An Argument for Zion of Revelation 14 being Earthly Zion

First of all if you're seeing this as a complete reversal of a certain post I made earlier this month, that was a post directed at Preterists rhetorically assuming certain Preterist presuppositions.

In Revelation 14 I definitely believe the Parousia is already in progress.  And the only apparent smoking gun that this Zion must be in Heaven not on Earth is the 144 Thousand being "Before The Throne".  But remember Daniel 7:9-14 is the foundational Hebrew Bible source material for how Jesus defined the Parousia, and that passage seems to involve YHWH's flying Chariot-Throne.  It could be The Throne is The Cloud or on it.

Hebrews 12:22 is the other major New Testament basis for a "Heavenly Zion", though it's actually Jerusalem Paul calls Heavenly there.  Paul does sometimes use Heavenly as a synonym for Spiritual.  That passage is about how we are Citizens of The Kingdom regardless of where we dwell or who controls any Earthly location.  And also about how the architectural final form of the City is currently under construction in Heaven.  It doesn't contradict the connection to a Terrestrial location.

Psalm 48 can be seen as the Old Testament basis for a Heavenly Zion since it links Zion to the "sides of the north" a term also used in Isaiah 14 about Satan's yet future fall from heaven.  But I think the relation of geographical terms in both these passages may be complicated.  If The Tabernacle of David were located where I currently hypothesize it was then it was indeed on a slope north of The Mountain's Summit.  And "Sides of the north" is used in some translations of where Beth-Togarmah is located in Ezekiel 38.  Since I believe Isaiah 14 is about End Times events it could refer to Satan and The Beast wanting to set up their own Throne on Mt Zion which will ultimately fail.

I should perhaps mention here how I don't think Zion was the location most people think it was.  I have argued on this Blog that Bethlehem is the City of David.  My current theory is that the Summit of Mt Zion is where the Mar Elias Monastery currently sits which is the highest elevated summit in the region, and I have a hunch that the Tabernacle of David stood where the fifth century Church of Mary's Seat was located to the north of the summit.  But even if that theory is wrong my position on this chapter doesn't change.

And thus this view can be compatible no matter what city you think Babylon and/or The Great City is.

It is frequently assumed that the Mount of Olives is where Jesus will Return to.  Now it could be involved in how all this plays out.  But the Biblical basis for it is weak in my view.  In Acts 1 what the Angel says is about Jesus Returning the same way He Ascended, it's not meant to be about the location of a landing spot.  And I think a strong argument can be made that the Zechariah 12-14 was fulfilled in 30 AD.  Still it could be He returns first to the Mount of Olives to begin the Resurrection there and then sets up His Throne on Zion.

It is often assumed the reference to "Heaven Opened" in Revelation 19 means a door opening in heaven and that the Rider on the White Horse and His Army are traveling from heaven to earth at that moment.  But that's not necessarily borne out by the text either.

Earlier in Revelation 11 a reference to Heaven being "shut up" is agreed by all to be a reference to it not raining, showing how the Witnesses echo the ministry of Elijah and using language from 1 Kings 8:35, 2 Chronicles 6:26 and 7:17.  In Genesis 7-8 the Windows of Heaven being Opened is terminology linked to the flood waters.  So this Terminology in Revelation 19 could be linked to the "latter rain" of Joel 2, or 2 Peter 3 talking about how the End Times Judgment will echo The Flood but with Fire instead of Water.  But I also now believe the ministry of the Witnesses is the same 1260 days as the Woman hiding in the Wilderness, so Heaven being Opened in Revelation 19 is the end of their shutting up of heaven.

This further proves the point that both Pre-Tribers and Post-Tribers are wrong on Revelation 19 being in any way the Second Coming, this is happening after He's already Returned.

My belief in The Man-Child being The Church means I see The Rapture as a second fulfillment of many Prophecies that were also about the Birth of Christ, like Micah 4 and 5.

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.

Another Man-Child post

When I first made this post, it did not have the reference to Isaiah 66 that is currently in it.

I was already pretty convinced of this theory without the help of Isaiah 66.  Then I was rereading it lately and I noticed what had completely flew by me before, that it references the Man-Child.  And the context clearly makes it New Jerusalem/Zion and it's Population.

Verses 6-11

A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of Yahuah that rendereth recompense to his enemies.  Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.

 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith Yahuah: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.  Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her: That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.

Wonderful smoking gun proof of a Mid-Way point Rapture.

I think The Man-Child is The Church

I did a post on the subject of The Rapture of The Man-Child before.  But my thinking has changed since then.  First read this so you understand that all of this follows The Seventh Trumpet.

Back then I was focused on how The Man-Child could be both Christ and The Church, because The Church is the Body of Christ.  And that remains an important part of the argument.  But I've come to think it's placement in Revelation makes him, particularly in terms of his being "Caught Up", more about The Church.

The Greek term Harpatzo isn't used of the Ascension, it wouldn't be because Jesus ascended on His own, no one had to come down to get him.  But that same key word used in I Thessalonians 4, that is via it's Latin Translations the origin of the term Rapture, is used once and only once in Revelation, right here.

I'm aware that Harpatzo/Rapture/Caught Up is used of things not relevant to The Rapture debate.  My point here is that the alternative view of what The Man-Child's Rapture refers to is the one and only Ascension in The Bible where using that term would be inappropriate.  Harpatzo implies the person ascending isn't in control of their ascension, someone else is.  That's why the term enraptured comes from rapture.  Jesus was in full control of his Ascension, and is in full control of every other Biblical Ascension.

And also that the term could have accurately described some other events in Revelation, like 4:1 or the Ascension of the Witnesses.  But John used it only here.  Now in the first century that particular word Paul used in 1 Thessalonians 4 may not have been a point of contention, but The Holy Spirit knew it would be and I think maybe was specific about how to use it in The Apocalypse.

I've seen it argued the Man-Child can't be the Church because he's Caught up to God's Throne.  Revelation 12 does NOT say the Man-Child sits on the Throne (which it probably would have if the Man-Child was Jesus), the terminology is consistent just with the Man-Child being in the Throne Room.  Read chapters 14 and 15.

Ruling the nations with a Rod of Iron is applied to presumably Jesus in Psalm 2, and again later in Revelation in chapter 19.  But in the context of reading through Revelation on it's own without knowledge of what's ahead, the promise to rule the nations with a Rod of Iron was applied to faithful believers in Revelation 2:27.

I recommend a study on my other blog where I point out how some of our casual Christian lingo is wrong.  We are "Born Again" at the Resurrection not when we are saved.  We are begotten again or conceived when we are Saved.  So if the concept of New Birth is linked to the Resurrection, and The Rapture we know happens when we are Resurrected.  Then it's quite interesting that The Man-Child is born and Raptured in the same verse.

Numerous passages outside Revelation speak of a woman travailing in child birth as an idiom of the signs of the the Second Coming.  But we never connect that to Revelation 12 because we're so used to this assumption that the Birth of The Man-Child there is referring to something that already happened at The First Advent.

Isaiah 66 also clearly defines The Man-Child as Zion/New Jerusalem.

As an individual our begetting happens when we're saved.  The Church as an entity was Begotten arguably you could say over the course of The Spring Feasts in 30 AD.  The Woman is Israel, we were conceived in Israel's Womb from the Bodily fluids of Jesus shed at The Cross.

Jesus is represented differently at different parts of Revelation, the Lamb, the Son of Man, ect.  The Church is the same situation.  We are definitely The Bride.  And I see the 144,000 as a specific group that sort of represents the whole at times.  They are on earth through The Trumpets, but on the Heavenly Zion in Revelation 14, and described with terms Paul linked to the Resurrection like First Fruits and Redeemed from the Earth.

Some insist The Church can never be symbolically masculine due to the Bride of Christ doctrine.  Well we can't be Jesus Body then now can we?  Paul even talks in Corinthians about our members being the members of Christ.  That's leaving aside that some people don't even agree with The Bride doctrine, and over time I've re-thought that myself.  Psalm 45 depicts The Messiah and his Bride as having children.

There were no chapter divisions in the original text.  Revelation 12 follows 11, this is still the aftermath of the Seventh Trumpet, where it says now is the time of The Dead.  I believe firmly that that Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah.  The 70th Week will begin and end with Nisan.

Revelation 12's beginning could also be the Sign of the Son of Man that Jesus spoke of.  Or the Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars from Luke 21.

And maybe that is why this is when Satan is finally kicked out of Heaven (Michael is the aggressor here).  It is when We are there fully Redeemed and brought there that God won't tolerate Satan's presence there any longer.

As far as the desire to link this to possibly Constellation alignments involving Virgo.  While the time of year that points to happens to agree with when I believe this will happen for many other reasons, I remain highly skeptical.  Ultimately I think this is something Supernatural, but it could be Supernatural and also involve Virgo.  I've posted on related conjectures before.  However I was mistaken when I said Virgo is completely not visible then. when the Sun is just starting to enter Virgo she remains partially visible at Dusk for a hour or so.

Latin Vulgate translation of Revelation 12:5

Et peperit filium masculum, qui recturus erat omnes gentes in virga ferrea: et raptus est filius ejus ad Deum, et ad thronum ejus,

The Rapture of The Man-Child

Revelation 12:5

"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

The symbols seen in the heavens in Revelation 12 is a symbolic summery of History.  The Man-Child is Jesus and his being "Caught up to God" is at first glance an allusion to The Ascension.

The phrase "caught up" is the exact same one in the Greek text Paul uses in 1 Thessalonians 4.  Chuck Missler argues that this could also be an allusion to The Rapture, that it's not just Christ being "Caught up" here but his Body, The Church.  So this one detail of the summery of history jumps us from the The Ascension in 30 A.D. to The Rapture.

Revelation 2:26-27 actually backs up that ruling the nations with a Rod of Iron refers to The Church as well as Jesus.

Chuck Missler is Pre-Trib, but I think The Rapture being alluded to here would suit Mid-Trib better.  Because verse 6 tells us that when The Woman (Israel) flees to her hiding place in the Wilderness, where she'll be protected for 1260 days is at this time.  That we know from Matthew 24 happens in the wake of The Abomination of Desolation.

Also the narrative of Revelation is between the two main places Mid-Tirbbers look to.  Chapters 11 and 14.

Mid-Trib is by no means dependent on this view, if it were I'd have addressed it earlier.  But it is an interesting observation.