Found this thread 3 pages away, had a question, and decided to post it.

At church, we are studying Revelation. We are currently going to a Reformed Church, so this is our very first time learning the Reformed interpretation of Revelation. (I've known the popular-in-Evangelical-churches Pre-Trib/Dispensationalism for most of my life, but never this one.)
We're studying Rev. 20 at this moment and just went through the Millennium (the church believes it represents the whole New Testament age.)
A lot of what I'm hearing makes sense (such as the 12*12*1000 standing for the OT believers and NT believers, and to some extent, the Millennium being figurative. I can't reconcile myself to the Dipsensationalist view that we'll be in a perfect, sinless atmosphere for 7 years, and then come back for another 1000 years where we'll be sinful.. (how would that work out with our nature?) and things like that. It seems a little bit confusing.)
The pastor is really balanced and keeps stressing not to ostracize those who disagree with us (like, believing Pre-Tribs are not believers.) He stresses that there are many true Christians who differ on this point. That's something I want to keep in mind - not to become so dogmatic over one view that I lose focus. I want to keep in mind, too, not to sectionalize and try limit God's Word in human terms.
So, I'm learning the Reformed view, I knew the Pre-Trib view, and there's another pastor I know who believes a hybrid of both (he believes everything about the Reformed view [he does not like the Darbyite views, etcetcetc] except for the millennium, which he believes is literal. I'm not sure what he believes happens after that because I never got to ask yet.)
Anyways, we are hopelessly confused at this point, and I was wondering if y'all from all the camps could expand on your interpretation of Revelation, if you have the time. It would really help clarify things. Thanks.
I have some specific questions for those who hold the view held by the Reformed church, but I have to have a bit more clarity before I can ask them. However, for those who believe the Millennium is figurative:
- What is the first resurrection? Is it salvation? (if I'm correct, Pre-Trib would say it's the rapture before the 7 years, right?)
Also,
- What does it mean when it says that those who were in the first resurrection will reign with Christ during the Millennium, when the Millennium is taken to believe the entire New Testament age?
----
For those who believe that
--------------
For any camp,
We believe that when we die, our souls go to God. So when the Bible writes that before the Great White Throne judgement, all who died will rise up, what does that mean? I know there's a view that when we die, our souls "sleep" but I refuse to believe that because there's too much in the Bible that says things against that. So does it mean that those who have died in the past and are already in eternity/hell will, like, return to the throne for judgement?
----
My dad, when asked what part of this made sense, said, "Nothing makes sense. Just take it a day at a time." Yeah, I believe that. xD I just wanted to know some more clarification, but I truly don't want to start labeling myself and arguing for my point so much that I can not see from another's perspective.

Aslanisthebest, welcome to the wild, wacky, and wonderful world of Revelation interpretation.

Short version: Jesus wins.

Really, that's it.

Long versions ... well, it took me years to compile what I've found regarding the nonrapturist position because I had to look at a reading list and a variety of viewpoints to understand Those Famous Books (link in sig). Whereas rapture-friendly sites like these forums also can take years to build. So don't worry about trying to figure out all of it while standing on one foot, so to speak. There's a lot of ground, and everyone seems to have a few of the same questions. But about yours specifically:

We are currently going to a Reformed Church.

Then you might like A case for amillennialism by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger of the Reformed Church in America.

We're studying Rev. 20 at this moment and just went through the Millennium (the church believes it represents the whole New Testament age.)

Yes, that's the a-Mill position. There was tremendous excitement, even hysteria, around the Year 1000 A.D. because people of that time believed that the Millennium was both the Church Age and a literal time frame.

Since we're all still here, believers have to choose either/or.

The pre-Mill believers have chosen "literal time frame" to begin in the future.

A-Mill believers have chosen "the Church Age," meaning from Pentecost to the One-and-only Last Judgment. They address the numbers of Revelation as symbolic, such as the one you quoted (144,000). They say that, in Psalms 50:10 God owns the cattle on a thousand hills; clearly this means "all of them." A literal interpretation would imply that God does not own the cattle on Hill #1,001! Therefore they say that pre-Mill believers aren't taking the Bible verses in question literally but literalistically.

Obviously there are times when we as believers should, even must, take Biblical numbers literally. John 3:16, for starters: " ... that He gave His only begotten Son ..." One Son, not more than one, and not less than one. Revelation is one of those books of the Bible that has a lot of numbers, and therefore a lot of opportunities for discussion as to what the numbers mean.

I can't reconcile myself to the Dipsensationalist view that we'll be in a perfect, sinless atmosphere for 7 years, and then come back for another 1000 years where we'll be sinful.. (how would that work out with our nature?)

You've hit on one of the biggest reasons that nonrapturists and nondispensationalists don't like rapturism and dispensationalism. If it makes you feel better, there are disputes even within the R & D camp itself.

The Left Behind series is popular for many reasons, but the one that matters here is that it presents a specific interpretation in a convenient format. Their version is a belief that Glorified humans (i.e. resurrected like Jesus in forever-bodies with forever-cleaned-and-sinless-nature) will live side by side with humans in the bodies we have now. They cite Rev. 20: 1-5 as the source for this belief.

The result is that in the books, people get into a literal, thousand-year Millennium in any one of the following ways:

-Dead saved people who are resurrected and Glorified.

-Saved people who were living at the time of the rapture; they get Glorified bodies and minds but did not have to die to receive them. See also: Enoch, Elijah.

-All children below an age of accountability at the time of the rapture, whether they were living in saved households or not. They get raptured and Glorified. (Note: a lot of rapturists, a lot of them, argue that there is no Biblical justification for live infant rapture, although some rapturists do believe in dead infant salvation. In other words, they're calling Dr. Tim LaHaye a flaming liberal! In the denominational sense of the word, not any political connotation.)

Those are the Glorifieds, according to the LB series. They are joined by humans in "our" bodies, who get in by one of the following ways:

-They survive the Pre-Millennial Great Tribulation. They live in these mortal bodies but retain the earth-saint nature of "not perfect, just forgiven."

-Children who are born to such people.

-Children who are born during the Great Tribulation. Since they would be under 7 years old in a literal 7-year tribulation, they pass the LaHaye age of accountability test.

Any of these three categories are capable of sin. According to the LaHaye interpretation, the rebels who rise up at the end of the thousand years will be unsaved children. (Teenagers, really; the way time works in their book is a little long to explain here.)

Before LaHaye and Left Behind, there was Hal Lindsey and The Late Great Planet Earth. Before him, Ernest Angley and Raptured.

The pastor is really balanced and keeps stressing not to ostracize those who disagree with us (like, believing Pre-Tribs are not believers.) He stresses that there are many true Christians who differ on this point.

That's excellent. Christians believe that Jesus is coming back to judge the quick and the dead. How do people get distracted from something so simple? By making it hard. Example:

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Because of these verses, I have heard people speak quite sincerely that Jesus "cannot" return on a sunny day, because He left in the clouds and coming back on a sunny day would not be coming back "in like manner" as He left.

Another example: In Amy Johnson Frykholm's book Rapture culture, she records this exchange:

"What would do say to someone who says, 'I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the rapture'?"

"Jesus is the rapture. It's like saying that the Dallas Cowboys [football team] will win the World Series [baseball championship]. You either believe in Jesus, or you don't."

Personally, I think that some people are more involved with the Second Coming of Christ than they are with the First. I'm not saying they are not sincere seekers; rather, I'm saying that is what is tripping them up. I don't think that having a variety of interpretations of the Last Day is a point of doctrine, unless those views compromise doctrine on the big two: you must believe that Jesus is the Son of God and is God; and to believe that for us and for our salvation He died, was buried, rose again, and will judge.

What is the first resurrection? Is it salvation? (if I'm correct, Pre-Trib would say it's the rapture before the 7 years, right?)

A-Mill/Preterist: Salvation is the first resurrection.

Pre-Trib: live rapture of believers simultaneously with rapture-and-resurrection of dead believers is the first resurrection. So, yes, you've got it right.

What does it mean when it says that those who were in the first resurrection will reign with Christ during the Millennium, when the Millennium is taken to believe the entire New Testament age?

Pre-Trib: everyone in a Glorified body rules over everyone who doesn't have one.

A-Mill/Preterist: the spirits and souls of Peter, Paul, and all who have died in the faith are in the Intermediate Heaven with Christ. Christ reigns, and they rule with Him. Thus the Millennium is the Church Age, and they get to enter into the joy of their Lord earlier than do we who are yet living. They get their bodies back in the one-and-only bodily resurrection on the Judgment Day.

"soul sleep"

Some denominations believe in it, some don't. It doesn't seem to be a rapturist/nonrapturist issue; more like one that was debated before this came along. A common answer is that since God is outside of time, people go to their Intermediate home (the present Heaven, the present Hell) right away. Thus the day of the White Throne is the Judgment Day: the day that all souls and spirits are reunited with their bodies.

My dad, when asked what part of this made sense, said, "Nothing makes sense. Just take it a day at a time."

He's right. Be well with the First Coming, and the Second Coming will take care of itself. Jesus didn't tell us to go forth convincing people what Psalms 50:10 is poetic, literal, or literalistic, but to go forth into all the world and baptize and make disciples of all nations.

But it's good for us to discuss issues that help us to understand our Savior, our Bible, and our brothers and sisters better.

Hope this helps.

To echo what TOM said, I recommend you just take it one day at a time and not worry about the major details. I earnestly do believe that many of the details contained in Revelation will become more clear as the events it describes unfold. How does one describe a boating trip to a person who has never seen a boat, much less a body of water to sail it on? Any description you give is going to end up creating confusion no matter how well you describe it. But once the person sees the boat and the lake in person they'll begin to understand a bit more. And even more so when they finally step on board and explore the whole vessel. So I think it is with much of Revelation.

And I must also admit that while I've been a Pre-Trib believer all of my life I've had to come to acceptance of the A-mill position. PT just has too many loopholes in it and tends to raise more questions than it answers. In my heart it's what I hope really happens, but the A-mill system is how I believe things will ultimately unfold. I don't like the Preterist version at all, not in any large part due to many of its adherents (from personal observation...this may not apply to all) tending to have a "I'm smarter than you for believing this" kind of attitude about it. And the theory itself is thoroughly depressing to me, where Christ's glorious return isn't even necessary because He's already taken throne in Heaven. It'd be like watching the Olympics with no medal presentations or closing ceremony, and having to sit next to some annoying person who loudly and snarkily states that it's better this way "without all the fluff".

I waffle on the idea of a Millenium, but it's possible there might be a literal one. The universe is a pretty big place and there needs to be a lot of human beings to populate it in the New Earth/Heavens phase...I just don't think there's going to be nearly enough of us to explore/settle it without a major population boom, and a Millenium where age and disease are things of the past and purified, renewed bodies are the new norm would be a fertile (literally) place for that kind of thing. Imagine being 500 years old like the OT folks and having dozens of children, who beget dozens more. *shrugs* Either way, the bottom line is God has it figured out, and I'm sure when everything unfolds we'll all stand around like we're in V8 vegetable juice commercials and smacking our foreheads and saying, "a-ha! why didn't I see that before?" in unison.

Wow, TheOldMaid and SL, thanks for responding! I really, really appreciate it.
Thanks for all the details and for all the resources you gave me, TOM!

Then you might like A case for amillennialism by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger of the Reformed Church in America.

Thanks, I'll look that up.

A literal interpretation would imply that God does not own the cattle on Hill #1,001! Therefore they say that pre-Mill believers aren't taking the Bible verses in question literally but literalistically.

Hahaha! Yes, that's what I've been hearing. That's a good way to explain it!

All children below an age of accountability at the time of the rapture, whether they were living in saved households or not. They get raptured and Glorified. (Note: a lot of rapturists, a lot of them, argue that there is no Biblical justification for live infant rapture, although some rapturists do believe in dead infant salvation. In other words, they're calling Dr. Tim LaHaye a flaming liberal! In the denominational sense of the word, not any political connotation.)

Oh, very interesting. And this could lead to discussions of Calvinistic election, which is another ball of wax. (a quick digression: This same pastor also taught the Cannons of Dordt class, in which he expanded on Calvinism. He helped us understand some things which hadn't previously clicked and overall, I liked it, and was glad that the teacher was staunchly against being unChristianly dogmatic in appropriate cases.) On infant stuff, I have no idea and think that I'll leave that to God, and think about my own salvation with fear and trembling.

the LaHaye age of accountability test.

Oh dear... :S While I won't discount everything Mr. LaHaye says, I never was really sold on The Left Behind series for various reasons... just couldn't reconcile myself to some things.

Because of these verses, I have heard people speak quite sincerely that Jesus "cannot" return on a sunny day, because He left in the clouds and coming back on a sunny day would not be coming back "in like manner" as He left.

:O Maybe clouds would be nice because then LED signs at Times Square and all other public places with screens and such and such would appear clearer than they would on a sunny day, helping people see exactly what's happening.

Personally, I think that some people are more involved with the Second Coming of Christ than they are with the First. I'm not saying they are not sincere seekers; rather, I'm saying that is what is tripping them up. I don't think that having a variety of interpretations of the Last Day is a point of doctrine, unless those views compromise doctrine on the big two: you must believe that Jesus is the Son of God and is God; and to believe that for us and for our salvation He died, was buried, rose again, and will judge.

Amen; I completely agree.

the spirits and souls of Peter, Paul, and all who have died in the faith are in the Intermediate Heaven with Christ. Christ reigns, and they rule with Him. Thus the Millennium is the Church Age, and they get to enter into the joy of their Lord earlier than do we who are yet living. They get their bodies back in the one-and-only bodily resurrection on the Judgment Day.

Ohhhhh, that makes sense. Thanks, you cleared up a lot of confusion!

Hope this helps.

Oh, it did, it did! Thanks so much! I really appreciate you taking the time to lay it all down so clearly for me.

Thank-you for your insight, too, SL!

earnestly do believe that many of the details contained in Revelation will become more clear as the events it describes unfold. How does one describe a boating trip to a person who has never seen a boat, much less a body of water to sail it on? Any description you give is going to end up creating confusion no matter how well you describe it.

Indeed, yes. That's a really good point.

For me, too - the church that we went to for, really, most of my life held the Pre-Trib view. My parents never really took a side on the issue, but just wanted to see what each side said. It's been fascinating learning the Reformed point of view, and many things are making sense. It's fun to learn, but like you both said, it doesn't define salvation. Hearing and realizing that causes peace, because God's got it all down.

Thanks for your post, SL; I appreciate it and enjoyed reading it!

And I heartily apologize for taking forever to respond to both of your posts... I'm working on efficiency in replying.

I've had experiences with people who have messed with the occult, believing in 'guardian spirits', and "praising the good angels that fight off the demons". It never ends well. Demons were once angels and they can still fake their former appearance. There are things you can involving the spiritual realm where once you do it, there is no turning back or "undo"ing. I have fought with some of these demons personally. It is not something you want to get yourself into. You will not find out that what you are dealing with is really the epitome of evil until it is too late and they have a complete grip on your life. This "guardian angel" is not of God, is not good in any way, and will seek to completely control your life, including your body. If you continue this path, I do fear possession will follow in the near future. I STRONGLY recommend getting some very strong Christians in your immediate physical circle of friends because it won't be long before you will need them for deliverance.

I will state now, I don't believe in guardian angels and spirits taking over your body. It doesn't make sense to me. How would one allow an angel to take over their body or get one to?.( As you know I have very any religious knowledge). can some one explain the concept to me.

*NOTE*: If any of this is against the rules, I offer my sincerest apologies and will submit to the Great Mods.
Here I am, with more questions.

We have had a conversation like this some time ago. I hope you don’t mind me bringing these topics up again with more questions.

To any guys reading this, please consider this in light of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Please consider it from a girl's perspective, as in, like - would you like that to happen to you? What would your response be? Please don’t say the copy-paste “it's for protection” without further explanation. If you’re a guy (in this case, I say "guy." My general idea is that if you are someone who is not affected by something that is not necessarily of contemporary importance, then it might be easy to shrug it off. This can apply to girls, too, in other circumstances.), I guess it is easy to shrug it off and say “I don't know/don't care." View this from someone else's (as in this case, a girl's) perspective. For example, I do not condone "Guys are stupid, girls are the smart ones" jokes; I don't think that is looking a situation as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Genesis 1:27

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

“man” I’m assuming means the human race. We see that God created males and females in his own image.

But Apostle Paul writes:

1 Corinthians 11:6-16

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

………………
…..
….
?

But Genesis said that God made both man and woman in his image.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

But what about “ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

The way my pastor says, it seems like here Paul got up to go and get himself a sandwich and then resumed writing.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

I agree with that.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I understand in covering, holiness before God, reverence. But what does the rest mean?

So I can understand if 13-16 were written to the Corinthians specifically. I just wish that it was more clear if that was generally to everyone, or to the Corinthians and everyone just had to obey the nature of that principle. (being modest, etc)

In Matthew 19:8, Jesus says, to the question of divorce, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”
Moses permitted? Then why is it credited to God?
When Jesus says “It was not this way for the beginning,” I wonder exactly what laws were examples of God’s basic principles and what laws were instituted because of human kind’s sin and hardness of heart.

I'm not questioning God. I know, I’m not God.
I’m only upset because, to me, it just...well, it doesn't really seem like justice.

Thank-you for reading this. I'd appreciate your advice.

Note: (I know many topics I have discussed touch the issue of feminism, chauvinism, and gender roles. I request you not assume my position on some things based on what I have said – just ask me specific questions if you want to know my position on something pertaining to gender roles, because it’s probably better for me to explain in context. I just want to make that clear so that I come across as I mean to.)

Thoughts:

Aslanisthebest wrote:
If any of this is against the rules, I offer my sincerest apologies and will submit to the Great Mods.

I think the primary debate question would be if the topics fit better here or in the “Wuv, Twue Wuv & Mawwiage” thread. I'm fine with the mods moving things if they so decide.

...

On the “shorn woman” verses, this sounds like a cultural issue rather than a timeless principle. By our standards, Jesus wore a dress and Henry VIII wore tights. Fashion is fickle.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that fashion can be dismissed with impunity. Consider “Les Miserables.” The character Fantine lost her hair because of poverty and prostitution. Shaving was a common way to mark and shame prostitutes in the Roman empire as well. In contrast Anne Hathaway the actress cut her hair with no loss except to her ego. Meanwhile, by our standards, Jesus had long hair, probably as long as scruffy Film Faramir. (Ever notice how all of the paintings make them nice and neat?) Yet within the context of their cultures, I doubt anyone would tell Jesus or Faramir to get a haircut, or even Eomer. As long as the women had longer hair than the men, the fashion was satisfied.

Also, Judaism teaches that the Shekinah presence of the LORD is the closest thing in God to a feminine nature. (It's a little hard to translate.) Therefore Jewish men had to cover their heads in prayer because it was/still is considered "impertinent" to let the Shekinah look down upon a man's uncovered head. Head coverings for women apparently grew out of that, hence the Pauline reference to angels. This is Paul living in a Roman world and citing his Pharisee training and Jewish heritage to explain what still crops up now and then as Hatitude and/or modern Easter bonnets.

So it is probable that Paul was speaking of the dress code of the Roman Empire’s culture: this is considered "weird or loose" in this culture and Christians should try not to look "weird or loose" because we have enough obstacles already.

...

Your question on how-did-this-happen-in-the-first-place is a good one.

When Jesus says “It was not this way for the beginning,” I wonder exactly what laws were examples of God’s basic principles and what laws were instituted because of human kind’s sin and hardness of heart.

Let’s see if I can do this in the time I have on the net …

--God made a human, Adam (Gen. 2:7).

--God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone (Gen 2:18).

--God decided to create an azer for Adam (Gen. 2:18). (Trivia note: Some translations spell it ezer, as in "here I raise mine Ebenezer." Early written Hebrew didn't have written vowels.)

--God created all creatures and introduced the creatures to Adam (Gen. 2:19), but Adam found nothing among them to be his azer (Gen. 2:20).

--Therefore God created a human azer. The azer that God created was a woman (Gen. 2:22).

--Adam said that this one at last was of his own kind (Hebr. ish; Gen. 2:23) and called her Woman (Hebr. ishshah; Gen. 2:23) and named her Eve, meaning, the mother of all living of their kind (Gen. 3:20).

--God blessed them. You quoted Gen. 1:27, but there is an additional reference.

Gen. 5:1-2

1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

That’s a keeper because it specifically says that God blessed the humans before the Fall. It also means they are the only humans who ever lived, or ever will live, who could experience marriage in its original blessings and fullness before the arrival of sin. The closest that any of the rest of us will experience is in Heaven, but there won't be marriage there.

...

Then, the Fall. Eve ate of the forbidden tree and gave its fruit to her husband who was with her, and he ate (Gen 3:6).

A lot of Christians – Paul sometimes sounds like one of them; I always hope it’s a faulty translation when he does – speak as if the woman is responsible for the entirety of the Fall. Well, she was responsible for her part. Adam was responsible for his part. He didn’t have to join in. If you don't join in, you don't have to try blame-passing later. (“But everybody was shoplifting!” / “If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you do it?”)

Eve didn’t sneak the fruit into his supper, either. (“Honey, this peach pie tastes funny.” / “That's because it's apple. If you have a problem with it, what did you cook?”) Adam saw the whole business between Eve and the serpent, what with Adam being there (Gen. 3:6).

Interestingly, Judaism suggests that this is the only proof we have that Adam loved Eve, as opposed to just needing her. If God created one wife, couldn't God create another one? Instead, Adam chose to die with her rather than to live without her.

By the way, there's an interesting translational issue regarding azer. Christians often translate it as "helpmeet" or some other word with connotations of "mate/spouse" and especially with implications of hierarchy i.e. submission. That's not the original meaning.

Azer is a gender-neutral word meaning "to work alongside." Translations like "fitting helper" are closer to that meaning. "Partner" is good too, except that it has been borrowed by elements of culture and that has changed it.

Also, at some places in the Old Testament (Deut. 33:26, 29; Hosea 13:9), God calls Himself Israel's azer or Helper. Does this mean that Israel is the husband and God is the wife? Of course not. It means they're a team.

"Teammate" is an okay translation, not as good as Partner or Brother but its sporty overtones sort of work if we use a real team. Consider baseball. Let's say the team captain is the pitcher. He might pitch a great game and then (in the National League) help his own game by batting in some runs. But did he win that game alone? Of course not. The catcher called the pitches and can even get the pitcher pulled from the game. The outfielders caught the fly balls, the shortshop got the choppers, and the basemen tagged the outs. Any team captain who doesn't recognize that "there is no I in Team" won't have one for long. That's closer to what azer means than a "helpmeet."

...

Since we don't have the kind of marriage available to us that Adam and Eve had before the Fall, we've been sort of stuck. What was the marriage like before the Fall? It's possible we weren't told precisely because it would be unattainable for us in our Fallen state, even "not perfect, just forgiven" state, and so would make us unhappy. Alternately, we might not have been told because it's our parents, and therefore none of our business.

We do know that the Fall fouled up everything it touched, including relationships.

Since we can't achieve the past ideal, Christianity tries to frame marriage relationships in terms of the future ideal, namely, the love Christ has for the Church, and the love the Church has or ought to have in return. But that's hard too. Christ the Bridegroom is sinless. The Bride, which is a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle, is washed in the Blood of the Lamb -- but it only stays spotless and sinless in the afterlife. We who are living are in a realm of in-between, where a marriage includes two people who are, at best, not perfect just forgiven. No wonder it's so hard!

But Christianity doesn't look at the Fall in the same terms as Judaism, resulting in different conclusions.

Examples: because Adam needed a companion, Judaism concludes that it is a commandment that men should get married, but that there is no similar command for a woman. They agree that the woman was made for the man, but that doesn't mean that all women, everywhere, were made for the needs of all men, everywhere. In other words, a woman doesn't have to submit to a man she's not married to, regardless of the definition of submission. That's something that some branches of Christianity have forgotten, hence the patriarchy movement. If the man has some sort of office-authority, that's an office-authority issue, not a man/woman issue.

Also, Judaism (most denominations, anyway) consider the Fall as disobedience but not unto damnation. When your child eats the forbidden cookie before supper, you send them to their rooms, not to the morgue. In fact some Jewish scholars consider the death of Abel to be the Fall as closest to the Christian Fall: that which introduces evil.

...

On how things got so messed up so badly:

Recently http://www.Biblegateway.org added a Jewish translation called the Orthodox Jewish Bible. It has a lot in common with the JPS version I own, aside from spelling. The JPS is used by Conservative and Reform Jews, and the Orthodox by the Orthodox Jews.

In the Fall, Eve was punished with pain in child-bearing, the rule of her husband, and that

"thy teshukah (longing, desire, urge) shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" --(Gen. 3:16).

JPS translates Gen. 3:16 and 4:7 as "thy urge."

Before Cain kills Abel, God cautions him that

"If thou doest right, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not right, chattat [sin, het] croucheth at the petach [door/threshhold]. And unto thee shall be its teshukah (longing, desire, urge), and thou must rule over it." --(Gen. 4:7).

In other words -- well, not in other words; those are perfect -- the Hebrew word for Eve's relationship with her husband is the same word as Cain's relationship with sin.

The patriarchy movement isn't the only group that tries to pass the curses of Gen. 3:16 as the "natural order" of things. It isn't natural. It's a description and a consequence, but definitely not God's original plan and absolutely not a goal.

We Christians don't read ancient Hebrew, so we miss stuff like this.

Personally I think that explains a lot.

...

On a lighter note, in Augustine's day there was great consternation over Gen 3:16. The Christians of the day knew as surely as we do that Christ died and rose again, and therefore has freed us, is freeing us, and will free us from sin and death. But they came to the conclusion that because of Gen. 3:16, there would be no women in Heaven. Women would be resurrected and glorified as men. This, then, was why there would be no marriage in Heaven: no women to marry or to be married. The notion was that God would cleanse the redeemed from all vices. Augustine had to patiently explain in The city of God that being a woman is not a vice and therefore women didn't have to be purged of any "vice" of being a woman.

In other words, in Augustine's day, people honestly believed that say, your mother, your sister, your wife, and your baby daughter would be turned into men in Heaven. Oh, and I would be, and Aitb, Johobbit, and Wagga, and half of the posters here in the forums at NarniaWeb. Augustine did set them straight, thank goodness!

Is it okay to go to psychics to get your fortune told? How about through prophecy? I've done a few things to tell the future. Does anyone else have any thoughts or recommendations on how to discover your future/ life path?

No, Moon. Stay away from that rubbish. Some are con-artists and others are involved in the occult (consulting evil spirits/demons to gain their powers). It's very dangerous and messed up. To discover your future/path in life, talk to God and trust him to what he says in his Word. He won't tell you your future, like a fortuneteller will, but he will tell you your future with Him. Don't try to carve out your own destiny, instead look to Christ and his righteousness.

I've noticed a habit that occurs every so often in here in which you (MLD) come in and announce you're engaging in an activity which either involves the occult or skirts it at the very least. Then you ask if it is ok to do, knowing full well what those of us here are going to say (which is generally well-intentioned Christian advice to steer clear of said activity). There may be a day or two of discussion on the topic, and then all goes silent again for a few weeks or months, and then you come back in and post the same type of question/announcement, typically the same kind of thing that will immediately draw attention from the regulars here and admonishments to stop what you're doing. So far I recall that you've:

- Messed with Ouija boards
- Prayed to multiple deities and/or angels
- Frolicked in graveyards
- Playfully attempted to summon spirits (which truthfully may have happened with the Ouija board stuff, I honestly can't remember at this point).

Look, you're a grown woman and should have an idea of the things you're messing around with. Or maybe you're not doing this stuff and merely coming here and getting a few folks riled up, but the point is that if you are involved in even half of the stuff you say you are, and you've no intention of following anyone's advice here, why do you keep posting that you're doing it anyway? If I didn't know better I'd kind of say you were baiting a few people in here, who are sincerely concerned that you may be involving yourself in very dangerous spiritual activities. The advice they give is very sound, and yet you continue to come in here later on reporting that you have undertaken some new spiritual or occult-like activity in which (egads!) things have taken a bad turn in your life. These are good people here. Don't abuse their well-intentioned advice to you, or ignore it.

/rant

Hi again, folks.

I have a (tangential) question about this from TOM. I understand you to be saying that in their unfallen condition Adam and Eve's relationship was not so authoritarian as it later became. However, your choice of analogy seems to suggest it was not altogether egalitarian even from the first. At any rate it put me in mind of something quite different.

"Teammate" is an okay translation, not as good as Partner or Brother but its sporty overtones sort of work if we use a real team. Consider baseball. Let's say the team captain is the pitcher. He might pitch a great game and then (in the National League) help his own game by batting in some runs. But did he win that game alone? Of course not. The catcher called the pitches and can even get the pitcher pulled from the game. The outfielders caught the fly balls, the shortshop got the choppers, and the basemen tagged the outs. Any team captain who doesn't recognize that "there is no I in Team" won't have one for long. That's closer to what azer means than a "helpmeet."

If you're not one of the people your post put me in mind of, I apologize. The people it put me in mind of are complementarians. If I understand it correctly, the analogy goes like this: Husband and wife (not 'male and female' generally) work together like a team. The husband is the captain in this team, or whatever other position of authority serves to get the point across. The husband (by virtue of being a man this time, not by virtue of being a husband) has certain tasks which are properly his own and for which he is uniquely suited. It is the same with the wife. The two work together to play off each other's strengths and shore up each other's weaknesses.

Now what interests me is what these particular strengths and weaknesses might be. Pretty much every iteration of complementarian theory that I've seen admits to the woman tasks which we might call traditional: caring for the home, for children, generally supervising the needs of the family and so on. The man is charged to work (usually out of the home) and provide the family the raw materials (mainly, today, cash) for his wife to properly order the home. But it is not the case that the wife is sovereign in her field of responsibility while the husband is sovereign is his. The husband is indeed like a team captain or a boss or whatever other analogy you prefer; he is, ultimately, the 'Decider'. So what keeps this from being blatant sexism? The example of Christ and the Church? The assumed bond of love? I am not trying to ridicule the concept here. It just doesn't seem to answer the inherent problem of authority.

Recently I was reading on a feminist site (indeed what I would call a radical feminist site) about Muslim women protesting western attempts to 'liberate' them, e.g. allow them to drive cars or go public places without male relatives or do what they want even if their husband doesn't care for it. One Muslim was reported to have said something to the effect of, "I don't need to be liberated because my husband takes my thoughts into consideration, and half the time we agree and half the time we disagree. When we disagree we do what he wants and when we agree we do what I want. So I get what I want half the time. That's fair!" Obviously it isn't, because the husband is getting what he wants every single time.

It may be that no Muslim woman ever said that. I do not trust sceptics and radical feminists to get the facts right when it comes to Islam and there was no reference that I recall. But I think it is hardly conceivable that a Muslim woman should not have ever said something like that. Notice that she is pleading pretty much the same case under the surface, only without the example of Jesus. A big ol' smiley face is all that saves such a setup from charges of sexism and inequality.

How, if at all, does the Christian system differ from other systems which give a husband such authority over his wife? Let's assume that all the competing arrangements draw a big smiley face on themselves before they let westerners go around inspecting them.

Consider also that for Jesus divorce is only justified in very specific circumstances. If those circumstances are not present and the husband is abusing his power in other ways, what escape is there? Separation is a possibility; divorce if you are of a more liberal persuasion. I don't think those options answer for it all, though.

I think any systems predicated on the husband or wife having some sort of super-powerful-almost-telepathic bond, or on the husband rigorously trying to apply the example of Christ and his church, is going to have very serious weaknesses. The reality is that Christians, even 'good', committed, real, genuine, regenerate Christians, are going to act pretty foul. They may change - inevitably there is going to be some change - but sins may go unexamined in a Christian's life for a very long time before they get around to dealing with it. One cannot assume that every Christian husband is going to come so close to absolute moral perfection in all matters marital that abuse of power will never occur. And in the traditional Christian setup divorce is not an 'out' you can take for just any old abuse of power. There does not seem to be any check or balance - except, perhaps, the pressure of the church, which many Christians have spiritualized to the point of complete ineffectiveness. There is for them no authority in the church; and so very often the actions of the church in attempting to 'discipline' them will just result in the sinner deciding to go it alone, because All I Really Need is Jesus and a Bible.

To clarify where I'm coming from, I have never been wed and I'm not currently considering marriage even as an abstract 'maybe someday' sort of goal. So I'm not speaking from direct experience on the ground. I am trying to puzzle out how in the world this philosophy of gender and marital roles can be humanely applied.

How do you tell a copy from the original?