaan - January 1, 2017

Once again you answered the context of the Revelation 12 and the September 23,2017 theory as some have tried to make it a true prophetic event. I have found when I come across something such as this, the Holy Spirit seems to direct me to you for Scriptural clarity. Thanks be to Our Father for His covenantial promises to those who seek the Truth. Have a blessed 2017 and I look forward to your continued ministry to the body of believers.

Pastor Rich - January 5, 2017


I am new to your site and have been looking closely at Rev. 12 and 23-Sept/17 as well. Have you done any level of research into a Rabbi Judah Ben Samuel, stated as a 12th Century writer from Regensberg, Germany?

Some writers suggest a connection of the two.

With thanks,


Prince - January 12, 2017

Dear Tim,
Also seeking clarification. What I don’t follow is why God will show John a vision of the first coming/birth of Christ in Revelation 12. When the book is all about things that are about to happen.

I also don’t get your view on Rev 12. Can you expose and not only refute?

God Bless.

    Tim McHyde - January 12, 2017

    Prince, I’ve updated the article with a new subheading under problem #1 to explain why there is “revelation” on both the past and the future in the Book of “Revelation.” Also see a new conclusion paragraph linking to the article explaining the Rev 12 prophecy.

    Lisa - April 17, 2017

    Prince, You are right. Their argument that this sign is about Jesus’s coming the first time doesn’t hold up.

vader Jakob - January 16, 2017

As I understand it, “the Man Child” spoken of in Rev 12:5 cannot be Jesus of Nazareth, given the fact Jesus Christ was not “snatched away or taken by force “(Gr: harpazo) to the Father in Heaven . Compare with 1 Thess 4:17.

    Tim McHyde - January 17, 2017

    Vader, Who says Jesus was not taken by God to heaven? I don’t see anything in Luke about his departure that would clearly contradict the word harpazo. It says, after all, Luke 24:51 “While he was blessing them, he left them and was TAKEN UP into heaven” (!).

    The rest of Rev 12:5 “And she brought forth a man child, who is to shepherd all the nations with a rod of iron” leaves no doubt that this man child is Christ. The combination of features is too distinct to admit of doubt, it is the one who will feed His flock like a shepherd (Isaiah 40:12), who is to have, not His own people, but all nations as His inheritance (Psalm 2:7-9), and whose rule over them is to be supreme and irresistible.

      Jafo - March 24, 2017

      Sir: since you wrote this article we now know this sign as it appears in Sep 2017 has not occurred within the last 6000 years or look forward 1000 years.

        Tim McHyde - March 28, 2017

        Jafo, it’s a common Christian fallacy to assert that rarity of an event gives it prophetic significance. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to look for “rare events” or “events in the sky” as “signs”. It’s too subjective and ambiguous to convey anything meaningful, just as you admitted by saying we may not know what it means. It may still be appealing but it’s nothing more than natural, humanistic, subjective reasoning, rather than the instruction of Scripture on what to look for in the end times as a sign. The end time signs are indeed specified already elsewhere, so why not just consult those passages instead of inventing new theories?. (A: Because few can understand them literally..)

        The truth is that the 2014-15 eclipses were predictable, natural events. The conjunctions of 2017 are as well. To assign significance to them requires 1) to invent a concept that rarity equals prophetic significance and 2) to take Revelation 12:5 out of its natural context with Jesus’ birth and read into it an end time timeframe. But there is no mention of the end times there. It was a great sign at Jesus’ time and it indicates nothing more than that in the plain text.

wray boughner - January 19, 2017

Hi, is this about the time we possibly might be seeing planet x (nibriu) aproching to pass between the sun and earth.

Mary - February 15, 2017

I’m mostly just confused about ONE of your comments…this…” More theories catch on, spread and worry people than ever before. ” What on earth would “worry” a Christian about the Rapture?????

    Tim McHyde - February 15, 2017


    First, my statement you quoted refers to prophecy theories in general, not just this one. Even this one is not specific to the rapture, but is also interpreted as tribulation, second coming or other things. Hence the worry even about Sept, 2017.

    Second, even if it was just the rapture, as a person who talks to lots of believers, I can tell you many believers have doubts about their salvation in general or at least at certain times in their life. “What if the rapture comes when I’m not ready?”, they worry.

    I hope you can see that not everyone is as blessed as you with confidence and excitement about the rapture or the next rapture date theory.


      Mary - February 15, 2017

      Oh, I guess I can see that if you are someone who believes in two plans of salvation: saved by grace, kept by works. That makes sense then. Thankfully I know that works are most definitely an evidence of someone who is truly saved but nothing in me (no righteousness on my part) is what I’m trusting in for salvation, but in the finished work of Christ on the cross. But now that you explained it this way, yes, I get it. None-the-less we are supposed to love His appearing and even John, at the completion of writing Revelation said, “even so, come Lord Jesus!” I pray others will GET excited about it! Thanks for helping me to understand how they may not be.

        Cristian Balan - March 5, 2017

        Amen Mary! God bless you!

        loree lew - April 4, 2017

        i hear you Mary, as i see it the same way as you; how can you not want the Lord to come quickly?? yet, there are many believers who are not walking daily with our Lord or they don’t keep their focus on Him and His Word or they are not aligning themselves with His Word…thus, they are not truly experiencing the Joy of faith/rest which is ours for the taking in this life; they are troubled and weighed down by the cares of this world and are probably not ready yet. may we be used of our Lord to pray for them and to love them and encourage them to come and follow Him.

        Deborah (Discerning the World) - April 14, 2017

        Hi Mary

        You said “saved by grace, kept by works”

        Fantastic, I must remember that. You don’t mind if I quote you someday 🙂

Lindsay Whitmoyer - February 28, 2017

Tim, I didn’t see you address Jupiter entering the womb and staying there in retrograde motion for 42 weeks. I have seen someone else on the internet say this only happens once every 83 years. Your interpretation???

    Tim McHyde - February 28, 2017

    Lindsay, there’s nothing to address really. Something being rare does not make it divine or a sign. This is a common mistake of prophecy prognosticators and theorists. Revelation 12’s woman giving birth to a man child who is taken up to heaven refers to the birth and ascension of Jesus. It’s not tied in the chapter in any way to his return, the rapture, the tribulation or anything else. People who say such things are reading into the passage an application that is not literally there. There is plenty of literal prophecy to work from that we don’t need waste our time with invented speculation like the September 2017 Rev 12 theory, yes?

David Miranda - March 9, 2017

When Satan is cast out of heaven, it says he is filled with wrath because he knows he has but a short time. This suggests that Satan is cast out close to the End. Now if the woman is Mary, it says she is fed for 1260 days in verse 6. Verse 7 then talks about the war in heaven which results in Satan being cast out…which, apparently, is at the end. It seems odd that within one story featuring events that would not necessarily take an inordinately long time, that there would be a gap of 2,000 years between verses 6 and 7. How do you account for that?

    Tim McHyde - March 9, 2017

    David, Revelation 12 covers events spanning around 6000 years from Satan’s rebellion bringing down with one third of the angels in Adam’s time to Satan’s expulsion from Heaven in the middle of the final 7 years. That there are several gaps of multiple thousands of years should be no surprise. The story is there to give us the background to the characters in the end time battle between Satan and the offspring of the woman/the faithful. It’s not to give a detailed history with no gaps. That’s why there is nothing covered from Satan’s fall to Christ’s birth and nothing from Christ’s ascension until the Great Tribulation.

      David Miranda - March 10, 2017

      Are the woman and man child in Rev 12:13 different from the woman and man child in Rev 12:4-5?

Wayde Andressen - March 18, 2017

Hi, Tim. Appreciate your work on exposing yet another attempt at date setting, which unfortunately is probably not the last. I do have a quibble, however, having to do with what you say here:

Some doubt that Mary is the woman giving birth, confused over a past event being found in a prophecy book like Revelation.They often note how John records early on in the book that an angel told him would be shown things “that must happen after this” (Rev 4:1). They expect this rules out anything in Revelation happening before John’s time (90AD), such as Mary giving birth to Jesus (1 B.C. supposedly).

My response to that is twofold. First, it does not say “I will ONLY show you things coming after.” The exciting part to mention is of course the future things, but it does not preclude showing other things, too. Secondly, the Book is a Book of revelation, not “future prophecy.” There is much in the past that is a mystery which humanity needs revelation on, including the key players of the righteous vs Satan and the work of Christ. This revelation from the past establishes the characters for the future part of the revelation. In other words, for John to be shown the key things in the future, some explanatory revelation of the past is appropriate and reasonable to facilitate that.

It sounds to me like Rev 1:1 makes it pretty clear that John was writing about future events: “. . . to show to His servants the things that must soon take place.” In other words, these “things that must SOON take place” have not YET taken place, which means they are at least future to the time of writing.

    Tim McHyde - March 18, 2017

    Wayde, I understand, but think that’s too narrow of a view of Rev 1:1, which again does not say “ONLY the future, NO past–whatever you think, don’t take anything in this book as past!!!”. Rev 1:1 indeed states the main goal of the book. Now, to accomplish that goal, it does no good to say, “the Dragon will persecute the Woman and go after her offspring” leaving it at that. You need to explain who the dragon is, who the woman is, what they both did to lead up to that point to understand their conflict. The backstory is needed to accomplish the goal of Rev 1:1 or it’s not a very good “revelation.”

    Evangelist Stephen - July 3, 2017

    You would all benefit knowing the difference between a sign and a wonder.

Connie - March 24, 2017

I’m kinda glad I saw this, it helps calms me down. However, I keep reading stuff on it and I wasn’t sure if there was any more that can be added to de-bunking it or many put more simple to remember easier?

Have you seen the “Star of Bethlehem” it went to depth about the constellation Virgo and Jupiter circled and conjoined with Regulus (compare than being in the “womb”.)

    Tim McHyde - March 24, 2017

    Connie, glad to have helped you. No matter how many “proofs” you read, remember they are all external and added to the text! The simple fact is 1) Rev 12 says NOTHING about the Second Coming or the Rapture so the text must be read into by these theorists with those ideas already preconceived! 2) What is there instead is that the text explicitly ties the sign of the virgin to the birth of Jesus before he was caught up to heaven. If you want end time signs, go to Matthew 24 where he says “it’s a sign of the end” (Mt 24:14) rather than read a sign into a text that does not say that.

    Therefore my advice to help you simplify this is to always go back to the text when you hear these new arguments and review what it says and what it does not say and to remember that what commonly passes for Bible interpretation by Christians is reading into the text what is not there rather than taking it literally as Jesus interpreted (e.g John 10:35).

Neil - April 10, 2017

Tim, I’m sure someone has pointed out to you by now that your dogmatic statement in an answer above may not be quite accurate – “when Rev 12 speaks of “a male child born of a woman, who ascends to heaven and rules all nations with a scepter of iron,” and I use Scripture to show the only one who fits this description is Christ”.

It may not be accurate in that it doesn’t take into account Revelation 2:26-27 – “To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father.”

The one who rules with an iron sceptre can be equally the church, ruling with Jesus during the Millennium. And that opens the possibility that the male child could be the church. But I expect you are already aware that Revelation 12:1-2 are considered key pre-trib rapture verses for this reason.

I am still wrestling with this whole thing so I would be very interested in your view.

    Tim McHyde - April 11, 2017

    Neil, yes I covered that already in another comment, but obviously I need to update the article. So please review the new section “Could Revelation 2:26 Indicate the Church is the Male Child?”

Robert G Pickle - April 12, 2017

Revelation 21:24 (KJV) And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

It would be advised to study “Nations” Revelation.

Jon - April 14, 2017

I invite everyone to catch “Ready for Rapture Astrology?” It can be found on Treena Gisborn’s UK blog “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing.”

Deborah (Discerning the World) - April 14, 2017

Hi Tim McHyde

You said: “Also there is no “peace treaty” anywhere in Bible prophecy. That’s more speculation ignoring context.”

Let’s call it a 7 year covenant then…

Daniel 9:27 “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. “

    Zachary Miller - April 14, 2017

    Deborah—I’m guessing Tim was using the phrase of “peace treaty” to indicate an agreement that was “public” (known to everyone). The covenant appears to be an agreement made between the actors involved and is probably secret in nature—so there isn’t going to be some external indicator which tells us that some agreement has been made.

      Tim McHyde - April 15, 2017

      Zachary, you get it. There is no “peace treaty” in the Bible. They misrepresent what Dan 7 says about a 7 year “pact” into some public peace treaty, which is not there. It’s a private conspiracy as Rev 17 clearly details.

Deborah (Discerning the World) - April 14, 2017

These verses from Revelation tell the story from the time there was a war in heaven and Satan was cast out – to Israel being faithful – the coming of Jesus Christ – His birth, -His ascension to the Father, His return – Satan ‘s wrath on Israel and all Christians right up to the coming 7 year Tribulation – God’s promise to Israel to protect her during the Tribulation for 3.5 years etc, etc, etc.

The woman is Israel, the 12 stars represent the 12 Tribes of Israel. Mary (Israel) gives birth to a man child (who is Jesus Christ).
It’s Israel who goes into the wilderness where God protects her from Satan’s wrath for 3.5 years during the tribulation.

The man child is Jesus Christ who the Satan/Dragon was there to destroy from the moment He was born.

Please read the whole chapter of Revelation 12 as a whole not just 1 verse here and there to understand what’s happening.

Just in case I get lambasted for this, this is just my opinion 🙂

    K.C. - April 14, 2017

    Deborah, you took the words right out of my mouth. Good job. 😉 Seems so simple to me. I agree, the woman is Israel, with the 12 tribes as stars and Jesus is the male child that Israel gave to the world. The moon she stands on is a symbol for Israel (lunar calendar) and the sun clothing her is perhaps symbolic of Christ, who clothes all who believe with His light.

    Catholics claim this woman is Mary. But they also say Mary was born without original sin (Immaculate Conception). But if she were born without original sin, she would have not have had the pain in childbirth that the verse signifies. Great pain in childbirth is part of the curse and not something she would have been heir to as a sinless person. Of course she was NOT born without original sin, nor sinless, else why does she call God her savior in Luke 2?

    We may disagree on this, and not trying to start an argument, but imo, I believe Satan is cast out of heaven because the rapture has occurred, the Bema Seat judgment has taken place, and there is “no longer any place for him” at God’s throne as the accuser of the brethren. Of course it could be a mid-Trib casting-out also. (There could even be two raptures, one of white winter wheat (in the spring) and one of hard red wheat (in the fall), signifying the brethren who come to faith by the mid-Trib, but have to suffer some of the Trib before they are rescued.) If the Tribulation is God’s wrath, then I do see why God will exert His wrath on His Bride, especially when we see Abraham pinning God down on that score in Gen. 18. God does not destroy or afflict the righteous with the wicked and says so explicitly. (Some people object, saying the Church has suffered since her inception. But persecution of the Church in ages past and present is Satan’s wrath, not God’s. Jesus said if they persecuted Me, they will persecute you.) People say we are protected from God’s wrath in situ, but how do you protect someone from a plague of intense heat from the sun, or from inflation, or famine, or nuclear bombs going off (the elements melting with intense heat) or the stars falling from heaven, or no light of a lamp? The Bride is sprinkled throughout the world. What is to be gained by keeping the Bride here to witness all the blood and gore, including that of their family members? True, those who come to faith after the rapture will endure those things. It will be a form of fast-track sanctification and testing, to prove those who are His. Will they choose temporary comfort or eternal life? I’ve also thought that because Noah, a type of the Gentile believer, was commanded by God to enter the Ark seven days before He brought the flood of rain upon the earth, that it was an embedded hint of the pre-Trib rapture. The Ark is Christ. The physical typology will be fulfilled by the spiritual typology of the Church being raptured to where Christ is seven years before God brings the destruction by fire. That seven years will be spent, imo, in the Father’s house as the Bridal Week, consummating the wedding (whatever form that takes), followed by the wedding feast on earth at the Second Coming, where we are joined by the OT saints and the Tribulation saints, who will be priests of God and Christ for 1,000 yrs. By the way, Noah was told to go into the Ark on the 10th day of the second month.

RS - April 30, 2017

Many of you might find a series of videos by Jaco Prinsloo (YouTube channel “Wes 2nd of 7” videos “#1… thru #11”) … worth considering. Also … Jaco’s book “Gods Roadmap to the end”. Not saying that I believe he has landed on THE final end-times prophetic interpretation. Since we are all members of one body and led by one spirit, there can be only one truth. Until He returns, the revelation of absolute and definitive truth might only become clearer as we approach the end. That being said, watching continuously with an open mind and a spirit of humility may be the key to a clearer understanding. In pursuit of truth, I am willing to consider may brothers voices (with holy spirit discernment); but never thinking that any one brother has arrived at the final definitive truth. I have long followed Hal Lindsey (instrumental in my and my wife’s salvation) since the early 70’s and he has had to rethink many of his interpretations also. Let us all keep searching and watching until we are with Him in the air.

    Zachary Miller - July 1, 2017

    I’ve listened to “Jaco’s” web series as well—I can say that his “interpretation” leads us to believe that the ‘rapture’ will occur this September….I disagree with his views and I would argue that they are entirely incorrect. The literal interpretation (as stated on this website) is the way to go in my opinion. I’m not aware way to determine one’s “holy spirit discernment” other than VERIFYING someone’s claims with the word itself—the difficulty, however, is removing one’s own preconceptions and taking the word for what it states plainly (in most circumstances).

Rob - June 5, 2017

The books Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed and The Birth of Christ Recalculated written around 1978-1982 from memory both indicated 11 Sep as the birth of Christ and the calculations are based on the astronomical events from Revelation

Mike - July 1, 2017

There’s no such thing as the Rapture, at least before the end times (pretrib).

The Rapture is more like a scapegoat for anyone looking to escape what is to come. If you’ve noticed throughout the lives of the Saints, they have one thing in common besides the obvious. They all suffered in some sort of way. If the Rapture was to happen, it is most likely when the time of peace comes about. In order to be a saint, one must be like Christ (not BE Christ, mind you). Christ suffered greatly so I firmly believe that suffering is one of the biggest factors into securing a spot in Heaven.

Ron - July 4, 2017

Tim & Deborah

I think these September speculators commenting directly above my note here, are exactly the Authors to whom Tim is speaking. Tim stated quite clearly that he sees in the written word, this is misinformation and shouldn’t be banked on.
On the other hand, I didn’t think we’d see a comment or discussion with Tim aroused by Deborah’s writings above. I’m still looking forward further back and forth comments from the two of them.
Great work from all of you,

Click here to add a comment

Leave a comment: