Chapter 5

The Church of Thyatira

In this Church era we move from the Balaam Church of Pergamos to the Jezebel Church of Thyatira (Rev. 2:20-23). The city of Thyatira was located on the road from Pergamos to Sardis. The experts are uncertain as to the meaning of its name, and so Bible teachers are left to determine its prophetic meaning, based upon John’s description and a knowledge of the era it describes (529-1517 AD).

Since the message to this Church includes a reference to "that woman, Jezebel" (Rev. 2:20), many believe that the name Thyatira comes from the Greek words, thea, "a female deity, goddess," and tyrannos, "a tyrant or ruler." In this way they conclude that Thyatira means "ruled by a woman." There are others who say the name comes from thuo, "to sacrifice" and means "continual sacrifice" and refers to the martyrdoms at the hand of the Roman Church.

The only way to really discover the meaning of Thyatira is to look at the history of the city and see how it was named at the beginning. In doing this, we find that Jezebel’s home town of Tyre has much to do with the founding of the city of Thyatira. In fact, it would appear that Thyatira was meant to be a second Tyre after its destruction by Alexander the Great.

 

Ethbaal, King-Priest of Tyre

In studying the Old Testament Balaam Church, which parallels the New Testament Church of Pergamos, we see that it involved the doctrine of Balaam who taught the king of Moab how to induce Israel to sin through intermarriage. The intermarriage problem in Israel continued throughout their history in Canaan until it finally reached its apex in the days of king Ahab of Israel. King Ahab married Jezebel, who was the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Zidonians (1 Kings 16:31). He ruled from the city of Tyre.

According to historians, Ethbaal was the high priest of Baal who had overthrown king Pheles of Tyre and replaced him as king-priest. Thus, he was more than a mere follower of Baal. As high priest of the religion, he represented Baal on earth. As king, he ruled with temporal power as well. Hence, his name was actually a title: Eth-baal, one who rules with Baal, or by his authority, or in place of Baal. The name Ethbaal means "with, near, or together with Baal." In Roman terminology, he would be the Vicar of Baal. The kingdom of Tyre in the days of Jezebel was a spiritual kingdom of Baal on earth, and its high priest ruled supreme as king. This sheds much light on Ezekiel 28, which compares the beautiful city of Tyre to the Garden of Eden and compares the prince of Tyre (Ethbaal) to the tempter in Eden.

In effect, in those days Tyre manifested the anti-kingdom of God, ruled by Ethbaal, an antichrist type. The prefix "anti-" means "in place of." For example, Matt. 2:22 tells us that Archelaus reigned in Judea anti, or in place of, his father Herod. In like manner, Ethbaal ruled Tyre in place of Baal himself. Likewise, because Ahab had married Jezebel, Ethbaal’s laws governed Israel in place of the laws of God. Even as the serpent in Eden successfully tempted Adam to sin, so also did Ethbaal tempt Ahab to sin in marrying Jezebel.

In the New Testament message to the Churches, we find that Pergamos, "married to power," represents the unlawful marriage between the Church and paganism, or Ahab and Jezebel. The next Church era, that of Thyatira, gives us the results of that marriage. In the Church’s rise to power on a temporal plane over the kings of the earth, it formed an antichrist system. That is, the popes claimed to rule in place of Christ, calling themselves the Vicar of Christ. There is a direct parallel in this to king Ahab ruling Israel in place of Ethbaal, even as Ethbaal ruled in place of Baal as his vicar.

The name of Jezebel’s father prophesies to us of the underlying problem in the Thyatira Church era from 529 to 1517 AD. King Ahab of Israel married Jezebel, and in so doing, he joined himself with her god, Baal. Thus, he placed Israel under the power of the kingdom of Baal on earth. This set the stage for an era in which Ethbaal—through his daughter Jezebel--was the real power behind Israel’s monarchy. Ahab was a mere king; Ethbaal was a king of kings to all who worshipped Baal. In Israel, the laws of Baal replaced the laws of God as given by Moses, and it became unlawful to think differently. Jezebel then persecuted the true prophets of God and the Remnant of Grace during the days of Elijah (1 Kings 18:13).

 

The History of Tyre

King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon conquered the city of Tyre about the same time that he conquered Jerusalem. This was no easy task, for Tyre had a wall that was 150 feet high. The Hebrew name for Tyre is Tsur, which literally means rock, no doubt referring to its great strength as a fortified city. The city of Tyre was a seaport divided into two parts. The main part of the city was built along the shore of the Mediterranean Sea in what is now Lebanon. The second section of the city was built upon a small island just offshore. When Nebuchadnezzar conquered the main part of Tyre, the people escaped to the island and remained free, for the sea itself provided a natural barrier against the Babylonian army, who did not have a navy to lay siege to the island.

Nearly three centuries later, Alexander the Great ran into the same problem. However, he decided to use the ruins of the old city to build a causeway to the island. They hauled the rocks and columns from all the destroyed buildings and threw them into the sea. So much material was required that they literally scraped the dust from the bedrock of the old city and threw it into the sea. Only then were they able to conquer the island city of Tyre.

In this conquest, Alexander the Great fulfilled the prophecy of Ez. 26:4, 5.

4 And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her and make her like the top of a rock.

5 It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God; and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

Today this causeway is used by fishermen to dry or repair their nets, as the prophet said.

One of Alexander’s four generals was Seleucus, who took part in the conquest of Tyre in 332 BC. After Alexander died in 323 BC, the empire was divided among the four generals. Seleucus took control of Asia Minor and Babylon. In 312 BC he established the Seleucid calendar which later was used in dating events in the books of the Maccabees. Shortly before he died in 280 BC, he founded the city of Thyatira.

As we said earlier, the name Tyre is, in Hebrew, the word Tsur, which means "rock" and refers to its strength as a fortress. According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, the name Thyatira means "the castle of Thya." In other words, they take tira to mean "castle"—no doubt based upon its literal meaning as a rock or stronghold. This is supported by the fact that in later times it was renamed Ak-Hissar, which in Turkish means "white castle."

 

Hissar is the Turkish equivalent to the Hebrew name Hazor found in Joshua 11. Hazor was the leading city of the northern part of Canaan. There is some debate as to whether Joshua conquered the city of Hazor, or if, in fact, he conquered Tyre. Hazor may be Ha-Tsur, "the rock." At any rate, Strong’s concordance tells us that the name Hazor comes from the Hebrew word chatsar, which means "to surround with a stockade." (See Strong’s #2690.) In other words, it is a castle. Thus, the Turkish word for castle (Hissar) is the same as the Hebrew word for castle (Hazor). Both are closely related to Ha-Tsur, "the rock," and Tsur is the city of Tyre. And yet Hassar is the modern name for the city of Thyatira as well. The connections are obvious.

Putting all these facts together, we can say that there is a spiritual connection and very possibly a physical connection between the city of Tyre and the city of Thya-TIRA. Both names incorporate the concept of a rock, fortress, or castle. Yet there are other striking similarities. Both cities worshipped the sun-god and a female counterpart. Both cities were famous for their purple dye and had trade unions, or guilds, to protect themselves from competition.

 

Tyre and Thyatira Known for Purple Dye

In comparing Tyre with the city of Thyatira, it is evident that Seleucus intended Thyatira to be like a second Tyre. Thyatira was noted for its production of purple dye, as was Tyre. We see this in Acts 16, where Lydia, one of Paul’s converts in Philippi, was in that city on business selling purple from her home town of Thyatira (Acts 16:14). So their main commercial activity was the same.

Her conversion perhaps foreshadows prophetically the Thyatira Church, which would be in need of a fresh conversion. Previous to meeting Paul, Lydia apparently had been a convert to Judaism, for it is said that she "worshipped God." Nonetheless, she was in need of baptism into Christ (Acts 16:15) in order to give her a full revelation of the Truth.

So also with the Church of Thyatira from 529 to 1517 AD. While many of the people certainly attempted to worship God in the best way they knew, it is plain that their religious experience was in need of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The right to know Him personally had been taken from them in the rush to establish unity and single-mindedness in submission to "orthodox" Christian doctrine.

 

Tyre and Thyatira Had Similar Religions

Secondly, we can compare their religion. The city of Tyre worshipped Baal, which was the name of their sun-god. The city of Thyatira in ancient times had a temple to the ancient Lydian sun-god named Tyrimnos. The first part of his name seems to connect him with the city of Tyre, as well as with the Greek word Tyrannos, "tyrant, or sovereign ruler."

Ashtoreth was the goddess of the Zidonians (1 Kings 11:33). She was the female consort for Baal and represented the earth, even as Baal was the sun-god. So also we find that the city of Thyatira had a goddess to go with their sun-god. According to The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "Another temple at Thyatira was dedicated to Sambethe, and at this shrine was a prophetess, by some supposed to represent the Jezebel of Rev. 2:20, who uttered the sayings which this deity would impart to the worshippers." The Church of Thyatira is condemned for allowing "that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce My servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols" (Rev. 2:20).

Thus, we see that there was both a male figure, the sun-god named Tyrimnos, and a goddess named Sambethe in the city of Thyatira. It would appear that Sambethe is the "Thya-," while Tyrimnos is the "Tyra." Putting them together, as if to manifest the marriage of the god and goddess, they form the name of Thyatira.

 

The Church of Increased Temporal Power

This Thyatira Church era extends from 529 to 1517 AD, where the State—like king Ahab—came under the authority of the one calling himself the "vicar of Christ." While the popes gave lip service to Christ, in reality they followed the precepts of another god. This era began with the Law Code of Justinian, the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire who ruled from Constantinople. Because of changing times, as Will Durant tells us, "the whole vast body of Roman law had become an empirical accumulation rather than a logical code" (The Age of Faith, p. 111). It was in serious need of revision. Justinian did this in 529 AD, calling it the Codex Constitutionum. All Roman legislation and laws up to that time were nullified. There was to be only this new system of law. Four years later, after getting the opinions and responses from other Roman jurists, he revised the Codex and published it under the Latin title, Pandectae.

This complete overhaul of the Roman legal system was extremely important, for as Will Durant informs us again, "This Code. . . enacted orthodox Christianity into law. . . . All ecclesiastical, like all civil, law, was to emanate from the throne" (Ibid., p. 112). More than anything else, this merged the ecclesiastical power with the civil insofar as the enforcement of laws and decrees are concerned. Justinian and his wife were quite zealous orthodox Christians and often debated theological questions between themselves. However, there seems to be no evidence that he ever embarked upon a serious study of Biblical Law. His Law Code enacts orthodox Christianity into Law, but ignores the revelation of Law given through Moses. To its credit, the Church did attempt to have usury forbidden, but they failed. Had they succeeded—and stuck with it—the Church and the world itself would later be considerably different.

A few years later, in 536 AD, a Church Council held in Constantinople issued an edict and demanded that the emperor Justinian enforce it. He did, and this set a precedent that Justinian may not have intended or foreseen: the state had just become the servant to the Church. Orthodox Christianity now became the real legislator in the Empire, while the Emperor became the enforcer of the law. This would not necessarily have been a bad thing, had the Church limited itself to figuring out how to apply Bible Law to their culture. But unfortunately, Church leaders soon came to see how they could increase their power by overruling God’s Law and taking the power of legislation upon themselves. Thus, Church law and the traditions of men came to replace any vestiges of Biblical Law that did not suit them.

There are some who date the beginning of this Church era at 607 AD, when emperor Phocas gave to Pope Boniface III headship over all the Churches of Christendom. This was, of course, another important date in the rise of papal power. The consolidation of temporal power in the hand of the Roman popes was gradual. Actually, it was not until 1073 AD that Pope Gregory VII formally established a theocracy. He was the first to claim to be above all the kings in the world. Thus, we could set the time for the beginning of the age of Thyatira anywhere from 529 to 1073 AD. We put it at 529, because we are interested in the beginnings of such temporal power, rather than its climax.

 

Persecution of "Heretics"

In the 6th century, pope Pelagius defined a "heretic" as being anyone who does not submit to the Roman Church. "Schism is evil. Whoever is separated from the apostolic see is doubtless in schism," he said. Later, Pope Damasus wrote: "It is permitted neither to think nor to speak differently from the Roman Church." (See Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, p. 35.)

In the 4th century, when the Church first began coming to power, they usually just broke fellowship with heretics and expelled them from the Church. Memories of torture and death were still too fresh from the Empire’s holocaust for the Church to adopt the same policy of persecution. But in the 12th century the Church became alarmed by the resurgence of heresy among the Albigenses in southern France. This eventually led to the establishment of the Inquisition by pope Gregory IX in 1231 AD.

The Albigenses were dualists who believed that everything was a struggle between two gods: one good, the other evil. The good God was Jesus Christ, the God of light, goodness, and spirit; while the evil god, Satan, was the god of darkness, evil, and matter. They believed that Satan was the god of the Old Testament; while Jesus Christ is the God of the New Testament. This belief had flourished for centuries along the Mediterranean ever since the Manicheans had preached it in the third century. It still has influence in various groups today, manifestly primarily by men’s abhorrence of the Law or of Yahweh Himself. It is also seen in the way the concept of resurrection from the dead has been undermined. (See our booklet, The Purpose of Resurrection.) And so, we agree that the Albigenses were wrong in their doctrines and concepts of God. However, we believe that the torture and murder sanctioned by the Inquisition was not the answer to the problem. If they had been left alone to suffer under the injustices of their own antinomian society, they would have either learned by themselves that imperfect men need laws for their protection (1 Tim. 1:9), or else they would have lost their members as the group self-destructed in anarchy.

The Inquisition was carried out directly under papal direction. Its scope went far beyond rooting out the dualistic views of the Albigenses. It sought to destroy all heresy—all views that ran contrary to established Church doctrine or which threatened the absolute authority of the pope over the minds of men. In 1252 AD pope Innocent IV officially sanctioned the use of torture to force confessions and make heretics recant their views. For the next 250 years Europe was drenched with the blood of those guilty of thinking or speaking "differently from the Roman Church." It was so bad that even the Catholic professor Rossetti wrote: "Daniel and St. John foretold that Satan’s delegate would use horrid cruelties and inundate Babylon with the blood of Christ’s martyrs; and the pope, to prove that he was not that delegate, did use horrid cruelties and caused Rome to overflow with the purest of Christian blood" (Ibid., pp. 37, 38).

Literally millions of Christians were put to death, either directly or indirectly by the Church in the war against thinking differently. Finally, at the fifth Lateran Church Council in 1516, A. Pucci, a Cardinal of the Church, told the pope, "The whole body of Christendom is now subject to one head, even to thee; no one now opposes, no one now objects."

We can only imagine how God must have laughed at his statement. After that Council ended in 1517, Martin Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation by nailing his famous "95 Theses" on the Church door at Wittenberg, Bavaria. Just when the Church thought it had stamped out all its opposition and put all things under the feet of the Roman Church, their power began to fall. They had to relearn the lesson of Imperial Rome, that the more one persecutes Christians, the more they multiply, as others see the true character of both sides and ask themselves, Which is more Christ-like? As Tertullian said in the 3rd century: "Our blood is seed." Spilling it spreads it.

The Protestant Reformation put the first cracks in the Roman Church. Then in 1789 came the great French Revolution which put an end to the temporal power of the Church in France. This was precisely 1,260 years after the beginning of the Thyatira age, dated from the publication of Justinian’s first Law Code in 529 AD. Historians tell us that the French Revolution ended in 1793, which is also 1,260 years after 533 AD, when Justinian published his revised Code. In other words, the French Revolution itself took place over a period of four years, precisely 1,260 years after the dates of Justinian’s Law Code.

A third date is also important. In 1796 Napoleon was appointed commander of the French army, marking the beginning of his rise to power. As a great military leader and destroyer of armies, he prided himself as being the "New Apollyon" (Neo-apollyon = Napoleon). He was an agent of a new power that was rising—the economic power of the Rothschild banks, which we will discuss more fully in Chapter Seven. The year 1796 was precisely 1,260 years after 536 AD, when Justinian agreed to enforce the decree of the Church Council.

Daniel 7:25 describes this time of 1,260 years as "a time and times and the dividing of time." A prophetic "time" is either 360 days in short-term prophecy or 360 years in long-term prophecy. Daniel’s time period is thus one time (360) plus two times (720) plus half a time (180), for a total of 1,260 years. The book of Revelation defines it more specifically, telling us that it refers to 1,260 "days" (Rev. 11:3; 12:6) or "forty-two months" (Rev. 11:2).

The power of the Roman Church declined in religious influence with the Reformation and economically with the rise of the new Assyria and Babylon of the modern banking system. Hence, the torture and execution of heretics could no longer be maintained. With the rise of Protestant countries in which there remained Roman Catholic loyalists, it would have been risky to continue persecuting Protestant heretics, for this might easily have drawn a response in kind by the Protestant authorities against their Romanist citizens. Thus, in the political thinking of the day, it was no longer feasible to continue the policies of the Inquisition.

This does not mean that they repented of their tactics. Far from it. By the 19th century Rome had all but ceased to execute heretics, not because it had a change of heart, but because it had lost most of its political power. In fact, on July 16, 1870 the Church declared its doctrine of papal infallibility, justifying all the acts, doctrines, and decision of all the popes from the beginning of the Church. In effect, it declared that the murder of millions of "heretics" was fully justified in the eyes of God and carried out by an infallible move of the Holy Spirit. In declaring papal infallibility, the Roman Church essentially locked itself into a position where it became no longer possible to repent of its sins without destroying its own foundations.

Recently, as a concession to bring Protestant churches back under papal authority, the Roman Church has vaguely renounced the use of torture and execution as a means of securing Church unity. However, because of the doctrine of papal infallibility, Protestants reuniting with Rome would have to accept the deaths of millions of so-called heretics as being right and needful in those days—and perhaps also in the future, if the Church were to regain the power to do so.

 

Some "Infallible" Papal Decrees

The Nicolaitane doctrine that God says He hates is perhaps best defined by pope Boniface VIII, who became pope in 1294 AD. In his Unam Sanctum, he states: "All the faithful of Christ by necessity of salvation are subject to the Roman pontiff, who judges all men, but is judged of no one. This authority is not human, but rather Divine . . . Therefore, we declare, assert, define, and pronounce, that to be subject to the Roman pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation" (Ibid., p. 29). In other words, one must be a Roman Nicolaitane in order to be saved.

This is all foreshadowed in the story of David and Saul. Saul, too, was a Nicolaitane type of the Church. Saul persecuted David, who was the "overcomer" of his day. When David escaped and did not remain under Saul’s authority where he would have been killed, Saul declared him an outlaw and put a price on his head. If anyone had murdered David in those years, he would have been rewarded, for the king had in effect declared his murder to be no murder at all.

We find the popes siding with Saul, declaring their right to change or violate the Law of God, the commands of Jesus Christ, and even the decrees of the apostles in the New Testament. Hear this from one of the "infallible" popes:

"All the earth is my diocese, and I am the ordinary [the one who ordains or gives authority] of all men, having the authority of the King of all kings upon subjects. I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. In all that I list my will is to stand for reason, for I am able by the law to dispense above the law, and of wrong to make justice in correcting laws and changing them . . . .

"Wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of men, but of God, what can you make me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called and counted of Constantine [the pope, not the emperor by that name] for gods, I then, being above prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods.

"Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to change times and times, to alter and abrogate laws, to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ; for where Christ biddeth Peter put up his sword, and admonishes His disciples not to use any outward force in revenging themselves, do not I, Pope Nicolas [using another past pope’s decree as a precedent to prove his authority] writing to the bishops of France, exhort them to draw out their material swords? And whereas Christ was present Himself at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, do not I, Pope Martin, in my distinction, inhibit the spiritual clergy to be present at marriage feasts, and also to marry? Moreover, where Christ biddeth us lend without hope of gain, do not I, Pope Martin, give dispensation to do the same? What should I speak of murder, making it to be no murder or homicide to slay them that be excommunicated?

"Likewise against the law of nature, item against the apostles, also against the canons of the apostles, I can and do dispense; for where they in their canon command a priest for fornication to be deposed, I through the authority of Sylvester, do alter the rigour of their constitution, considering the minds and bodies also of men to be weaker than they were then" (Ibid., pp. 30, 31).

This pope is saying in his own "infallible" way that the priests today are morally weaker than they were in the days of the apostles, so we must allow for fornication among them, so long as they remain loyal to the pope. Schism or heresy is punishable by torture and death; but fornication among priests is understandable, since they are not allowed to marry.

He attempts to show by past precedent of other popes that it is a papal privilege to violate the Divine Law, for he is "above the law." In order to "prove" his case he gave real examples where he said past popes had violated the precepts of Christ and of the apostles! Thus, it is clear he believed that being the "vicar of God" meant he had the right to alter the decrees of God Almighty—and he gives examples to prove his case!

If a king were to give his prime minister orders to do something, and the prime minister decided that the orders needed to be altered or abolished, what would this say about the prime minister? Is it his right to disobey the orders of the king? If he edits or abolishes the king’s decrees, does it prove he has the authority to do so? Would not this be the height of rebellion and pride? Would he not be removed from office and perhaps prosecuted for treason?

The popes think more highly of themselves than they ought to think (Rom. 12:3). The vicar of God has overthrown God! The claim to be under the authority of God is belied by their words and deeds. In this, they have become fully like king Saul, who, contrary to the command of God, offered the sacrifice to God himself, rather than await arrival of the one who was called to make the offering (1 Sam. 13:9). That sin brought the judgment of God upon king Saul:

9 Thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which He commanded thee; for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue; the Lord hath sought Him a man after His own heart.

Even as this sin prevented Saul from having an enduring dynasty of kings, so also does this same sin prevent the Roman

Church from ruling the earth for ever. Their kingdom will not continue indefinitely. It has already been curtailed in power. The papal throne will eventually come to a full end, because God is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. He will remove Saul and place David on the throne, for he is a man after God’s own heart. Daniel 7:18 and 27 makes it clear that after this Roman beast has prevailed over the saints for its allotted time, the kingdom and dominion would be taken from them and given to the people of the saints of the Most High. These are the ones who overcame, even while the seven Churches themselves were overcome by Saul’s rebellion and pride.

King Saul’s second major sin is recorded in 1 Sam. 15. In the war against Amalek, God gave him orders to destroy Amalek utterly (15:3). Saul chose to edit and change God’s decree, for we read in 15:9,

9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

Saul thought God did not know what He was doing. He and all the people with him saw an opportunity to increase their wealth by altering God’s decrees to suit themselves. God says in verse 11:

11 It repenteth Me that I have set up Saul to be king; for he is turned back from following Me, and hath not performed My commandments.

When Saul tried to explain and justify his actions in sparing the best of the flocks and the king of Amalek, Samuel told him in verses 22 and 23:

22 Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, He hath also rejected thee from being king."

The same word applies to the Roman popes, who, by their own writings, claim to have the right to abolish or alter the word of God. Because they too have rejected the Word of the Lord, God has also rejected them from being king. Therefore, the Protestant Churches who think unity with Rome is the answer should hear the infallible Word of God, which was written for our learning. It is not difficult to understand the Word of God to king Saul, nor is it difficult to see that Saul was a type of the Church. To study the life of Saul is to understand the history of the Church—primarily the Roman Church, but also to some extent the Protestant churches. Keep in mind that the Seven Churches include the entire Church during its 40 Jubilees of history.

May God give us the wisdom to know the difference between Saul and David, that we may be found worthy as overcomers to sit in His throne and eat of the tree of life.