The male-child and the 144,000

Yes, it seems He truly wants us to search the Scriptures. Those who seek find Him.

That's wonderful, paul! One thing that is so cool to me about forums is that I get to talk with people all over the world! God bless you and your family and all our brothers and sisters in Christ over in Ukraine!

Paul: Is there still a lot of fighting taking place over there?

Not much. I live in the city that about 100 miles away from the fighting line and here you even won't notice that there some fighting going own. The media makes it much bigger than it really is. :-)

There is an interesting article on unsealed.org about the male-child and why he could likely represent the Church and not Jesus Christ. So I was inspired by the article and wanted to write my cons and pros why the male-child could be 144,000 and not the Church.


Here are the reasons why the make-child couldn’t be identified with the Church:

1) The Church is always typified by a woman in the Bible, except for a few unclear instances. Paul calls Adam and Eve to be one of the greatest mysteries that typifies Christ and the Church. (Eph 5:2) There are also other types such as Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Rachel, Judah and Tamar, Boaz and Ruth, David and Bathsheba to name a few.

2) John uses the words “son” and “male” in Rev 12:5 to point out that this child is male. Some pointed out that John used the Greek word “arsen” which is neuter, to put a double gender meaning in it. Actually there isn’t any double meaning in it. The Greek word “arsen” is actually neuter and it always translates as a male. For example: “…at the beginning 'made them male and female” (Mat 19:4) Here we have our word “arsen” and it’s neuter as well, but we know that it talks about the subject that is a masculine.

3) Nowhere in the Bible we can find that the Church (as a corporate) is born or even conceived. The traditional view that the Church was born at Pentecost is just an assumption. The Lord builds the Church even as He has built Eve. The Word of God says: “Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken, out of the man into a woman…” (Gen 2:22 YLT) Robert Young correctly translates the Hebrew word “banah”. There are different Hebrew words used for creating Adam or any child in a womb for that matter. The Lord creates a child in a womb of its mother like a potter fashions a jar from a clay. On the other hand, Paul says about the Church that she is being built (not fashioned) on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone. (Eph 2:20)

4) The Lord brought the woman to Adam in her ripe age and not as a baby. That is why Adam married her right away. The same could be said about Rebekkah, Rachel, Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheeba, etc... They met their future husbands when they were grown already.

5) In Rev 12 it says that the dragon wanted to devour the child after its birth. The Church or the body of Christ could not be devoured by anybody. (1 Pet 5:9 is about the Jews). If the birth of a child means the resurrection/rapture event, then how is the devil going to devour the Church in her new glorified body? What kind of event we can call the birth of the Church? If someone says that the birth of the Church is the resurrection/rapture, then how come in Revelation 12 it says that the child was taken (raptured) to the throne of God after its birth? Apostle Paul also said that the Church is going to be raptured and meet Jesus in the air/clouds and not raptured to the throne.


And here are some of the reasons why the male-child could be 144,000:

1) The child is born by a woman which is the type of Israel. The 144,000 are from 12 tribes (12 stars) of Israel and the woman of Rev 12 has the crown with the same amount of stars. The 144,000 are also called the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb, so they are the firstfruits from the nation of Israel or a woman’s first child. According to the Law of Moses “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD“. Holy means separated unto God. The male-child will be snatched or separated to the throne of God.

2) The woman (Israel) will give birth after 42 months of labor or the first 3.5 years of tribulation. This lines up perfectly with the 42 weeks of Zedek (Jupiter) being in the womb of Virgo. The woman will also bear other children, but during another 3.5 years. (Rev 12:17)

3) The Rev 12 sign marks the beginning of the woman’s birth pangs and the Jacob’s trouble and it symbolizes the conception of the 144,000.

4) The child is male, so are the 144,000. They are called virgins or the ones who have not been defiled with women. (Rev 14:4)

5) It is also written that 144,000 will follow the Lamb wherever He goes (Rev 14:4). As Jesus going to rule the nations with the rode of iron so are they.

6) The 144,000 will be born after the 42 months of woman’s labor or in the middle of tribulation. As soon as their number is completed they will go up in the cloud with the two Witnesses to the throne of God. They will be snatched as a baby, because their number just have been sealed or they have been born.

7) After killing 2 Witnesses the dragon will probably try to kill 144,000 as well, but they will be raptured after 3.5 days.

By listing my reason, I am not trying to devalue anyone’s work or start an argument. It is just to show different side of view and share some things that was shown to me by the Lord. Peace and Grace!

I still think that the baby that is born in the picture is "Born" at approximately the same time that Zedek/Jupiter is "Born" from Virgo/Bethula. Pretty sure the birthing of the child will be in the next few months.

I do not doubt that the 144,000 will have their own rapture, sometime around or after mid-trib. That does make sense.

The male child born at this sign does not open the womb. The womb has already been opened by Christ. He was the firstborn. This child is not the firstborn. The woman is no longer a virgin, or at least, is not identified as such in Rev. 12--only as a woman. Even if she is still considered a virgin, this is not her first-born child, so the idea of the sign-child being the first-born, in my opinion, doesn't hold water.

The 144,000, I believe, are the firstfruits among the Tribulation saints.

As the church, we are compared to several different things--there are several metaphors used. One of the most important ones is the head (Christ) and body (church). Just because one metaphor does not line up with another one, does not negate it.

Interesting theory and I appreciate your humility in how you share it, too. I'm not opposed to the male child possibly being a both/and situation (Church and later or simultaneously the 144k), but I don't think it could be just the 144k. For one thing, the 144k are clearly the first fruits of Israel and I'm not sure it makes sense to say that Israel gives birth to herself. It's the same dilemma in Isaiah 66 where some suggest the child born is representative of the rebirth of Israel, but the woman is Israel.

The point of the huion arsen argument is not that neuter arsen incorporates both genders. It's true that arsen means "male". The point is that Greek is a gender-based language and John saying "huion arsen" is gramatically incorrect. You can't modify a masculine noun (huion) with a neuter noun (arsen).

Textual critics would just say John made a mistake and chalk it up to their belief that the Bible is not inerrant.  I would say the Bible is inerrant and he made the mistake for a reason.  The reason is Isaiah 66.  When you look at the LXX version of Isaiah 66 (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) you'll see the exact same grammatical mistake referring to the male child (huion arsen).  Now the LXX version was not inspired because it was just a translation of the divinely inspired Hebrew.  However, the early Christians only had access to the LXX Old Testament, so it is very likely John copied the grammatical mistake from Isaiah 66 intentionally to tell his readers he's talking about the same male child.

The context of Isaiah 66 and Rev 12 is also the same, which makes this even more likely.  We see a woman in labor giving birth to a male child.  The timing of the birth in Isaiah 66 is before the woman (Israel) goes into labor - hence before the Tribulation and therefore a possible reference to the pre-tribulational rapture of the Church.

Also, regarding the "born again" or "made" question, there are many Scriptures that state the Church is born (this list is not exhaustive):

Individually:
John 3
1 John 3:9
1 John 5:18

Collectively:
Galatians 3:28-29

Either way:
1 Peter 1:3
1 Peter 1:23
John 1:12-13
1 John 3:9
1 John 5:1
1 John 5:4

As far as metaphors/analogies for the Church, it's true there are a few comparisons to a bride, but again, that is a lesser used metaphor.  The most frequently used are "the body of Christ" and the "Temple".  And the collective Church is twice called a man in Ephesians.

One last thing: Isaiah 26 is a huge clue. Again we see the image of the woman in labor and her labor is a miraculous one as is the case in Isaiah 66. But in Isaiah 26 we learn that the labor is a resurrection of the dead. The earth gives birth to the dead. The 144k is not a resurrection, but a sealing, whereas the rapture of the Church is a resurrection and transformation (1 Thess. 4:16-17).

Just my 2 cents.  I could be wrong about my interpretation, but these are a few of the reasons that lead me to it.


God bless you friends,
Gary