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.

The Biblical Significance of The Ram, are Rams mentioned more often then we think?

Deuteronomy 14 is one of a couple of chapters of The Torah dealing with what animals are and aren't considered okay to eat.  In the KJV almost all animals cited elsewhere as animals offered in sacrifices to Yahuah are included here, Lambs, Goats, Bulls, Oxen, Pigeons and Doves.  And many additional animals too including multiple words taken as referring to Deer and similar animals, and multiple types of Poultry that leave me with little doubt a traditional Thanksgiving meal is Kosher.

But one of the known sacrificial animals seems absent, the Ram.  We know they would be okay to eat because of the broader instructions given here and in Leviticus 11 that tell how to tell the Levitical Cleanses even of Land Mammals the Bible never mentions at all.  But I still find it odd that as a clearly well known animal in The Bible, Rams are seemingly not mentioned.  In facts Rams seem to be mentioned only once in all of Deuteronomy, and that's in the Song of Moses in chapter 32.

The Hebrew word for Ram is Strongs number 352, Ayil.  The word first appears in Genesis 15:9, it's the word for Ram used in Genesis 22 of the one offered in place of Isaac, and in Exodus 29 which I'll bring up again later.  It's used throughout Leviticus where Rams are refereed to.  And in Numbers 28-29 where they are specified to be offered on most of the Leviticus 23 Holy Days.  And in Daniel 8 of the Ram that represents the Medo-Persian Empire.  And almost every time you see "ram" in the Old Testament of the KJV.

What's interesting is that according to the Strongs there are two Hebrew words spelled the exact same way as this word, AYL, but are pronounced differently thanks to the Aramaic derived vowel indicators that developed after the captivity.

One is Strongs number 353, Eyal.  Which is used only once, in Psalm 88 verse 4 where the KJV translates it "strength".  Not the only time "strength" is used to translate a rarely used and thus harder to define word.

The other is Strongs number 354, Ayal.  This is consistently translated by the KJV as "Hart" (or Harts when plural) and is in fact the word used every time you see "Hart".  It first occurs in Deuteronomy 12, but is also listed as an okay to eat Animal in Deuteronomy 14:5.  Indisputably the animal we call in English harts are Levitically clean, but plenty other animals listed here are basically the same kind, deer.

So what I'm thinking is maybe Ayal was not a separate word originally, but some confusion began probably during the captivity.  A Hart is a type of Dear, the idea of a Hebrew word for Ram becoming later misunderstood as a word for Dear could be relevant to my Japan and the Lost Tribes post.

Also strong number 355, Ayalah, is the feminine form of Ayal.  The KJV always translates this "Hind" or "Hinds".  It is used to describe Naphtali in Genesis 49:21 which I've argued could have significance for the Ram of Daniel 8.  That there is a lack of a feminine equivalent for Ayil I think could be further evidence it was meant to be the same word as Ayal.

Both "Hind" and "Hart" are used in the Song of Songs by Shulamith and the Beloved to refer to each other.  The Song also uses (sometimes in the same verses) "Roe" in both masculine and feminine form, a word elsewhere translated Roe, Buck and Roebuck, and also used in Deuteronomy 12&14.  I think they make sense as referring to different animals rather then two words for basically the same animal, but the other reading could work too.  Maybe these words for Ram and Deer being used together like this in the song is the origin of the confusion.  I think a lot of things about the Song of Solomon have confused people.

Now I shall move to The New Testament.

The KJV of the Book of Revelation uses the word "Lamb" 29 times, all but once of Jesus.  All of them are the same Greek word (Strongs number 721), but in 3 different forms.  Arnion/Arniou/ArniO.
This word however appears only once in the NT outside Revelation, in John 21:15.  There however it is a form distinct from any of the 3 used in Revelation, Arnia.  I'm not sure but I think that could qualify as a feminine form, while the 3 in Revelation clearly do not.  There it is used of Believers not of Jesus.  But unlike in English translations the Greek text doesn't seem plural there, like Jesus is calling The Church as a whole His Arnia.

The suggestion has been made before that "Lamb" is not an accurate translation of this word, and even been suggested before that it should be "Ram".  It's controversial because this word is rare even in Ancient Greek usage outside Revelation.  Other Greek words are known to have existed for both Lambs and Rams, the other words for Ram aren't used in the New Testament however (I give no credence to the Septuagint).  The main one would be Krios, the Greek name for the constellation Aries, The Ram.

When John, this same Author, in his Gospel quotes in Greek John The Baptist calling Jesus "The Lamb of God" in 1:29&36 he uses Amnos (Strongs number 286).  Likewise Acts 8:32 and 1 Peter 1:19 when alluding to Isaiah 53:7 and the Passover Lamb also use Amnos, though Peter spelled it Amnou.  In Hebrew also Isaiah 53:7's "Lamb to the Slaughter" uses the same word used of the Passover Lamb in Exodus 12, Strongs number 7716, Seh.

Aries, the name of the Ram constellation, is it's Latin rather then Greek name, but Latin and Greek have some similar words due to their common Indo-European origin.  That Aries and Arnios begin with the same sound is interesting.

If you are curious how Arnion is used in the Septuagint, it's iffy.  It's in 4 verses, none of which use Seh in the Hebrew.  Psalm 114 in verses 4 and 6, and in Jeremiah in 11:19 and 50:45.  In three of those you will see Lamb in the KJV but for the Psalm the Hebrew is using a word for flock, that is also used in Jeremiah 50:45 and translated "flock".  Tsone, Strongs number 6629, in the Septuagint that is the word rendered Arnia, it uses the John 21 version which fits the context.

In Jeremiah 11:19 it's Kebes which the KJV always renders Lamb or Sheep but the Strongs (where it's number is 3532) defines it as being a Ram of a certain age, and it's also used in Exodus 29 as possibly a synonym for Ayil, Seh isn't used in Exodus 29.  In the Septuagint of Jeremiah (It's chapter 29 there, some are numbered differently in the LXX) that is clearly the word translated Arnion.

Ayil is used in both Psalm 114 verses but not in the Jeremiah ones.  In the Septuagint it's Psalm 113 and Ayil is Krios while Tsone is Arnia in both verses.  I feel like all four of those examples together point to this word never being used not for Ayil but for other words used as synonyms for Ayil.

Upon further study of the usage of Kebes it is used in many verses where Ayil or Ayal is used clearly as distinct, and in Deuteronomy 14 Seh is used as a prefix of both Kebes and Goat.  So interpreting Arnion as Ram not Lamb is still dependent on the Septuagint being wrong (as I feel it often is) in at least the Jeremiah 11 verse..

Replacing Lamb with Ram when you see it in Revelation arguably takes nothing away from the significance, both were sacrificial animals.  The most unique attribute of the Lamb was as the Passover Sacrifice, Revelation is more about the fulfillment of the Fall Feasts.  But it can potentially add a lot when you study the significance of the Ram.  A Lamb was mentioned in Genesis 22 but it was a Ram that was provided, both Isaac and the Ram represent Jesus, The Lamb of God.

One reason to support seeing the Arnion of Revelation as a Ram rather then a Lamb is that Lambs are usually gentile animals while Rams are more aggressive in nature, hence Aries is similar to Ares the name of the Greek god of War.  Revelation 6 refers to the Wrath of the Arnion.

The Arnion of Revelation can arguably be viewed as Jesus serving as The High Priest.  Exodus 29 specifies that Ram's Blood is to be shed to consecrate a new High Priest.

Revelation 5 tells us the Arnion has seven horns.  Revelation 13:11 tells us the Beast out of The Earth has 2 horns like an ArniO.  While lambs do have horns they're very small and not too noticeable, and so outside Revelation no Biblical references to Lambs mention that they have horns.

But their Horns are a big part of the Ram's Biblical significance.  Starting in Genesis 22 where it was the Ram's horns caught in the thicket.  And the Shofar (one of two Hebrew words translated Trumpet) was specifically a Trumpet made from a Ram's horn.  It's the Shofar sounded on the Yom Kippur proceeding the Jubilee Year in Leviticus 25:9.  And traditionally Rams horns are sounded on Yom Teruah, though the Biblicalness of that is debated by Kariates and others.

In the Book of Joshua chapter 6 at the fall of Jericho seven Shofars were sounded.  If Arnion means Ram then it would be natural to speculate a connection between the seven horns of the Arnion in Revelation 5, and the seven trumpets sounded by the seven angels later.  Other have argued those seven angels are also the seven spirits refereed to, though I've disagreed with that in the past, but I've now updated that post.  And Jesus is described as having a voice like a Trumpet.

I've talked before about the significance of the fact that the Second Beast/False Prophet has two "Horns like a Lamb".  My argument there is no less valid, it's still the same word and still an animal linked to Jesus right from The Torah.  What can be added to that is a potential connection to Daniel 8, we all know the first Beast is connected to the beasts of Daniel 7.  If ArniO means Ram then the second beast could be connected to Daniel 8.

But the Earth Beast isn't a real Ram, it has horns "like a Ram".  Alexander The Great, the notable Horn of the He-Goat, after he defeated Darius III started ruling like a Persian King.  Because of this there are coins depicting him as a two horned Ram.  And that imagery is why in the Arabic world he became known as Dhul-Qarnain, which means Two-Horned.  Maybe none of that is relevant, I certainly don't think Alexander is the False Prophet, but there could be a new Rabbit hole there to chase down.

I've also hear that some of the Herodian Monarchs like Herod Agirppa (of Acts 12) used a Ram as one of their Royal Symbols.  I've yet to actual verify this though so I'm reserving judgment on it.

Now what could my above Hart/Hind theory add to Arnion speculation?

This is why I considered their usage in the Song of Songs notable. Among other things the Song of Songs has a typological application about Christ and his Bride.  In Revelation 19:7-9 the Marriage Supper is of the Arniou, not any other title of Christ that Revelation uses.  And in 21:9 New Jerusalem is called the Arniou's Wife.  And I already suggested that in his Gospel this same author used the word's feminine form of The Bride, John 21.  What if Ayalah is what Jesus actually said in Hebrew?

The Song of Solomon calls The Beloved an Ayal in the very last verse.

The Mazaroth and the Gospel in The Stars

I've grown more skeptical of that theory then I used to be.  But I've talked about it in the past, and many people I converse with still hold to it.  And I already mentioned Aries in this study anyway.

The Book of Jubilies (17:15 and 18:3) and some other traditions imply that around Passover was when the offering of Isaac happened, the Samaritans also commemorate it during Unleavened Bread..  According to Stelarium on the day I believe Jesus was Crucified, April 6th 30 AD, the Sun was in Aries.  Josephus also linked the beginning of the Hebrew Year to the month the Greeks called Aries.

Over the last two thousand years the ecliptic have moved about a month.  So where the Sun was at Passover in the days of Christ it wold be at for Second Passover now.  Which could be interesting for theories of an eschatological significance for Second Passover.

The Greek myth affiliated with Aries does seem like a corruption of the story of Genesis 22, possibly another influence of Edomites and Danites who traveled to Greece/Javan (Ezekiel 27).

In Greek mythology, Athamas (/ˈæθəməs/; Ancient Greek: Ἀθάμας) was a Boeotian king.

 Phrixus and Helle (his twin son and daughter) were hated by their stepmother, Ino. Ino hatched a devious plot to get rid of the twins, roasting all the town's crop seeds so they would not grow. The local farmers, frightened of famine, asked a nearby oracle for assistance. Ino bribed the men sent to the oracle to lie and tell the others that the oracle required the sacrifice of Phrixus. Athamas reluctantly agreed. Before he was killed, though, Phrixus and Helle were rescued by a flying golden ram sent by Nephele, their natural mother. Helle fell off the ram into the Hellespont (which was named after her) and died, but Phrixus survived all the way to Colchis, where King Aeëtes took him in and treated him kindly, giving Phrixus his daughter Chalciope in marriage. In gratitude, Phrixus gave the king the golden fleece of the ram, which Aeëtes hung in a tree in his kingdom.

What could I say that isn't obvious?  The parallel possibly carries over into Genesis 24, with Chalcioe as Rebekah.

Adding a twin sister who dies is the darkest corruption of it.  But theologically what matters most is how the Monotheism is removed.

Traditions have speculated that the first two Shofars were the horns of the Genesis 22 Ram and continued to be used all the way down to the Temple of Solomon, so the idea of remains of this Ram becoming a sacred relic also maybe has a basis.

I should note that there is also speculation that some of the ancient inhabitants of Cholchis may have been descendants of Calcol son of Zerah son of Judah and Tamar.  According to some ancient secular pagan pre-christian Greek writers like Herodotus and Diodorus Sicilus they apparently practiced circumcision, and some even used that to speculate they had a common origin with the Jews and Dannus as descendants of foreigners kicked out of Egypt.

There were other Israelites named Calcol.  The British Israelites are in denial that the Chalcol son of Mahol who's Wisdom was compared to Solomon's can't be the same person.  So I don't doubt that the Cholchins were Danites.

Or maybe it's possible descends of Laban's son moved the Cholchis region at some point?  Since Aeetes is kind of taking the Laban role, Laban in Genesis 24 plays the role that is traditionally the role of the Father of the Bride, though he's actually Rebekah's brother.  And we're told gifts were given to Laban and to their mother.

[Update:  I may have to retract this, the Ayil part explained here and the Arnion part explained here.]

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.

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.