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.

Methodius of Olympus on The Man-Child being The Saints

I obviously don't agree with him entirely, my take on it is Semi-Dispensationalist with the Woman being Israel.  But it shows the idea of The Man-Child being Believers rather then Jesus has ancient even Pre-Nicene precedent.

This is from his Dialogue of The Ten Virgins, Thekla.  I'm copying chapters 5-8 for context but chapter 7 is the main argument.  And it makes arguments I didn't think of.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_VI/Methodius/Banquet_of_the_Ten_Virgins/Thekla

Chapter V.—The Woman Who Brings Forth, to Whom the Dragon is Opposed, the Church; Her Adornment and Grace.

The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the sun, and crowned with twelve stars, and having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, O virgins, being a power by herself distinct from her children; whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power which is desired to give light in the prophet, the Spirit crying to her: “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see; all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.” It is the Church whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters. She rejoices receiving the light which never goes down, and clothed with the brightness of the Word as with a robe. For with what other more precious or honourable ornament was it becoming that the queen should be adorned, to be led as a Bride to the Lord, when she had received a garment of light, and therefore was called by the Father? Come, then, let us go forward in our discourse, and look upon this marvelous woman as upon virgins prepared for a marriage, pure and undefiled, perfect and radiating a permanent beauty, wanting nothing of the brightness of light; and instead of a dress, clothed with light itself; and instead of precious stones, her head adorned with shining stars. For instead of the clothing which we have, she had light; and for gold and brilliant stones, she had stars; but stars not such as those which are set in the invisible heaven, but better and more resplendent, so that those may rather be considered as their images and likenesses.

Chapter VI.—The Works of the Church, the Bringing Forth of Children in Baptism; The Moon in Baptism, the Full Moon of Christ’s Passion.

Now the statement that she stands upon the moon, as I consider, denotes the faith of those who are cleansed from corruption in the laver of regeneration, because the light of the moon has more resemblance to tepid water, and all moist substance is dependent upon her. The Church, then, stands upon our faith and adoption, under the figure of the moon, until the fulness of the nations come in, labouring and bringing forth natural men as spiritual men; for which reason too she is a mother. For just as a woman receiving the unformed seed of a man, within a certain time brings forth a perfect man, in the same way, one should say, does the Church conceive those who flee to the Word, and, forming them according to the likeness and form of Christ, after a certain time produce them as citizens of that blessed state. Whence it is necessary that she should stand upon the laver, bringing forth those who are washed in it. And in this way the power which she has in connection with the laver is called the moon, because the regenerate shine being renewed with a new ray, that is, a new light. Whence, also, they are by a descriptive term called newly-enlightened; the moon ever showing forth anew to them the spiritual full moon, namely, the period and the memorial of the passion, until the glory and the perfect light of the great day arise.

Chapter VII.—The Child of the Woman in the Apocalypse Not Christ, But the Faithful Who are Born in the Laver.

If any one, for there is no difficulty in speaking distinctly, should be vexed, and reply to what we have said: “But how, O virgins, can this explanation seem to you to be according to the mind of Scripture, when the Apocalypse plainly defines that the Church brings forth a male, while you teach that her labour-pains have their fulfilment in those who are washed in the laver?” We will answer, But, O faultfinder, not even to you will it be possible to show that Christ Himself is the one who is born. For long before the Apocalypse, the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word was fulfilled. And John speaks concerning things present and things to come. But Christ, long ago conceived, was not caught up to the throne of God when He was brought forth, from fear of the serpent injuring Him. But for this was He begotten, and Himself came down from the throne of the Father, that He should remain and subdue the dragon who made an assault upon the flesh. So that you also must confess that the Church labours and gives birth to those who are baptized. As the spirit says somewhere in Isaiah: “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.” From whom did he flee? Surely from the dragon, that the spiritual Zion might bear a masculine people, who should come back from the passions and weakness of women to the unity of the Lord, and grow strong in manly virtue.

Chapter VIII.—The Faithful in Baptism Males, Configured to Christ; The Saints Themselves Christs.

Let us then go over the ground again from the beginning, until we come in course to the end, explaining what we have said. Consider if the passage seems to you to be explained to your mind. For I think that the Church is here said to give birth to a male; since the enlightened receive the features, and the image, and the manliness of Christ, the likeness of the form of the Word being stamped upon them, and begotten in them by a true knowledge and faith, so that in each one Christ is spiritually born. And, therefore, the Church swells and travails in birth until Christ is formed in us, so that each of the saints, by partaking of Christ, has been born a Christ. According to which meaning it is said in a certain scripture, “Touch not mine anointed,and do my prophets no harm,” as though those who were baptized into Christ had been made Christs by communication of the Spirit, the Church contributing here their clearness and transformation into the image of the Word. And Paul confirms this, teaching it plainly, where he says: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” For it is necessary that the word of truth should be imprinted and stamped upon the souls of the regenerate.

I have a number of things I wanna post here before April is over, so brace yourself.

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.

September 23 2017 is apporaching.

Awhile ago I talked about why I don't think the alignment involving Virgo, Leo and 4 of the Planets is significant.  But now the time for it is approaching I better remind people.

Also recently was this AnswerInGenesis Article on it.

That somewhat overlaps with my refuting the September 11th 3 BC Birth of Jesus theory.

Rob Skiba has kinda gone off the deep end, in a recent radio show saying Revelation 12 can only be about either something astronomical or some sort of cloned rebirth of Jesus who immediately dies.

I feel like I have firmly Biblically proven that The Woman is Israel, and The Man-Child is The Church, especially thanks to Isaiah 66.

For those who still think The Church can only be represented by a woman, I recommend this Song of Solomon post of mine.

The only thing Biblically significant about this September is that as it often does the Month of Tishri and thus the Fall Feasts will begin.

Are the Woman of Revelation 12 and the Woman of Revelation 17 possibly the same Woman?

I know that's a controversial suggestion, if true it probably invalidates one or the other of two theories on Bible Prophecy I've advocated on this Blog (the Wilderness of Revelation 12 being Mt Sinai, or the Babylon of 17 being East of the Euphrates), maybe both given other factors.

If true it would prove Mystery Babylon is Israel in a Rebellious state before her ultimate salvation, as I'm unshakable on The Woman of 12 being Israel and The Church being The Man-Child.  But it would NOT prove Jerusalem, rather it contradicts it, this is Israel after fleeing.  (So either way this Babylon is still probably East of the Jordan.)

We often see the Wildness refuge of Revelation 12 as a repeat of the Exodus-Deuteronomy wandering, Israel fell into Idolatry then too.  And in DeMille's movie The Ten Commandments, he draws on Revelation 17 imagery in depicting the Golden Calf incident.

Now, here is the first clue that lead me to consider this possibility.

The word "Wilderness" is used in the Book of Revelation three times, in the Greek it's also the same word all three times, even the same form of the word (Eremon rather then Eremos).  In Revelation 12 verses 6 and 14 it refers to the place where The Woman is taken to be protected.  But then in Chapter 17 verse 3, John is taken to The Wilderness to see a Woman sitting on a Beast.  And all three seem to use the definite article, The Wilderness, not a wilderness.

That I noticed months ago really, it kept sticking in my head but I felt it's conflict with my other theories and how they fit together meant I shouldn't read too much into it.

Then today I was for a completely different theory I've been working on, studying various usages of Hebrew words for Spear/Lance/Javelin.  And I happened to notice something profound in Jeremiah, aspects of this have probably been used by Babylon is Jerusalem theorists before, but I doubt they noticed the Revelation 12 relevance.

Jeremiah 6:23 and 50:42 are saying almost the exact same thing.  In Hebrew it's more similar then in the KJV as there Lance and Spear are the same word.  The only difference is thar one says the Daughter of Zion and the other says the Daughter of Babylon.

And in both cases the verses right before and after are also profoundly similar.  Jeremiah 6:24 is part of the reason we know the Woman of Revelation 12 is Israel, but we overlook Jeremiah 50:43 using the same term.  And in 6:22/50:41, could the Kings of this "northern" nation be the 10 Kings of Revelation 17?  And the King of Babylon either The Antichrist or a Decoy Antichrist, claiming to be Messiah Ben-Joseph and/or the Imam Mahdi?

Now the problem with using this to prove Babylon is Jerusalem is that Jeremiah 6 read from the beginning makes clear the Children of Zion have already fled The Land.  While Jeremiah 50 and 51 is repeatedly tied to the Land of the Chaledeans and of Babylon.  And God calls his faithful people to leave.

Could the "Mountains" Jesus told the people to flee to after the Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24 be the Seven Mountains?

Chuck Missler likes to talk about the Woman of Revelation 17 boasting that she is not "widowed and divorced" as a contrast to Israel, described by The Prophets as widowed and divorced.  But others have interpreted that "boast" as being a denial.

And then there is Zachariah 5.  We've long speculated that Woman is the Revelation 17 Woman.  But she's transported with parallel wing imagery to Revelation 12 which we overlook.  And in Daniel 7 the Lion representing Babylon has Eagle's Wings which are plucked.

Micah 4:9-10 seem to refer to the Daughter of Zion going to Babylon after travailing in Childbirth.

Returning to what I've argued before that the Woman of Revelation 12 is in a sense Rachel. In Genesis 31, after Joseph is born and Jacob leaves Laban's household which I view as a possible type of the birth of the Man-Child and The Rapture in Revelation 12.  Rachel stole Laban's Teraphim idols, and in verses 34 and 35 she sits on them, and claims to Laban she is menstruating to avoid being searched.  What color does that imagery evoke?  Red, the color of Scarlet.  And this incident took place in Gilead interestingly.

 And if you still insist on linking the Woman of Revelation 12 to the constellation Virgo (called Bethulah by Semites) in some fashion.  Isaiah 37:22 refers to a "Virgin Daughter of Zion" (along with 2 Kings 19:21 and Lamentations 2:13) while  Isaiah 47:1 refers to a "Virgin Daughter of Babylon".  The word for Virgin being Bethulah in each of those.

Now if this is true, which previous theory should I consider abandoning?  I don't know, but let's consider some things.

If in any way Israelites fleeing the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD is a type picture of the End Times flight (Jesus uses similar language of both in Luke 21 and Matthew 24) then that doesn't narrow it down.  Because some went to Arabia, like the ancestors of many Arabian Jewish communities and the Lemba.  But also many went to Mesopotamia where there were already Jewish communities in Seleucia, Nisibis, Osroene and a Jewish Kingdom in Adiabene, and in time wrote the Babylonian Talmud.

If you are a fan of The Book of Enoch (which I'm not, but I've studied it), that book does refer to a Seven Mountain formation, but where this range is supposed to be isn't made clear.  Some theories say Mount Hermon (relevant to other parts of the book) is one of these mountains.  Which is interesting in that... A: the form of Wilderness used in Revelation, Eremon, could also work as a Greek transliteration of Hermon, Eremon is also used of a "Desert Place" near Bethsadia which is near Hermon.  And B: 1 Chronicles 5:23-25 says Seven Families dwelt there, who transgressed the law and went a whoring after foreign gods.

But another theory proposed is that the Seven Mountains of Enoch are to the South not North, and possibly one of the Seven is Sinai.  Sinai did have other mountains near it, like Mount Hor where Aaron was buried, and there is some dispute on if Horeb is the same Mountain or near it.  And Mount Seir is often refereed to as if it's close by.  And there is a Mount Paran.  And Mt Sin also.

Independent of all this many aren't convinced by my argument that the references to the Euphrates in Revelation proves Babylon must be East of it and with the Kings of The East.  Maybe they're right and I'm jumping to conclusions.

And another detail of Revelation 17 I've overlooked in expressing my past theories is that strictly speaking it is only the 10 Horns described as hating the woman and seeking to destroy her, not the 8th King himself directly.   So again all of those could be more complicated then we're prepared for.

On the other hand.  Jeremiah 6 begins by talking about Benjamin specifically, the Prophecy began sooner, but still, it's interesting given my Argument that in a sense the Woman of Revelation 12 is Rachel.  And I have an argument for linking Modern Israel to Saul typologically.  Esther talking about Jews who didn't return to Judea but stayed in the east, is centrally a Benjamite family, descended from the Kinsman of Saul whom David spared.  Hilel The Elder was also a prominent Benjamite born in Mesopotamia.  The families who sinned in Hermon I mentioned before were of Eastern Manasseh who were deported by Assyria.  Could it be the Shiites are descended from Joseph (and many Jews of the region from Benjamin), while the Kurds are a product of a mingling of the Medes and Naphtali?

People like to use Micah 2:12 as evidence Israel's wilderness dwelling will be in Bozrah of Edom.  I criticized that in my Sinai post by pointing out the lack of any other Edom references here, and other places are called Bozrah like in Moab, and that it means "sheep fold" and the context here reflects that.

But in light of this theory it is interesting to note that a name suspiciously similar to Bozrah is Basra, which I've discussed before as possibly being the Babylon of Revelation 17&18.

Or maybe it won't all be in one place, maybe they'll start at Sinai and then wander.  I already said I think the scale of the Numbers wandering was larger then most think it was.  I remain confused on the exact geography of Basra, including which side of the Euphrates it is on.  Maybe they'll wander all of the land I view as allotted to Ishmael.

So the assumption in Mystery Babylon debates has been that she can't be both Israel in rebellion and geographically in Mesopotamia.  But that Assumption I now feel is wrong.

Israel's hiding place in The Wilderness during The Day of Yahuah

I still believe the doctrine that Israel will have a Hiding Place in the Wilderness during the three and a half years between The Rapture and the start of the Millennium.

The Woman of Revelation 12 is Israel, and verses 6 and 14 refer to her hiding in the Wilderness in a place prepared by God.

Matthew 14 also records Jesus warning to flee to the Wilderness when you see The Abomination of Desolation.

What I have come to disagree with is the popular view that this hiding place is in the land anciently ruled by Edom but today part of Jordan, Biblically identified with Bozrah, though for some reason popularly identified with the distinct Petra.

Daniel 11:41 is taken as assurance that Edom, Moab and at least part of Ammon (all in modern Jordan) will escape The Antichrist.  But I've already shown that Prophecy was about Caesar Augustus, and refers to those lands being ruled by the Nabatean kingdom of Aretas.  And even if it does have a second fulfillment, this passage still doesn't directly connect itself to this doctrine, and that lack of control is not guaranteed to be permanent, Rome did eventually conquer the Nabatean Kingdom under Trajan, the same Caesar who conquered Babylon for Rome interestingly.

The main basis for placing their hiding place in Bozrah is Micah 2:12.

I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men.

Thing is Bozrah is also a Hebrew term that means Sheepfold, and in context it looks like that is what's being said here, not a place name.  There are no near by references to Edom or other Edomite place names to verify this being the Edomite city.  And to further complicate things Jeremiah 48:24 refers to a Bozrah in Moab.

Amos 1:12 and Isaiah 34 refers to Bozrah specifically and Edom as a whole as being subject to God's Wrath during the Day of Warth.  Now I think that is arguably about Eschatological Edom being Rome/The West, but I think the geographical lands of Ancient Edom could play a role in that, Edom returning to their roots in a sense, not unlike Mystery Babylon returning to Shinar in Zechariah 5.

The final passage cited to prove this theory is Isaiah 63 where Jesus, described similarly to how he is in Revelation 19, is coming from Edom and Bozrah.  This passage also doesn't directly connect itself to the Wilderness hiding place doctrine but I think it's more likely to be relevant then Daniel.

It could be Jesus is traveling through Edom/Bozrah and it's neither the starting or ending point.  However it certainly is not the ending point, so this theory is dependent on saying he goes where Israel is hiding first and then marches to Armageddon.

I however think based on Genesis 28:17 that when Revelation 19:11 says Heaven Opened, that opening is in Beth-El.  Destroying The Armies of The Beast is the first thing Jesus will do, then he'll go to Israel to lead them back to Jerusalem.

So I think the reference to Edom and Bozrah in Isaiah 63 is the same as in Isaiah 34 and other Prophecies about Edom's final Judgment, like Obadiah, of Ezekiel 35-36.

So where do I think Israel will be protected?

I have argued before for seeing the Day of Yahuah as being a typological repeat of much of the history of The Exodus.  In that context I think perhaps this will be the same place they wandered in The Wilderness for 40 years in the days of Moses.  In fact I think the reference to her being fed there in 12:6 possibly alludes to a return of the Manna miracle.  Also Exodus 19:4 uses Eagles' Wings terminology, as does Isaiah 40:31.

We do also see a pattern throughout The Bible of individuals returning to this same location.  David spent some time in Paran which is also a place Israel spent some of the 40 year wandering.  Elijah spent some time at Mt Sinai.  We're never told where Jesus 40 days in the Wilderness was.  Paul in Galatians 1:17 says he was in Arabia for some of the time between his conversion and the beginning of his ministry.  Paul places Sinai in Arabia in Galatians 4:24-25.

That of course leads to debates about where those locations are.

I believe Mt Sinai is in Midian, possibly Jabal El Lawz, a view first popularized in The West by Ron Wyatt but later verified by the more reliable and trustworthy Bob Cornuke.

I've expressed in the past a willingness to believe certain Muslim claims that most modern Western Christians are adverse to.  Doesn't change my complete rejection of the Theology, Christolgoy and Soterology of Islam, or that Muhammad is not eligible to be a Biblical Prophet.  These issues come up in any post I give the Ishmael label to.

The Mt Sinai debate ties into that.  If Sinai is in what we today call the Sinai Peninsula then the Desert of Paran can't be in Arabia either, since Paran is also one of the locations mentioned during the 40 year wandering.

We're used to thinking of the total geography of the 40 year wandering as pretty small because The West since the time of Constantine has been forced to limit it to the Sinai Peninsula.  But once you place Mt Sinai in Arabia, then things can open up.

I want to point out that the Islamic view of Paran is not that it's just Mecca, they view the Wilderness of Paran as the entire Hijaz, that's pretty much all of Saudi Arabia that borders the Red Sea.  But there is also a more specific Mt Paran.

Eusebius and Jerome were Pre-Islamic non Arab Christians who placed Paran in Arabia Desertia, which is the Roman name for Saudi Arabia basically, south of Nabatea (Jordan mostly) and north of Arabia Felix (Yemen).

There are Samaritan sources like some texts of their Pentateuch and their apocryphal Book of Moses that seem to agree with identifying Paran with al-Hijaz and linking Ishmael to Mecca.  However a claim that Abraham built the Kaaba remains incompatible with Genesis.

Immanuel Velikvosky when arguing for his view of the Amalekites (which I agree with, with some qualifiers) in Ages in Chaos saw identifying Paran with al-Hijaz as supporting his theory based on his use of Arab Historians.

I'm even willing to consider valid the identification of the Baca of Psalm 84:6 with Bakkah an ancient name for Mecca.  Though that is pretty difficult to prove.

In context it does sound like a Desert or Wilderness location, I'm even wondering now if Psalm 84 could be directly applicable to Israel's End Times wildness protection.

Psalm 84 being a Davdic Psalm is taken as meaning it's probably a location linked to a place David was during his exile.  Well 1 Samuel 25:1 says David went to Paran after Samuel died.

The usage of Psalm 82 by Islamic apologists remains wrong in that Baca is not the destination of this Pilgrimage.  They basically try to argue Zion just means Sacred Land and thus can mean the Kaaba.  Zion only came to mean that after David placed his Tabernacle on Mt Zion, this being a Daivdic Psalm shows David's Zion is what he meant.  While he was in Paran he longed to return to Zion.

If you take the size of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22, and place it's center at Jerusalem or Beth-El, it's total land would include Mecca and Medina, and one or two of it's southern gates would be just south of them in Arabia.  So you could have people pilgrimage through those gates and past Mecca towards Zion.

So basically I think Arabia, not Jordan is where Israel will be protected during the last 1260 days.

Or maybe this and the Petra view don't conflict, since another suggested location for Mt Sinai is Jabel al-Madhbah near Petra.  Petra isn't named as such in the Bible being a Greek name and the city as we know it from the Greco-Roman period.  It was the Nabatean capital making it actually Ishmaelite territory just outside of Edom.   But again during the NT era the Nabateans ruled Edom, Moab and much of Amon.  But being connected to Ishmael's oldest son makes it logical to be near Paran.

It is named in The Bible as Cela/Sela/Selah, often translated Rock. Possibly first being given that name in 1 Samuel 23:25-28.  And having being given another name in 2 Kings 14:7.  It's refereed to in Obadiah 3 and Jeremiah 49:16.  Showing at times Edom did have it.  But it's linked to Kedar in Isaiah 42:11.  And it identified as being in The Wilderness in Isaiah 16:1.

It is used of the Rock Moses smote the second time, when smiting it wasn't what he was supposed to do, in Numbers 20, and mentioned in Psalm 78:16.  And it's used in Number 24:21 about the Kenites, the clan of the Father in-law of Moses.  And in Deuteronomy 32:13.  It's also possibly being mentioned in Judges 1:36.

The Woman of Revelation 12

I've argued before that The Man-Child is The Church, using Isaiah 66 to back that up, and thus that puts The Rapture at the Midway Point.

This agrees with the view that The Woman is Israel, thus refuting any views making Israel and The Church exactly the same.  I'm not a traditional dispensationalist, but there is a clear distinction.

This is proven by lots of old Prophetic references to Israel/Jerusalem being a woman (like Isaiah 62:4 where she is named Hephzibah), and often travailing in child birth, like Jeremiah 6 and Isaiah 66.

The Sun, Moon and Stars imagery comes from Genesis 37:9-10, one of Joseph's dreams.

"Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me."  And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, "What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?"

Which defines for us the Sun and Moon as Jacob and his Wife, and the eleven stars as Joseph's eleven brothers.  Revelation 12 has twelve stars because now Joseph is included.

Commentators repeatedly claim the Sun is Jacob and the Moon is Rachel, but that is wrong.  The mother in mind here is clearly Leah not Rachel because Rachel had died before Joseph had this dream and so clearly never bowed before Joseph in Egypt when this was fulfilled.  What confuses people is Jacob saying "your mother" to Joseph.  But I don't doubt that by this point Leah was a mother to all 12 sons.

I argued in my Time of Jacob's Trouble post that Rachel in a sense serves typologically as a female personification of Israel.  Through Benjamin and Joseph she was a mother to populations in both Kingdoms.

In Genesis 35:19 and 48:7 Rachel dies after giving birth to Benjamin and was buried in the same land that will become Bethlehem.  (Some have argued those events only happened on the way to Bethlehem, either way they are thematically tied to Bethlehem by God's Word.)  When the children of Bethlehem were slaughtered by Herod, Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15.

Thus saith Yahuah; "A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not."

So I think the reason the Woman herself is not in the dream in Genesis 37 is because the Woman in a sense is Rachel.  Because it was a Tribe born to Leah that had Bethlehem when that slaughter happened, yet Rachel weeped for them as her own children.

Update June 2017: Virgo

 I'm now much more skeptical of the Mazaroth and Gospel In The Stars type theories then I used to be.  And I've already done a post refuting that hype around the September 2017 alignment.  But for sake of reference I'll talk about how the desire to associate Virgo with the Woman of Revelation 12 can back up her being in a sense Rachel.

There are different takes on which Signs to identify with which Tribes.  But the main form I'm familiar with is one that makes Issachar the tribe Virgo represents.  Many then note how the traditional site of Nazareth is in land allotted to Issachar (near Japhia), and Nazareth can be associated with The Virgin Mary.

The reason however for this argument to associate Issachar with Virgo revolves around Rachel in the narrative in Genesis 30:14-18.

"The young woman (Virgo) carries a branch (of mandrakes) and a stalk of harvested wheat, because at the harvest-time (stalk of harvested wheat) Issachar (whose name means hired man) was conceived by Leah after hiring her husband for the night from Rachel, Rachel receiving as her hire the mandrakes which Leah's son had found in the fields. The mandrakes were desired by Rachel because she hoped their aphrodisiac powers would help her conceive, when before this she had been barren (Virgo = virgin). And, indeed, she did conceive immediately thereafter, bringing forth her firstborn son, Joseph, typing the Promised Seed, the Messiah Jesus, born from the Virgin (Virgo) Mary. Rachel (Virgo) is seen in the sign carrying off the mandrakes, to represent the hiring from which Issachar received his name, and bearing the Seed (the star Spica, Ear of Corn), as a prophecy of the coming Messiah. A subjoined constellation, Coma, the "Hair" of the Virgin (representing the hair of the wheat plant ["mother"] which bears the Seed), was in ancient times depicted as a Virgin bearing a young boy on her lap. The Arabs said this young boy was Jesus, the Messiah, and claimed that an ancient prophecy of the Magi foretold that a great star would beam forth in this sign at the time the Messiah was born."

So, that is quite interesting.

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.

September 11th 3 BC Birth-Date Theory

What happened on this date with Jupiter and Regulus I still view as vital to understanding the Star of Bethlehem.

There are people out there however obsessed with thinking the vision seen in Revelation 12 is about this date and the Birth of Jesus.  There are major problems with that.

First off regardless of if the Birth of Jesus is what Revelation 12 symbolically represents, those signs are not seen in the Heavens until after the Seventh Trumpet is sounded.  These signs I believe are what Jesus meant by "Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars" in Luke 21 and "Sign of the Son of Man" in the Olivite Discourse.

But I have shown that I don't think Revelation 12 is depicting the Birth of Jesus at all, but the Resurrection and Rapture of The Church.

As far as thinking Virgo has something to with Revelation 12.  I am definitively convinced the Seventh Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah, and I'm very compelled by the Gospel in The Stars theory.  So I have looked into speculation about Virgo and Revelation 12.

But there is still no Biblical proof it has anything to do with Virgo.  And even if it does I still think it may be futile to look for it on Stellerium.  I think this is probably ultimately a completely supernatural occurrence, like what God did with the Sun for Joshua or Hezekiah.

The Moon being under Virgo's feet while the Sun is in Virgo happens every year, sometimes twice a year.  The requirements for this vision are not rare in any way.

Rob Skiba likes to say it has to be a New Moon to fit this so he can say September 11th 3 BC was the only 80 Minutes in history this happened.  But nothing in the text of Revelation 12 says it has to be the New Moon, I have other reasons for believing on or near the New Moon is when this happens, but the Greek text does not say that, it's just the standard Greek word for Moon.  Exact same word used in Revelation 6, which I believe will happen on or soon after a Full Moon.

At any-rate I think there might be a New Moon under Virgo's Feet on October 7th 21 AD.

But I no longer favor that End Times model.  I now have a theory Revelation 12 could be fulfilled on September 26th 2033 AD.

The Romans would not have made all of Judea have to travel longs distances to their family homes only two weeks before Tabernacles.  Tabernacles was a pilgrimage festival were all the Jews had to be in Jerusalem for the entire week.  Preparations for that would have to begin more then 2 weeks in advance.  So I'm sorry but Jesus simply could not have been born on one of the Leviticus 23 Holy Days.

I have shown elsewhere that Jesus was born on December 25th after all.

And all his talk about all the Sun gods being born on December 25th is wrong.  The Winter Solstice was affiliated by Sun worshipers with Death and Resurrection not birth.  Apollo and Dionysus Birthdays were originally in Spring.  But Augustus changed it to his Birthday September 23rd which happened to be near the Autumul Equinox.

The Revealing, The Rapture and The Abomination of Desolation

In the inaugural post of this Blog I argued that the Abomination of Desolation must happen before The Rapture.  Latter I argued that maybe not, then I did another post going back to my original position but without really refuting the reasons I gave previously.

I have changed my mind again, I think this is my last change on this subject because I now feel I've unraveled the mysteries that confused me before.

Let me clarify, the way II Thessalonian 2 refutes Pre-Tribe remains fully in tact.  The Abomination incident is mentioned there but it's strictly only his Revealing that must happen before The Rapture.  And before that the restrainer must be removed.

I Believe as the new name for this Blog declares, but I've always felt this way, that the events in Revelation will happen in the order they are described, with few exceptions like referencing time periods that span 3.5 years.  And Revelation does include examples of God speaking past tense of this yet to happen like Babylon's fall in chapter 14.  But I firmly reject the idea of it starting once or multiple times.

Other Bible Prophecies are snap shots of the End Times that unless they contain clear timing statements are not chronological, but Revelation's Purpose is to tell us how it all fits together.

Only other single visions even close to being large enough to consider worth taking as strictly chronologically as Revelation, and that are irrefutably End Times.  Are the last 2 visions that make up Ezekiel.  34-39 and 40-48.  Those don't conflict with Revelation's chronology in my view, I see 40-48 as correlating to Revelation 21-22.  And I see 37-39 as Revelation 20.  What's before that can fit the Day of Wrath.

Revelation 9 is when the Restrainer is removed.

When The Beast kills the Witnesses is when he's irrefutably revealed.  That is the first time Revelation irrefutably mentions The Beast, identifying him with earlier personages is valid speculation but still ultimately speculation.  Now I'm unsure if the Beast that does is the first or second, I believe both Ascend out of the Bottomless Pit.  That's a minor issue however, since I now think the second beast may be the more important one anyway.

Three and a half days latter they are resurrected, then they ascend into Heaven and the Gentile Population of Jerusalem repents and believes.

Then the Seventh Trumpet sounds, and then Revelation 12 depicts The Rapture.  Then Revelation 13 depicts The Abomination of Desolation.

I'm still open the possibility of it happening first, my point here is there is room for interpretation on it.  If it does happen first it happens very close, the same day the Witnesses were killed would be the longest before that it could happen.  The chronology I suggested in this post remains compelling to me.

Here is the thing however.  When we get to Revelation depiction of The Abomination of Desolation incident in Chapter 13 Verse 6.

"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven."

"Them that dwell in heaven" can only make sense to be as the already Raptured Church.  Blaspheming Angels wouldn't be such a big deal.

Michael and The Angel of The LORD

The Jehovah's Witnesses are infamous for believing Jesus was Michael The Archangel.  What makes the JW view of Jesus extremely Blasphemous though isn't about Michael at all but about making Him a created being and denying The Trinity.

Meanwhile they don't even believe God The Father is Infinite but rather Finite.  They used to officially teach He lived on a star in the constellation Pleiades, but later abandoned that.  I think it could be possible God has a Tabernacle in the Heavens just as He's had one on Earth, and that could be New Jerusalem, the Heavenly Zion by the Sides of The North.  But ultimately God is Omnipresent.

Here is a brief analysis of why the Watchtower Bible's translation of John 1:1 is wrong.

[And I now have a post on why even the mildest form of Semi-Arianism is wrong]
However the idea that Michael (which means "Who is Like God") might be a name given to The Angel of The LORD, who some Jews and nearly all Christians both agree to be God manifested within The World, a Theophany, is I think a worthwhile possibly to investigate.

Michael appears in The New Testament, and usually the view among Christians is that The Angel of The LORD is a form or title Jesus took only in The Hebrew Bible (besides occasional New Testament quotations of those incidents), and that upon the Incarnation it does not apply to Jesus anymore.

 In English we keep forgetting that angel is just a word for messenger, Jesus used it of John The Baptist which should prove gaining humanity does not take away the term's accuracy.  Everything that made that word apply to John, Jesus was doing also.  The term "Word of God" certainly still applies to Jesus in the New Testament, and in my view those titles are related in concept, messages are made up of words after all.

At any-rate the reference to Michael in Jude at least is an incident that probably took place in the Old Testament era.  And Revelation is often defined as the most Old Testament part of The New Testament.  Together those are every NT usage of the name Michael.

Many Christians have argued The Angel in Revelation 10 could be Jesus, pointing to parallels between it's description and Jesus in the first chapter.  Jesus certainly takes many forms throughout Revelation, The Lamb in chapter 5, the Son of Man in 14 and so on.  Could it be the Angel in chapter 10 is Michael preparing for the actions he shall take in chapter 12?

I now believe The Man-Child in chapter 12 is The Church rather then Jesus, so seeing Jesus as Michael at that moment becomes far more plausible.  But even if you still think The Man-Child is Jesus, that the Man-Child takes the form of Michael as soon as He's in Heaven is a possibility.

It's largely because of Revelation 12 that Michael gets defined in popular imagination as the military commander of God's Angels.  In Joshua The Angel of The LORD appears to him before the battle of Jericho and identifies himself as The Captain of The LORD's hosts.

Jude alone actually quotes Michael.  And what Michael says to Satan is the same thing The Angel of The LORD said to Satan in Zechariah 3.  Now those are clearly not the same incident so Michael could be quoting Zechariah.  But still, the fact that the only statement attributed to Michael is also attributed to The Angel of The LORD is interesting.

Jude alone is the reason we call Michael The Archangel.  I now unlike in the past believe Archangel is a term that applies to multiple angels.  Because the only other time it appears is in I Thessalonians 4, in the infamous Rapture passage, but while it reads singular in the KJV in The Greek it is actually in a plural form there, which to me verifies connecting this to The Seventh Trumpet in Revelation 11 where many voices are in Heaven after The Trumpet sounds.

I think Archangel is a synonym for when you see "Principality" used in the KJV as seemingly a type or rank of Angels.  In the Greek "Principality" is Arca or Arche, the same word that combines with Angel to make Archangel.  This I believe correlates to in Hebrew the word Sar (one of many Hebrew words translated Prince) when used of Angels.

In Daniel 10 Michael is called the Chief Prince, and in chapter 12 he's the Great Prince, Daniel 10 also shows other Angels are Princes too, but Michael has a higher rank among the Princes.  Daniel 8 calls Jesus the Prince of Princes, likewise Isaiah 9 calls Jesus The Prince of Peace (Which could be interpreted as Prince of Salem).  In each of these cases the Hebrew word is Sar.

Daniel 10 5-9 describes Daniel seeing a being who many interpret as a Theophany, again with parallels to Revelation 1 and also Revelation 10.  Interestingly this same entity's voice is also described as being "Like the Voice of a Multitude".  After this encounter Daniel passes out.

The Angel speaking to Daniel after he wakes up in verse 10 (and is really saying everything in chapter 11 and the beginning of 12) can't be Jesus because he needed help to get past the Prince of Persia to get to Daniel.  It is common to use that fact to refute the idea of seeing a Theophany here at all, but others have suggested this isn't necessarily the same Angel.

Here is the thing, it is Michael who this Angel says came to help him and enabled him to finally reach Daniel.  So it seems logical to consider that perhaps Michael is The Angel that Daniel sees in verses 5-9.

What happens when Michael "Stands Up" in Chapter 12 is that those who's names are written in The Book are Delivered(Saved) and many are Resurrected.  I think this Prophecy as I argued before has a dual fulfillment.  That it can apply to both Jesus Resurrection in 30 AD and The Rapture at the middle of the 70th Week.  I argued that independent of possibly seeing Michael and Jesus as the same, but them being the same certainly makes that fit even stronger.

Again this is nothing to be dogmatic on.  But I think when debating JWs we should be willing to say, Yes maybe Michael is Jesus, but that is separate from the debate of if Jesus is God.

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,

Possibility of 2050-2057

I'm not dogmatic on any date setting.  But I have come to an interesting hypothetical theory.

If you take Ussher's Creation date (4004 B.C.) and correct him only on the 60 year dispute on when in Terah's life Abraham was born, you get 3944 B.C. Which then has 2057 mark the begging of the 6001st year of History, (remember that there is no year 0).

Meanwhile J.R. Church had his Hidden Prophecies in the Psalms theory, centered on the fact that Psalm 48 could be viewed as a Prophecy of Israel's restoration in 1948 (though it's ultimately about New Jerusalem). But he stopped viewing them as correlating to years with Book 5 (Psalm 107 and up) because he didn't want the end to be that far off.  With 150 Psalms, that puts the Period the Psalms document as ending in 2050.

There are reasons I've come to theorize that the Seventh Trumpet (which I view as the midway point of the 70th week) could correlate to a Solar Eclipse on the eve of the Feast of Trumpets (First of Tishri).  There will be one on September 12 of 53 AD.  This is similar to the August 2 2027 eclipse a certain website online sees as significant.  But that Eclipse is two months too early to be the Feast of Trumpets.  That site also uses historist day=year theory nonsense about Issac Newton's 2060 theory.

It will only be partial over Israel, but be Total over North Africa and Arabia. I think it only being Partial is fine, it's pretty rare any of the Solar Eclipses at the right time of year are visible in Israel at all, and the next century has none that are Total over Israel.  Jesus' description in Matthew 24 has the Sun and Moon darkened but still visible.  This one fits the best of any within the life time of people alive now.

I'm not a supporter of the Blood Moon theory as I've explained on this blog before.  If the Moon turning to Blood in Joel 2 and Revelation 6 has any natural explanation at all, volcanic eruptions can work just as easily.  And there is certainly no Tetrad needed, the Blood Moon references in Scripture are all a singular event.

However I have argued for unrelated reasons that I feel the Sixth Seal events could happen on the Passover of the Nisan that begins the 70th Week.  And at any rate I do think the moon turning to Blood would have the best dramatic effect if it's a Full Moon.

There will be a Total Lunar Eclipse visible in Israel on May 6 of 2050.  On the Calendar the Jews currently use that's a month too late to be Passover.  But some people think the Jewish calendar is in some years off by a month, and indeed the Samaritans and Karaites both do their leap months differently.  But if it is accurate then that May 6th would be Second Passover, which I have before argued for seeing as possibly eschatologicaly significant.  This Blood Moon is also the first of a Tetrad.

The Sixth Seal theory I've worked out before could easily be adjusted to that, the Horsemen would still ride in Nisan.

Back to the 2053 Solar Eclipse.  It will be at that time that Jupiter is leaving Virgo after having been in her for over 9 months.  Venus, Mercury, Uranus and Mars will all be in Virgo at that time too.  Which can be interesting in light of Revelation 12 theories.  The Moon will indeed be under the feet of Virgo just a few days later.

The top objection to this other then usual anti Date Setting sentiment would be the view that the end must come within a generation of 1948.  People are already beginning to more commonly live to 120, so some people born before 1948 could still be alive in 2057.

Edit Update : I was honestly unaware when I first came up with this of Frank J. Tipler and his reasons for predicting the second coming before 2057. (of course my model as a form of "Mid-Trib" places the Second Coming proper in 2053).

Does Revelation start over in Chapter 12?

Some people have Revelation completely non-chronological.  But among those who choose only one place to see it as Rebooting, the by far most popular place is the start of Revelation 12.

"We are back at the birth of Christ" they will say.  I no longer agree with that assumption, but even if John is seeing Signs that represent some already past events.  I believe these Signs will one day be seen in the Heavens, not just by John but by everyone.  Luke 21:25 foretells "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars".

Matthew and Mark has Jesus refer to "The Sign of The Son of Man" being seen in the Heavens.  I have two theories on what that correlates to in Revelation. One I've said before is the Ark being seen in the Heavenly Temple in Revelation 11.  But another option is perhaps the Signs John sees in Revelation 12, the Birth of the Son of Man/Seed of The Woman.

Again, both the Chapter and Verse divisions are not in the original text. If you read Revelation from the sounding of the 7th Trumpet on till when The Dragon is cast down without letting the man made divisions effect your perception, I don't think it's possible to fail to see they're all one continuous sequence of events.  I will provide an easy way to do that at the end of this post.

Revelation 12:1 in the Greek text begins with Kai, Kai is translated in the KJV "and there" but in fact "and then" would be more accurate here, the word is translated "then" elsewhere in the KJV often.  It's also the exact same word that begins 12:3.  That word is how many verses in Revelation begin, including the last to chapter 11 and all of them in chapter 12 and most in 12.

Some defending the idea of Revelation starting over and showing us the same events from a "different angle" mention that we have Four Gospels, and that Chronicles repeats much of the history from Samuel and Kings.

Those are different books.  And when we do see different events from different angles within the same book on the subject of prophecy they're defined as distinct separate visions, usually given at different times.  Like the many visions Daniel has (or interprets for others).  And I indeed do believe we see most of what's in Revelation from different angles in other Prophetic books.

Revelation however is one continuous vision.  John was taken out of the Earth to the Heavenly Throne Room and is walked through everything that will happen step by step.  Revelation ceases to be confusing when people just accept that and interpret other Bible Prophecies chronology based on where John explicitly identifies them in Revelation.  Including that when the Son of Man comes on a cloud is in Revelation 14.

Even if some start over were the case, we're clearly caught up to the midway point and the Abomination of Desolation when The Woman flees as synchronization with Matthew 24 shows.  Her time in the wilderness is clearly the second half not the first.  It's generally the desire to justify putting the Trumpets in the second half that comes from this specific start over theory.  I've dealt elsewhere with why the Trumpets and Bowls being concurrent doesn't work.

Revelation 11:14-12:12

The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.  And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, saying, "We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth."  And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
And then a great wonder appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.  And then appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.  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.  And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.  And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.  Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

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.

Lunar Eclipse Tetrad of 2032-33

Why doesn't Mark Blitz take an interest in this?  All 4 of these are Total.  And for that Tetrad 2 will be visible in the middle East (the second and third) not just the last one like the current Tetrad.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_21st-century_lunar_eclipses

I still consider the Blood Moon Theory bunk altogether.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v--qn0ZyZi0

The Sun being Darkened and the Moon turning Red at the same time means it's a lot more then just a Lunar Eclipse.  Lunar Eclipses do not always make the Moon look Red.  And it's been Documented that Volcanic Eruptions can cause the Sun to Darken and Moon to turn Red.  Also passages that are NOT Blood Moons but the Sun and Moon both being Darkened (like the Olivite Discourse), refer to Solar Eclipses if anything Astronomical.

The October 2032 Lunar Eclipse will be more visible in Israel then any of the 2014-15 ones.

The Reason Bltiz doesn't care about this Tetrad is only the 33 Blood Moons fall in Nisan and Tishrei on the current Hebrew Calendar.  In 32 they're a month latter.  But first many people theorize that in certain years the current Jewish Calendar is a month off (The Samaritans often observe the major Holy Days a month latter).  Second however is the dates those Lunar Eclipses fall on are Biblically significant.

The April 2032 Blood Moon is on Second Passover.  A date I've argued elsewhere may have more Prophetic significance then people realize.

The October 2032 Lunar Eclipse is on the eve of The Feast of Jeroboam.

What is interesting to me is, while I don't engage in dogmatic date setting, I've become attracted to theorizing the 70th Week of Daniel may be from 2030-237 AD.  And I am against the usual absolutely all Date Setting is wrong attitude of Pre-Trib and Pre-Wrathers, they misuse what Jesus said without the Context of Revelation 1.

First, since I date the Crucifixion to 30 AD that would make the Gap between the 69th and 70th Weeks exactly 2000 years.  Fitting the two day thing from Hosea.

I also observed how possibly the events of 30-37 AD could be viewed as a type of the End Times 70th week.  (And as part of that I mentioned the Blood Moon Tetrad Blitz points to in 32-33 AD. but I wasn't of aware of this Tetrad back then).

Also a Total Solar Eclipse happens on the Feast of Trumpets in September 2033.  There are reasons considering the Seventh Trumpet and Revelation 12 I've come to conclude that it's highly probable The Rapture will likely correspond to a Total Solar Eclipse on the First of Tishrei.

That year is also a rare year that the Sunset of the Feast of Trumpets falls on the Fall Equinox.  That correlation is significant because I believe when God originally created everything the Lunar and Solar cycles were in-synch, and the Fall Equinox always fell on the 1st of Tishrei.  And Nisan 1 on the Spring Equinox.

Also a little before that Eclipse, Venus has a near conjunction with Regulus, and Mercury with Spica.  Those may not mean anything, but I make note of them.

So I'm not saying any of this will matter.  But it's interesting to look at, as it fits my Mid-Seventieth Week view.

Update: I'm now leaning towards a different theory.

Further Update: I would not use the Karaites not Samaritans to suggest the Rabbinic calendar is sometimes wrong.  And i gave this model new thought here.

October 2015 Update:  I've made some new observation useful to this theory here.

The Desire of Women

Daniel 11:37, is nearly universally agreed by Pre-Millennial Futurists to be about The Antichrist.

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all."

What is meant by "the desire of women" here is perhaps the most cryptic mystery of this verse.  No identical phrase seems to appear anywhere else in Scripture.

There are two very popular wrong views about this phrase, which derive from a similar bad reading.  That it means he's a Homosexual, or that it means he's a Misogynist.

The latter is usually only argued for by those focused on a Mahdi theory, but even back when I was leaning towards the Madhi view I never considered that argument plausible.  The former happens to fit in with the other great Boogeyman modern Evangelical Christians are afraid of, western liberals.  There are of course LGBT individuals and supporters who are politically "Conservative" in other areas, like Log Cabin Republicans, and Libertarians.

Even if the phrase implied a lack of sexual desire for Women, that doesn't leave Homosexuality as the only option, it could also mean Asexual.  But that's not what the phrase means.  If it was meant to say that it would have said he doesn't desire women.

The grammar is about something women desire, which equally invalidates both those false conclusions.

I agree with both Chuck Missler and Chris White that "The Desire of Women" is a Messianic Title.  And with White that "the God of His Fathers" is The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.  I agree with White's Antichrist Theory in terms of the first half of the 70th Week, but not the second half and his related Pre-Wrath suppositions.  The Willful King will disregard the True Messiah by claiming the title for himself.

The word "Desire" being used in a title for The Messiah has a precedent in Haggai 2:7 "And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts."

The beginning of Messianic Prophecy, in fact all Prophecy, is Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The promise of The Seed of The Woman. 

Later we have Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Luke 1:41-45

 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.  And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?  For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.  And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord."

And at the center of this theme is Revelation 12, where The Woman gives birth to The Man Child.

And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.  And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.  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. 

So "The Desire of Women" is clearly Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.