The Three Faces of Eve in The Book of Revelation

I have come to view The Woman of Revelation 12, the Harlot of Revelation 17, The Bride of Christ in Revelation 19 and The Lamb's Wife in Revelation 21 as the same Symbolic Woman.  I'd stated that on this Blog before but I feel it needs restating, most posts I've done before on any of these personages are pieces in putting this puzzle together.

Most theologians who would say something like this are not Futurists like I am but more taking an Idealist view of Revelation like Peter Heitt.  Pre-Trib/PreWrath Dispensationalists tend to view there as being three women (everyone agrees that the Bride and the Wife at the same), while Post-Trib Futurists prefer to see the Bride and the Mother in Revelation 12 as the same but the Harlot as still an irredeemable enemy who simply dies when she is killed.

I believe in Universal Salvation, the Metanarrative of Scripture is that Israel was Widowed and Divorced because of her Adulatorous Harlotry but YHWH is going to Redeem and Remarry her just like Hosea and Gomer, He will Restore Judah and Samaria and even Sodom as Ezekiel 16 clearly states, Ezekiel 27 returns to those themes, this cycle was first laid out in Deuteronomy 29-30 and is reaffirmed in Malachi chapter 3 and Romans 11.

The Dispensationalist view on the Women of Revelation happens to resemble The Three Faces of Eve Trope, which is an analysis of the concept that Patriarchal Society tends to see women in only 3 roles, a faithful Wife/Mother, a Harlotrous Seductress, or a Innocent Virgin/Child.  Of course my making all three the same woman can also be seen as an example of that trope.  Except that usually as stages in the character development of one character it goes in the opposite direction, you start as an innocent, then get sexually active, then settle down, The Woman of Revelation is introduced giving birth and ends the story as a Virgin.

As an Anime Weirdo, this reading of the Book of Revelation factors into why a number of my favorite Anime are shows where one of the principal Villains is also the Damsel in Distress at the same time, stories where saving the Villainess is the Heroes' emotionally most important objective, the World being Saved in the process is just an added bonus, like how Ezekiel 16 frames the restoration of Sodom as being because it'd be unfair to save Israel but not Sodom, and Roman 11 clarified that it's not till the FULLNESS of the Gentiles are grafted into Israel that ALL Israel shall be Saved.

Pretear and a number of other Magical Girl stories fit this to varying degrees. SSSS.Gridman was one of the shows that first made me see this as a common theme. It's also a big part of Robotics;Notes and Chaos;Child, one could debatably see Utena and Princess Tutu as fitting too.  Oh and Future Diary counts as well, but be warned that one is an edgy and trashy ride to get there.  [Update April 2023: Now that I've finally watched it I can add Re:Creators to this list.]

It would naturally spoil these shows a bit to go into detail, maybe you feel I've spoiled them by mentioning they do this at all, but I didn't say which characters this applied to.  And SSSS.Gridman is a show that isn't good because anything was a surprise, if you're at all Genre Savvy it was clear from episode 1 where it was going.  In Robotics;Notes it is also clear early on to the audience that Misaki Senomiya has become a villain in the present, how and why is the mystery.  It's Misaki who perhaps best fits the relevance here, she's the older sister of the Female Protagonist and informally basically of the Male Protagonist as well, which is similar to being a mother.

I'm sure there are stories that do this with a male character as well if you want to see these Gender norms subverted, it's just Anime Girls are who I'm most drawn to personally.

These are often exactly the Anime that lend themselves to Bring Me To Life AMVs.

But I should mention in some of these shows the character in questions is not the only villain or even only major villain, there sometimes still is an Unrepentant Pure Evil Antagonist that an infernalsit viewer could view as representing the Reprobate or Satan.

Maybe The Wedding Feast isn't in Heaven like we assume?

I was watching this Sermon of Peter Hiett.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3NX-XG6dgA

Now he and I don't agree on Revelation, he isn't a Futurist so he's not likely to agree with the title of this post.  But he and I agree on the subject of Universal Salvation and because of that common ground I'm still able to gain many spiritual insights watching his Sermons.

Technically this Sermon may not actually say anything to help what I'm arguing here at all.  But it was on the Wedding Banquette parable from Matthew 22 so it had me thinking about this subject.  And it brought up what I'd already heard before of Jewish Wedding Feasts sometimes lasting seven days.

In the context of what I've argued about The Bride of Christ, and my conviction that the Seven Years that Revelation 6-19 will play out over Nisan-Nisan years, including suggesting Jesus will have a second Triumphal Entry in the Nisan that ends this time period.  It has me thinking about the Wedding Feast being the Seven Days of Unleavened bread.

We tend to think Revelation 19 is placing The Wedding Feast in heaven, including me talking about this subject in the past.  But it doesn't say that, verses 7-9 say the time for the Wedding is come, then in verse 11 Heaven is opened and the Rider on the White Horse invades The Earth.  And in verse 14 the armies following him are dressed the same as the Bride in verse 8.

This suggestion can be interesting to compare to me is The Rider on The White Horse someone other then Jesus theory.  Especially since The Son of Man already came riding on a Cloud back in Chapter 14.

Who is The Bride of Christ?

I did a post defending The Church as the Bride of Christ once.  My views on a number of things have changed since then, mainly my becoming less Dispensational.  I now believe The Church is grafted into Israel.  Though I do still believe there are probably some unique promises for Church Age believers.

So while on the one hand I want to talk in this post about how I'm more open to rethinking how we think about the Bride of Christ then I was then.  I first want to talk about how the main people you'll find on a google search for "The Church is not the Bride of Christ", are absolute Dispensationists as much as Chuck Missler is, just changing which Covenant people they say is The Bride.  And in so doing say things that bug me even more now then they did back then.

Jerusalem is the Lamb's Wife quite clearly in Revelation 21.  And to them the word Jerusalem can't possibly apply to The Church.  One went all in on this "Revelation is about Israel not The Church" idea saying even the Seven Churches are about Israel not the Church.  I think it's absurd to say something so important to the New Testament would be totally absent from the closing book of The Bible.

I could point out to them how the message to Philadelphia and the description of New Jerusalem clearly tie themselves to how Paul taught his The Church is God's Temple doctrine, via the Twelve Disciples as Pillars.  Or that Jesus told the Twelve Disciples at the Last Supper they would rule the Twelve Tribes.  They simply wouldn't care.

But now to how I'm more open.

The thing I've noticed is that Psalm 45, generally agreed to be a Messianic Psalm, has The Messiah and His Wife and their Children, as distinct entities.  Isaiah 53 also says the Suffering Servant will have Seed.  These do not mean Jesus will reproduce biologically, they are about John 1 teaching how Jesus gave us the ability to become Sons of God.  And probably also about The Man-Child being The Church. 

In Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 Jesus refers to His Disciples as the Children of the Bridegroom or Bridechamber.  Some Translations try to make this say servants, but the Greek text of the Textus Receptus says children making the KJV right here.  What John The Baptist says in John 3:29 can be taken in context as saying the former disciples of John becoming Disciples of Jesus are The Bride, but I think that's an oversimplification, he doesn't directly say that.

I think it is believers as the Temple of God/Body of Christ that include The Bride and the Children together.  My post about The Vail of The Temple suggests good reason to see The Bride and Groom as the Holy of Holies/Holy Place, The Vail torn means they are no longer separate.  The Children may then equate to the Inner Court.  Originally only Aaronic Priests could enter it, but now all believers are Priests.  There are no separate courts for Gentiles or Women as Galatians 3 shows.  Ephesian 2:14 also says the Wall of partition has been torn down.

I believe Israel is the Woman of Revelation 12, I've argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and 17 possibly are the same Woman, and returned to that in my recent Eden and Sinai post.[but that argument is now corrected by Eden may have been in Yemen].  The one thing that I was uncomfortable with about that is the implication of no happy ending for Israel.

Unless we conclude that this is also the same Woman who becomes the Bride in Chapter 19 and the Lamb's Wife in Chapter 21.  It makes sense given Paul's discussion in Romans of the divorce and Re-Marriage of Israel.  It's not explicitly stated they are the same because God promised He "will remember their Sins no more", Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17.  Remember in Revelation 18 God calls His People out of Babylon.

In fact that Greek word translated Bride in Revelation 19 is the exact same word used for Woman in chapter 12 and 17.  A word that more specifically means Bride isn't used till chapter 21. And likewise the word for Wife is usually the same word translated Woman.

It might be Isaiah 62 equates to verses 7-9 of Revelation 19, and then Isaiah 63 equates to verses 11-16.

Update: Types

Chuck Missler likes to back up his dispensationalist view of The Bride of Christ doctrine by talking about a theme of  "Gentile Brides" in the Old Testament.  I think he said there are at least 7 once.  But that whole thing is built on sand, having only really Ruth to go on.

Havvah/Eve was made from Adam's flesh, so you can't call that a marriage between separate Blood Lines.

With Rebecca in Genesis 24, the whole point was Abraham sent his servant to get a Wife for Isaac from the descendants of his brother.  Then Jacob's wives came from that same family.

Tamar was not a Canaanite, it was the unnamed wife of Judah who was clearly identified as one.

Rahab the Harlot is not depicted as marrying anyone in the Hebrew Bible, and I've shown that the Recab of Matthew's Genealogy cannot be referring to her.

Of the Wives of David, the only three who have any particular narratives about them are all clearly Israelites. Bathsheba even came from the same Tribe, Judah, as the granddaughter of Athitophel, though her first Husband was a Gentile.  Abigail was from Carmel but had been married to a Calebite.  And Michal was a princess of Benjamin, perhaps making her the most likely to be a type of the New Jerusalem.  Or perhaps Michal is Old Jerusalem and Bethsheba is New Jerusalem.

Esther also was a Benjamite, in that scenario it's the groom who was a gentile.

Solomon's marriages to foreigners are not depicted positively.  And my studies of the Song of Solomon have firmly lead me to conclude that Shulamith was a granddaughter of Solomon.

Nor does Psalm 45 in anyway make it's Bride a Gentile, despite how some seek to abuse the text to make it about the Queen of Sheba.  The "Queen in Gold of Ophir" verse is simply about her wearing expensive imported clothes, because Solomon got his Gold from Ophir.  What's interesting is that Gentile women attend the Wedding.  Her being told to forget her own people and her father's house use "Am" not "Goyi" for people, it could be used in the sense of being from a different Tribe of Israel.  Again reflecting how in Deuteronomy 33 the Beloved is of Benjamin.  But also the most significant verse to use "Am" is Genesis 48:19 of Manasseh.

So getting back to Ruth, the thing about her is she's not the only Wife depicted in the story.  Naomi (Who Chuck Missler says represents Israel) is also a Widow, and her husband's name makes him a possible type of the King, Elimelech.  The narrative point in this Book is about Ruth being a gentile who becomes an Israelite via Faith in Israel's God, not about a Gentile Bride being separate from Israel.

So don't let anything I said above make you think I'm against Mixed Marriages, I have a post on my other Blog defending them.

Update April 16th 2018: Methosius of Olympus.

 Methodius of Olympus a Pre-Nicene Church Father taught that The Woman of Revelation 12 is The Church and The Man-Child the Saints. That is a confusing explanation, but I think a product of being at least partly aware of the truths I just laid out above but being blinded by the Anti-Semitism the Early Church had already developed.

Of course that could be explained by language like in Ezekiel 16, where Judah, Samaria and Sodom are refereed to as well as their "daughters", referring to the people of the City as the City's children.

Methodius's writings we don't have in full.  This looks to me like evidence he was a Pre-Nicene father who wasn't Post-Trib since I don't see how making the Man-Child the Saints rather then Jesus can be made compatible with Post-Trib.  But I'm not gonna bet on that because playing games with the chronology of Revelation is what Post-Tribbers do.  (I'm also well aware he wouldn't have used terminology like Post-Trib).

So Methodius might have provided a way to make distinguishing the Bride from the Children of the Bride not even Semi-Dispensational.  But to me that way of looking at it would still have to be Mid-Trib, since it has the Church still existing on Earth after the Rapture.  However there are other pieces of the puzzle that wouldn't quite fit.

Update May 14th 2018: Paul's views on the matter.

All three passages that can be cited as sounding like they're describing The Church or Christians as The Bride rather then the Children are from Paul.

Now I'm someone who wants to refute the notion that Paul was in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, I have posts already dedicated to that issue.  But on this I must admit to being currently a little stumped.

Romans 7 is totally misunderstood however, that marriage related Law is what Paul singled out because he wanted to demonstrate that you are no longer under the Law at Death, and now we are Dead to the Law.  At best it actually makes Believers the Husband not the Wife.  Because we Die in Christ at Baptism.

However Ephesians 5:21-33 and 2 Corinthians 11 do seem to be making The Church the Bride of Christ.

Whether or not those passages can be reinterpreted differently.  Paul is one witness, I have multiple witnesses above on The Church being the Children of the Bridegroom.

Update August 2018: I've contemplated these Paul passages some more.

Ephesian 5 is not really doctrinally calling anyone a Bride or Bridegroom, just telling Husbands to love their wives like Jesus loves them.

2 Corinthians 11:2 I think may have some translation issues.  First of all the word translated "espoused" is not the same Greek word that refers to betrothal elsewhere like when talking about Mary and Joseph, but a form of the same Greek root that the word "harmony" comes from.  Looking at other usage of related words "joined" may be a better translation.

The word for "Husband" Andri, can also just mean an adult male, no word for wife or bride is used.

Some things about the word order are not what I expected either.  The Young's Literal Translation reads.

for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ,

Which is interesting, but I'm not sure how accurate it is either given the Greek word order.  For one thing, it might be possible it's actually the Andri who's being called a pure virgin.

Basically, it could be this verse is really more about the Body of Christ Doctrine then the Bride of Christ.

I don't think there will be a Millennial Temple building.

I know my fellow Pre-Millennial Futurists are very afraid of any interpretation of Scripture that can be viewed as less then Literal.  I have more and more come to feel "Literal" is not the right word, what I say is that I take The Bible seriously.

What I want to discus here is that denying that the Old Testament Prophecies of a future Temple might very well be fulfilled by the New Testament Doctrine of The Church as The Temple of God, demeans the importance of that NT Doctrine in ways that I feel damage our Understanding of God's Word more then any allegorical interpretation of Scripture ever could.

And I don't view it as merely symbolic, as of Pentecost The Church is absolutely the literal definition of what a Temple is, in both Pagan and Judeo-Christian thought a Temple is what houses the Divine.  It is only what sounds like the description of a building and sacrifices that is interpreted as symbolic here.

And this Doctrine isn't limited to Paul, which I mention not just because of the Anti-Paul people out there, but because a Doctrine needs more then one witness.  It's in Revelation, both in the message to the church at Philadelphia and in the description of New Jerusalem (The 12 Apostles as Pillars is referencing Paul's own terminology in Ephesians 2 and Galatians).  And if you don't think Paul wrote Hebrews, Hebrews alludes to it.  Jesus teaches in John 4 that a time will come when God no longer dwells in a Temple building.  And it's implied that's what Stephen was stoned for teaching in Acts 6-7.  And it's in 1 Peter 2:4-5.

I've seen people say that Paul teaches the doctrine in the sense of an Individual Believer's Body being God's Temple only once so we can't build Doctrine on that (in 1 Corinthians in chapter 3 and 6).  However Peter refers to his Body as The Tabernacle in 1 Peter 1:13-14.  That is a second Witness more so then another reference from Paul would be.

Meanwhile in John's Gospel Chapter 2, we see Jesus refer to His Body as "This Temple".  That means that the doctrine of The Church as the Temple of God is inherently related to The Church as The Body of Christ.

And I've already talked about how The Body of Christ and Bride of Christ doctrine are related because of when Jesus says a Husband and Wife become one Flesh, and how Eve was made from Adam's flesh.  And the same passages of Revelation I alluded to above also reference the Bride of Christ doctrine.

And plenty of Prophecies about either The Millennium or New Jerusalem lack any reference to a Temple.  The Christian Doctrine of The Millennium is dependent on Revelation 20 and 1 Corinthians 15, neither mentions a Temple building.  Ezekiel 37 I view as about The Millennium and it mentions no Temple building, Paul quotes Ezekiel 37 when building his Church as the Temple doctrine in 2 Corinthians 6:16.  Even Zechariah 14 while talking about the Feast of Tabernacles being observed doesn't mention a Temple, Torah observant Christians observe that Feast without needing a Temple.

Isaiah 65 and 66 are viewed as about The Millennium by many but the New Heaven and New Earth by me.  Either way he makes clear there will be no Sacrifices.

Ezekiel 40-49 is the only presumed Prophecy of The Millennium that in detail describes a Temple Building and Sacrifices being carried out, there is no second Witness, other passages you can take as referring to a Temple in The Millennium lack details.  Yet the part on Yahuah-Shammah is clearly among what Revelation is drawing on in it's account of New Jerusalem, where all Christians agree the only Temple is The Church.

And when The Holy Days are discussed in Ezekiel 45, First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are left out.  Those happen to be the Holy Days most dependent on the Temple rituals.

And so here I point back to my past discussions on Ezekiel's Temple.  [Update: I now have this improved discussion of the topic.  Which was in turn a follow up to this revisiting.]

So now you may ask, what about the "Third Temple" as in a Temple The Antichrist will desecrate?

Historicism is predicated on saying The Temple Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2 is the same one he means in the Corinthian Epistles and Ephesians 2.  My issue there is mainly that Paul clearly means something unmistakable.  Even so the idea that the literal and symbolic meaning could both be true is possible, I have for many reasons become convinced The Antichrist will be within The Church.  But the issues with saying The Pope fulfilled this already are endless.

I firmly believe the Eschatological portions of the Thessalonian Epistles were Paul's commentary on the Olivite Discourses.  Jesus didn't use the word Temple there, but in both Matthew and Mark there is no denying he is using geographical terms.

Mark 13's Abomination of Desolation reference has often been interpreted to imply the location of The Temple but not necessary require the building itself to still be standing.  Which is why many have seen Hadrian's Temple built after the Bar Kokhba Revolt as fulfilling this.

However most of my fellow Futurists feel Matthew 24 saying "in" and "Holy Place" means inside a Temple building.  But in fact the Greek terminology there can refer to an outside as well as inside sacred location, the word for "in" is sometimes also translated "on".

The only reference to an Earthly Temple building in Revelation is at the start of Revelation 11.  In that case I recently read someone arguing that what the Greek Text actually says is that in 42 months Jerusalem will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles for an indeterminate amount of time.  I have shown that Luke 21 begins that time frame when The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

This person was a Futurist in their overall view of Revelation.  But argued this passage is about the time John received the Revelation being 42 months before September of 70 AD when Titus fully secured control of the City.  However this was an Anti-Paul website that teaches a lot of bad doctrine.

What's most important is that I have come to an understanding of the Image of The Beast that says the final Abomination of Desolation won't happen till after The Beast's mortal wound is healed.  Which in turn can't happen till after the Abyss has been unlocked is Revelation 9.  And that is why the Historicist view of II Thessalonians fails.

At the same time, I am now open to a Pre-Millenial Futurist view that does not require any future Temple Building.

But also, since I now think The Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple were originally Domes.  And the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque are both Domed buildings.  Is it possible one of them could be considered close enough?  (Perhaps likewise with the Christian Churches in Jerusalem that are Domed.)  The issue of where the Holy Place was in relation to those buildings I've discussed in the past and will again.

Long time readers of this Blog may recall that there not being enough time to rebuild The Temple was why I abandoned my 2018-2025 70th Week model (that came from the Suleiman the Magnificent theory).  Am I now willing to revive that?  Maybe, but I don't want to definitively predict anything.

I'm not saying for sure there will be no Third Temple.  But I'm saying i don't think it's quite as required as it used to be.

Is The Bride of Christ also his Sister?

I realize one thing that may make the argument I have made for The Man Child in Revelation 12 being The Church uncomfortable to some people is how it kind of makes Christ and his Bride siblings, both having the same spiritual mother (Israel, the Woman of Revelation 12) and spiritual father, God The Father.

I have used incestuous implications against other interpretations of the Bride of Christ, but those are against making The Bride his Mother.  Sibling incest is a different matter.

Strictly speaking no Incest restrictions existed before the time of Moses, they became needed because of genetic deterioration.  But while descendant-ancestor incest was painted negatively in the situation with Lot and his daughters, Abraham was in fact married to his half-sister Sarah.

Not to mention, Eve/Havvah would have been genetically Adam's twin.

The Song of Solomon is popularly interpreted by Christians as having a typological application to Christ and The Church.

I'm all for that, but I'm against using that as an excuse to render it irrelevant to Sexual Morality.  Clearly the only book of The Bible that actually deals with Sex in detail should be relevant to the issue.  But it's positive depictions of clearly non reproductive sex acts (before the marriage has actually happened) is very uncomfortable for the Prudes who base their Sexual Morality on Plato more then God's Word.

At any-rate back to the topic.  If it is applicable to Christ and The Church, then it's notable that the couple in this book do poetically refer to each other as brother and sister, in chapters 4 and 5, and 8:1.

Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God, but all of us believers are his children by Adoption.

The Church as The Bride of Christ

There is a trend out there on The Internet of Christians seeking to reject the usual identity of The Church as The Bride of Christ.  Saying that term isn't in The Bible (The Trinity isn't either) and arguing that The Lamb's Wife is Israel and/or Jerusalem.  I feel the need to address this since New Jerusalem being The Church is important to doctrine I've build on this Blog.

First I need to address the suggestion that the Bride "making herself ready" contradicts the Doctrine of Grace if she's The Church.  Since I firmly believe in Justification by Faith Alone, that we're saved by Grace through Faith.  And also in Eternal Security.

I could point out how believers can lose their inheritance but not their Sonship (like the prodigal Son), and that some Church Age believers may get left out of The Wedding, but are still Saved.  But even that is unnecessary.

The statement in question about "making herself ready" in Revelation 19 is referring to her when she's already in Heaven.  This is after The Rapture.  It puts absolutely no burden on our Earthly walk, at all.

The argument is largely founded upon suggesting that we can't be Christ's Bride if we're His Body.  I addressed this once already on a different subject.  But I shall do so again in more detail.

Matthew 19:5-6

 "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Husband and Wife are made one flesh.  The Lamb's Wife also being his Body fits perfectly.

The first Bride, Havvah/Eve, was made from a piece of Adam's flesh.  Likewise we are made new creatures in the Blood of Jesus shed on The Cross.  I believe part of the Reason Jesus' side had to be pierced by the Roman Spear was to fit him being The Last Adam.

The Church as The Body of Christ also overlaps with The Church being The Temple of God.  1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19, and Ephesians 2:21.  Also referring to The Body of each individual believer as The Temple of God.  And in John 2 Jesus refers to His Body as The Temple.

New Jerusalem, which is The Lamb's Wife, is the final Temple in Revelation 21.  Don't be confused by the statement of there being No Temple, there is no Temple because The City is The Temple.  "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."  Like the last verse of Ezekiel.

The message to Philadelphia confirms New Jerusalem is The Church.

In John chapter 3, John The Baptist defines himself as distinct from The Bride.  If The Bride was Israel he'd absolutely be a part of her.

Israel is The Wife of Yahweh in The Old Testament.  Married to him at Sinai.  They point this out as if it contradicts The Church rather then Israel being The New Testament Bride.  Israel is the Wife of God The Father and The Mother of The Son/The Messiah, as demonstrated in Revelation 12.  [Also I'm not a strict Dispensationalist anymore, The Church is grafted into Israel as Romans 9-11 clearly Teaches.]

Genesis 22-24 is a very typological part of Genesis.  Abraham represents The Father, Issac The Son, the Unnamed Servant is The Holy Spirit, Sarah is Israel and Rebecca is The Church.  Likewise in Ruth, Ruth is The Church and Naomi is Israel.

I shall again quote what I consider the best Rapture Passage of The Old Testament.  Joel 2:15-16

Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.

The Bride is Raptured, Israel is not.

The Partial Rapture Theory

All of my previous posts addressing Rapture views I disagree with have been focused on the main three popular views, Pre-Trib, Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath.

The Partial Rapture Theory isn't really a matter of timing, it can overlap with any of the other views.  It is sometimes linked to an idea that more then one Rapture will occur and thus they might all be right.  Some people believing a from of this I know are mainly Mid-Trib in their timing, so I feel the need to make sure people know this isn't a view I agree with.

The Partial Rapture Theory is that not all of the Saved alive on Earth at the time are Raptured at the Rapture, or at least not the first Rapture.  Only those who are the most Obedient and Faithful.

My views on Soterology and Ecclesiology could be viewed as lending themselves to this view.  I believe firmly in Eternal Security, yet I disagree with Calvinists and others who say they believe in Eternal Security but then turn around and say "if you are really saved you won't ______" whatever their line is.

I believe that like the Prodigal Son a Believer can squander their Inheritance but will never lose their Sonship.  I recommend Chuck Missler's studies on Eternal Security, including Hebrews 6.  Though I disagree with him on a few verses concerning Predestination where he sounds like he unwittingly agrees with the Calvinist view, but those are minor.

When Jesus in Matthew refers to the "Outer Darkness" that's not Hell.  Revelation 21:25-27 tells us that not everyone living in the New Heaven and New Earth will be in New Jerusalem.  And that some won't be allowed to enter it.  That's the "Outer Darkness" Jesus was referring to (because the context was clearly describing saved individuals, only the Saved are his servants), being outside New Jerusalem.

So some people when responding to certain views on Rewards tie in a disapproval of any notions that all Christians aren't equal at the Bema Judgment.  I believe we should not be Judging each other during our life on Earth, but it's clear in Eternity there will be distinctions.

BUT, that differentiation happens at the Bema Seat Judgment, and thus after The Rapture.  So it does not exclude anyone from The Rapture.  We are during our life on this Earth all part of the Body of Christ regardless of our obedience or faithfulness.

Some who agree with my view that the 144,000 are part of The Church and that they are Raptured in Revelation 14, will add that only the 144,000 are Raptured.  As I've said in other posts on that subject, they are a specific group that represents the whole.

I've said before that not all saved are part of The Church.  A related question to that however is, are all saved during the Church Age part of The Church?  While we're alive, yes.  I believe we're all The Body of Christ.  But after the Bema Seat Judgment, I do think it's possible some of us will lose our opportunity to be the Bride of Christ.

The Ten Virgins Parable of Matthew 15:1-13 is one Bible passage that could be used to support a Partial Rapture.  Actually the way Partial Rapture supporters interpret this is kind of the natural conclusion of the way Pre-Tribbers use it.  (That the Five Virgins taken represent those who hold the Pre-Trib view, and others those who do not).  Problem is, what Jesus tells the Foolish Virgins "I know you not" is how other Eschatological passages from Jesus define the unsaved.  Yet Pre-Tribbers don't usually want to say they think your not saved if your not Pre-Trib, but that seems to be the implication of their attitude sometimes.

Pre-Tribbers often forget that parables are not always what they seem.

I don't think this Parable is about the timing of the Rapture, or that the difference between the groups has anything to do with their theory on it's timing being correct or not.  Christ's offer to be his Bride is extended to all Humanity, but only the Saved are prepared to be ready to accept it when he comes.  Because the Saved have the Light of the World in us, our Lamps won't go out.

The Letters to the Seven Churches can also be used by Partial Rapture theorists.  Mainly the messages to Thyatira and Philadelphia.  Where certain statements make it seem like the former is told they will go into the "Tribulation Period" and the latter they will not.

To Thyatira he says of "Jezebel" and those committing Whoredom with her "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds."  Thing is, in my Great Tribulation study I show that it isn't a specific time period at all, it refers to all Persecution the Church has faced.

To Philadelphia he says "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."  This is often used against Post-Trib in general.  One Question is, if this is about the Rapture, does it being only in Philadelphia's message mean it applies only to Philadelphian Christians?  The Promise for the Believer parts of the other Letters seem to embody many things characteristic of all Believers, so no I don't think so.

But also it this really Rapture relevant?

This Verse doesn't use Wrath or Tribulatio, or Day of The LORD.  It says Hour of Temptation.  I'm reminded of how in the Lord's Prayer, we're instructed to pray that we are lead not into Temptation and delivered from Evil.  And in Matthew 24:24 Jesus says "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." The key complication is that it isn't possible.  I don't think this means we're immune to being tricked in general.  But once the Abomination of Desolation happens, things will be crystal clear to those with the Holy Spirit.

So neither of those two passages from the letters to the Churches I view definitively as Rapture relevant.

If The Church and Israel are the same, why does Jesus marry his mother?

I don't feel like making my own study on the usual replacement theology arguments, which revolve largely around Romans 9-11.  But I want to address this aspect of Revelation.

The Woman of Revelation 12:1 is clearly Israel, the Sun, Moon and 12 stars clearly draw on Joseph's dream from Genes 37:9.  And also various Old Testament Prophets speaking of Jerusalem as a woman travailing in childbirth.  So Israel is defined as The Mother of the Man-Child.

Now I mentioned this in one discussion and got "why would Jesus marry his own Body", as if the doctrine of The Church as the Body of Christ proves that we shouldn't be comparing this mystical marriage to the rules and regulations of a real marriage.

I simply responded by referencing Matthew 19:5-6

"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

So the Lamb's Wife also being his Body fits perfectly.

But a Man marrying his Mother, or anyone who had been married to his Father (Israel is the Wife of Yahweh, married to him at Sinai) violates the Incest restrictions of Leviticus 18:1-20 and Leviticus 20 and Deuteronomy 27.  And Paul alludes to that as still being wrong in 1 Corinthians 5.

The Types in The Hebrew Scriptures also supports there being two symbolic Women.  The Book of Ruth has Naomi and Israel and Ruth as The Church.  Genesis 22-24 has Sarah as Israel and Rebecca as The Church. 

Not all of The Saved are part of The Church

I've already talked a good deal on aspects of this directly relevant to Eschatology in the Post-Trib label.  For the sake of reference I realize I should talk a little bit about the foundation of this Doctrine.

John The Baptist

John 3:25-29

Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.  And they came unto John, and said unto him, "Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him."

John answered and said, "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.  Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, "I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him."  He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled."

John defines himself as not part of The Bride.

Jesus said in Matthew 11:11

" Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

John is not part of The Kingdom, which is The Church we know from the Kingdom parables.

I know people have other interpretations of these verses, but none of them hold up to me.  For the latter they say John isn't part of the Kingdom yet because he isn't Resurrected yet.  But we of The Church are citizens of The Kingdom already even while we're still mortal.  We're simply citizens who are currently residents of Satan's Kingdom.  That is one of the themes of Philippians.

The Church has a promise that the Holy Spirit shall never leave us.

John 14:16-18 " And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.  I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."

Romans 8:9 tells us, “…if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.” This verse very clearly states that if someone does not have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, then that person is not saved. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit were to leave a believer, that person would have lost the saving relationship with Christ. Yet this is contrary to what the Bible teaches about Eternal Security.  Salvation cannot be lost.

But Old Testament believers lacked this promise.  The Spirit departed from Saul (1 Samuel 16:14), and David feared it might depart from him as we see in Psalm 51:11.  It didn't depart from David however, in this one way David was a prelude of this special promise of The Church.  

The Holy Spirit played a role in Pre-Christian times, but the type of relationship he has with believers now began at Pentecost in Acts 2.

Some might insist this isn't a matter of The Church being unique but simply that things changed at The Cross, and by no means proves there will come a time when things like this will return to how they were before Pentecost.

1 Corinthians 13:8-12 does say the Gifts of the Spirit shall cease "when that which is perfect is come".  However the secessionist argument that that moment is the completion of the Canon has no Biblical support.  Joel 2:28-32 which describes the Church Age condition of The Holy Spirit is also linked to the Sixth Seal.  I personally believe "when that which is perfect is come" refers to The Rapture/Resurrection of The Church, when we are perfected. 1 Corinthians 15:52 "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."  And Paul goes on to elaborate on that.

Sealed in The Holy Spirit

2 Corinthians 1:22 says we are Sealed with The Spirit in our Hearts.  Like how the Law of the New Covenant is now written on our Hearts rather then in Stone.

Ephesians 1:13 "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise".
Ephesians 4:30 " And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."

Pre-Tribbers understand the Uniqueness of The Church, but insist we're not in The 70th Week at all.  I laugh when I see Pre-Tribbers and Pre-Wrathers talking about the Trumpet Judgments saying "there are no references to The Church, the only believers are those Sealed (the 144,000) being protected".  But being Sealed is a unique to The Church characteristic.

Paul also said this Sealing lasts until the Day of Redemption.  Revelation 14:3-4 says of the 144,000.  "which were redeemed from the earth.  These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."  Which to me supports the Mid-Trib Rapture.  The Day of Redemption is the Resurrection and Rapture of The Church.

There is a constant debate about if the 144,000 are a literal number or symbolic and simply represents The Church.  It can however be both, a specific group representing the whole.  The whole of the Church still living on Earth during the first half of the 70th Week.

When the Bowls of Wrath are poured out, there are no references to those faithful to God being Sealed.  It's the followers of Satan and the Beast who are Marked.  Every Futurist view but Mid-Trib desires to view the Sealed 144,000 and the Marked as existing at the same time, but no passage in Revelation discuses them at the same time.  Only 14 (which I view as part of the transition from the first half of the 70th Week to the second) mentions them in the same chapter.  But still distinctly different parts.

I proved in the second post I made on this Blog that those beheaded for not taking The Mark aren't part of The Church.

Was Marriage ordained in Genesis 2 or Genesis 3?

The default answer among my fellow Fundamentalist, theologically Conservative Christians would be that it's clearly established by Genesis 2.  The simple fact that God created Two Genders proves that God's sole intent for both Sex and Marriage was inter-gender relations.  And those two things are inseparable from each other.

But Genesis 2 has no ceremony, nor does it lay out any rules or costumes for how this Male-Female relationship is supposed to be.  We're simply told it was not good for Adam to be alone, so God created a Helper for him, and then told them to be fruitful and multiply and to fill and populate the Earth.  And in reference to future generations, that a man would leave his father's house and join with a woman.  (The emphasis is on the man leaving his family, not the other way around, interesting).

It's not till Genesis 3:16, after The Fall happens and the The Curse begins that we're told.  "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"

So it's at least accurate to say that marriage as we know it is the product of The Fall.

I've done many posts on the nature of The Resurrection here, since it's linked to The Rapture.  And feel at times it's important to remind people that The Resurrection is the restoration of Humankind to how we were meant to be before The Fall.  But there is one key verse on The Resurrection people constantly forget to consider with that context in mind, Matthew 22:30 (and it's parallel in the other Synoptics).

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

This is abused by supporters of The Sethite view of Genesis 6 by insisting this means Angels are not Biologically capable of sexual reproduction.  But even people who get Genesis 6 right still have it in their mind that this means Believers when we're Resurrected will not engage in any sexual procreation.  They're politically wrapped up in the notion that NEVER under any circumstance is ANY sex allowed outside Marriage.

Problem is Isaiah 65 and Ezekiel 40-48 both refer to reproduction going in the coming Kingdom.  And I have argued that that Kingdom is the New Jerusalem, not the Millennium.

Either way on that.  I have trouble being sold on the idea that The Millennium is at it's start populated by anyone but Resurrected Believers.  Which combined with people who's Eternal Destiny wasn't decided yet clearly being in existence for Satan to deceive at the end of The Millennium, implies Resurrected Believers biologically reproducing during that time.

I know it's popular to argue that even though there are Resurrected Believers co-ruleing during The Millennium, there are also still normal fallen Humans who survive The 70thWeek.  But the problem is I don't hold the Post-Trib view of The Resurrection and the meaning of Revelation 20.  So to me verse 5, "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." must mean that only the Damned were not Resurrected yet.

I believe those born to Resurrected individuals will not need to be Resurrected if they side with Jesus, they will not be born with original Sin.  But they can still choose to fall as Adam did, unlike those of us who'll be Redeemed in the Blood of The Lamb.

Because in The Resurrection we'll be immune to even the temptation of Sin.  There is plenty of reason to see there as being less moral restrictions then we have now.  And we're already no longer bound by The Law.

Now let me be clear.  I believe while we're under The Curse that Biblical Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, that potentially procreative Sex should only be performed between a Husband and Wife.  Because it's important in this fallen world to provide Children with a healthy family.  I do not pass judgment on people who aren't able to follow that however.

But in The Millennium, and the New Heaven and New Earth there will be no failure to provide that family.  Resurrected Born Again people will not fail to make sure they provide for and take care of their Children.

The context in Matthew 22:30 was Jesus responding to Sadducees trying to discredit the Resurrection doctrine altogether.  They were confused about situations where Widows had married other Husbands in obedience to The Torah.

I think some Christians take this phrase in English as if the "Given in Marriage" part refers to the consummation of the union.  But the Greek word there is actually specifically about the act of a Father giving his daughter to a man to wed.

I think it's the Genesis 3 redefining of Marriage that Jesus was referring to as being done in The Resurrection.  But Marriage does exist in a sense in Eternity in New Jerusalem being The Lamb's Wife.

Hosea 2:16 refers to Baal as a name or title Yahuah has been called, but as one he doesn't like.  The main context there is how Ish and Baal are both words for Husband (marriage is the major theme of Hosea) but Baal also means Lord while Ish is a word for man as in male gender that is introduced in Genesis 2.

In the Eternal Kingdom no one will be leaving one family to join another.  All The Saved will be one family.  With Jesus as the Patriarch, The Church as the Matriarch, and the rest of The Saved as their children.

But I do think we might still be held to God's original instruction to Adam and Eve from before The Fall, to be fruitful and multiply.  And I think Saved Women in The Resurrection will be able if they choose to experience painless Childbirth as was originally intended.