I'm retiring this blog since I've converted to something other then Futurism.

 I could revive it if I change my mind back.  But here is the Link to my new Blog.

https://materialisteschatology.blogspot.com/2023/10/launching-my-new-prophecy-blog.html

Update December 4th 2023: it's also worth noting that I'm slowly redoing some posts that were never strictly about Prophecy to begin with on my main Bible Blog.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/

Soul Sleep and Premillennialism

So I recently learned of the existence of a book called Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity by Charles E. Hill.  The main thesis of the book is that in the early centuries of the Church there tended to be a correlation between believing that believers are also in Hades between death and Resurrection (which Soul Sleep is a form of, Hades simply means The Grave not the modern understanding of "Hell") and Premillennialism (or Chillialism).

Now the thing is the author intends this to discredit Premilennialism, because yeah the popular Prmeillenialism of modern Evangelicalism tends to be taught by theologically uniformed Christians who absolutely do not want to be associated with something like Soul Sleep.  But for me it has the exact opposite effect, my openness to Post-Millennialism/Partrial Preterism was increased recently as I recorded on this blog in the Baptism of The Beast post.  However for reasons that extend well beyond my Eschatology I firmly believe in Soul Sleep, Paul's most vivid account of The Resurrection clearly states that the physically dead are "asleep".  The idea that we go to Heaven immediately when we die is a product of Platonist Corruption of true Biblical Teaching, as verified by his earliest list of people who taught this, Clement of Alexandria and Origen and then their influence on Cyprian.

Another annoyance I have at this book is contributing to confusing people on the difference between Post-Mill and Amillenialism.  The eschatology he is attributing to Cyprian is Post-Mill not Amill, Amill means you reject the Bodily Resurrection entirely, the chief of all heresies.

But that's the thing, teaching you go to Heaven when you die is essentially the Gateway drug to deemphasizing the Bodily Resurrection and then abandoning it entirely.  What separates Christianity from Paganism is that we do not teach an "Afterlife" we teach the inevitable reversal of Death entirely.  Just read my Do We have a promise to be with God when we Die.

Now this book is often wrong on who it places where.  He wants to argue Polycarp wasn't with Ireneaus and Papias but an Amazon reviewer of the book going by Dakota Sorenson has already argued against that.

"The most significant name on that list is Polycarp. Polycarp is the link between the apostle John and Irenaeus—between the apostle whose writing contains the key New Testament millennial text (Rev. 20), and the chief early defender of premillennialism. The fullest and most systematic early expression of premillennial eschatology occurs in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.31–36. Irenaeus’s expository discourse on the earthly millennial reign is “by far the most extensive and best reasoned in Christian literature to date” (p. 12). If Polycarp held to an amillennial position, how did his student Irenaeus come to hold a premillennial position? Hill argues that Irenaeus changed to the premillennialist position in the course of writing Against Heresies. Hill says we have “every reason to believe” that Irenaeus’ millennial eschatology “was not received from Polycarp” (p. 254). I would beg to differ. First off, Polycarp hints at the premillennial belief in an asynchronous resurrection of the just and the unjust (Phil. 2.2–3). He states that Christians can be resurrected only “if” (ἐὰν) they fulfill certain conditions, such as doing God’s will and loving the things he loved. This implies that those who fail to meet these conditions will not be resurrected. Yet, Scripture teaches that even the unjust will rise from the dead for judgment (John 5:29; Acts 24:15), which is indicated in Phil. 7:1. Thus the only way to make sense of Phil. 2.2–3 is that the just will be resurrected at a different time than the unjust. Lo-and-behold, this is precisely what the premillennial reading of Rev. 20:4–6 says! This is why Irenaeus taught that the resurrection of the just (“the first resurrection,” Rev. 20:5) chronologically precedes the resurrection of the unjust, with an earthly kingdom phase in between. Polycarp seems to have been a premillennialist who believed in a heavenly intermediate state.

Secondly, Brian C. Collins has demonstrated that there is no evidence Irenaeus changed his mind on the Millennium. He writes, “One of [Irenaeus’] chief arguments against Gnosticism was that he stood in line with the tradition of the elders that reached back to the apostles. But on Hill’s reading, at a fundamental point of debate (a point important enough to provoke a “momentous” change), the Gnostics stand in the traditional position, and Irenaeus outside it. It is difficult to believe that Irenaeus would undercut a major part of his argument from book 3 in this way. In addition, the claim that Irenaeus changed millennial positions and departed from the teaching of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and others is inconsistent with Irenaeus’ own statements. In Proof 61 Irenaeus attributed the millennial reading of Isaiah 11 to the elders. 

...."

But I would argue his placement of Hippolytus with the Post-Millennialists is also wrong, his Against Plato right from the start makes his belief in Souls Sleeping in Hades clear, and his eschatology which he wrote more about then anyone else pre-Nicaea is clearly Premillennial with him predicting the Millennium to start 500 years after the time of Christ.

Another common Strawman authors like Hill engage in is calling the Millennial Kingdom "temporary", that's not what Revelation 20 implies, what ends the Thousand Years is Satan being let lose, The Kingdom is saved from Satan's attempt to end it and does in my view have continuity with New Jerusalem.  I'm sure I differ with a lot of mainstream Premillenialists on this but to me the New Heavens and New Earth are just as Carnal as the Millennium, it's the Spiritual being added to it that is the distinction.

In a separate article Hill argues agaisnt the assumption that the Montanists were Premillennial, and I think he might be right there, at the very least Tertullian's weird Eschatology is not as identical to theirs as people assume.  But that's the thing, they are another Pythagorean/Platonist influence on Early Church History being among the first Christian Ascetics.  Ultimately though I think the Montanists simply had a weird Eschatology that doesn't easily fit into any modern classification boxes.  However this article argues that the alleged New Jerusalem in Phyrgia idea came form a later offshoot group not the original Montanists.

People talking about this also sometimes say it like "the Chilialists were just a loud minority in Asia" but isn't Asian Christianity exactly who we'd expect people to get Revelation right?  In fact this lineage is specifically tied to Smyrna one of the two flawless Churches, and to Ephesus the Church most praised for Doctrinal Purity.  

At any rate Athenagoras of Athens taught Soul Sleep in-spite of his apparent Platonism and he was independent of this lineage.

Now one could reconcile the Biblical basis for Soul Sleep with Partial Preterist Post-Millennialism by arguing Soul Sleep was true up until the Millennium starts or a little before. But if you take literally Revelation's seeming account of Bodyless Souls in Heaven they seem to have always been there, at least the Martyrs who are were who Tertullian thinks are treated differently.

There is also a lot of debating about "why the Church rejected Chilialism" as if there is no dispute that it did.  The mainstream Hierarchy of the Church seems to have slowly distanced itself from it (though even Gregory of Nysa was clearly still a Futurist in what he says about the Antichrist). But it was never formally condemned by a Council and the common people remained broadly Futurist as shown by popular literature like Pseudo-Methodius.  

Vespasian as The Beast of Revelation

 I’m writing this as still primarily a Futurist but simply as a thought experiment.  I decided it would be fun to see if I could argue for a 70 AD Fulfillment of Revelation better than actual Preterists do.  But perhaps also elements of how I make this argument could prove Typologically useful to Futurists and other more niche forms of Preterism that are less focused on the 1st Century (I mostly wrote this before the Epiphany that inspired the prior on this blog, but I wanted to share my work anyway).

First of all I have come to take the language of Revelation 17:11 as saying that the 8th King is the Individual person The Beast passages are about even when still during the reigns of the first 7.  

Caesarea Maritima means Caesarea “by the sea”, and it was also a very sandy location.  It was always the Roman Provincial Capital of Judea and as such played an important role in the 66-73 AD War including as a location Vespasian used as a base of operations.  

The Seven Heads are further explained in Revelation 17 as being Seven Kings.  Roman Emperors didn’t like to admit they were Kings but we see in John 19:15 that Jews in Judea didn’t care about their semantics.  Why Kings would be represented as Heads is perhaps explained by the language of Bible Verses like 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23 and Colossians 1:18 where Christ is The Head of The Church and God The Father is the Head of Christ, but there's also Hebrew Bible precedent for Kings as Heads in 1 Samuel 15:17 and Isaiah 7:8-9.  Your Head is a person who holds authority over you, hence why the 8th King which is The Beast isn’t an 8th Head.

Vitellius from the year of the 4 Emperors was never recognized in the East, the Roman Armies of the East chose Vespasian as soon as Otho was dead.  So for example when looking at the Archaeological record of the Roman Pharaohs we see that Vespasian was the 8th and the first 7 were Augustus, Tiberius, Calgiula, Claudius, Nero, Galba and Otho who did indeed have the shortest reign.  Vespasian was born during the reign of Augustus so each of those 7 had also personally been Vespasian’s Head.

I no longer believe the 6th King being associated with the present is meant to be a clue to when Revelation was written, rather for this theory I think it has to do with Revelation 17’s point in the narrative following the 7th Bowl of Wrath.  There was a major Earthquake during the reign of Galda which Suetonius refers to having been considered an Omen of his coming demise, that could be identified with the Earthquake of the 7th Bowl.  

Back to where we left off in chapter 13.  The 10 Horns, Leopard, Bear and Lion imagery are evoking Daniel 7.  Daniel 7 was primarily fulfilled by Intertestamental History, Revelation is picking up later with a Rome that has annexed most of the Greek Empire and portions of Babylon and Persia.  The 10 Horns we also know represent lesser kings allied with the Beast, these are likely various local Client Kings and Tribal Leaders who assisted Vespasian in the Conquest of Judea like Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene.

The Mortal Wound being Healed could have multiple meanings.  Vespasian did suffer a serious wound during the Siege of Yodfat that Josephus makes a big deal out of.  But it’s seemingly associated with one of the specific Seven Heads, most of them died violently but Vespasian presented himself as the Heir of Otho.

For Revelation 13:5 the YLT says “Make War” where the KJV says “Continue” and I think that is more accurate to the Greek.  This is about the Authority Vespasian was given to carry out the War against Judea.  There are two ways we could count the 42 months, we could begin them with when Vespasian was first formally placed in charge of the Campaign on September 22nd 66 AD ending it in March of 70 AD.  In April of 70 the War continued but now with Vespain fully established as sole Emperor and his son the one actively carrying out the Campaign in Judea.  Or we could say the 42 months started when Vespasian actually arrived in Judea seemingly in Spring of 67 then continued to September of 70 AD when the Siege of Jerusalem was fully completed.

Vespasian was in Alexandria when he was proclaimed Emperor, and as such was the only Roman Pharoah ever consecrated by proper Egyptian Ceremonies, much of which symbolically Deified him.

Verse 7 of chapter 13 repeats language from chapter 11 verse 7.  If you watch Historia civillis YouTube video on The Roman Triumph and then read Josephus’s description of Titus and Vespasian’s Triumph in celebration of Conquering Judea in Wars of The Jews Book 7 Chapter 5 Section 5, the possibility that Revelation 11:7-10 could be describing that Triumph with the Two Witness representing executed leaders of the Jewish Revolt will be become quite compelling.

Revelation 13:10 is about Captivity which is obviously relevant to 70 AD.

The Beast out of The Earth called elsewhere The False Prophet I think could have been Tiberius Julius Alexander.  Many have argued “out of the Earth” in contrast to “out of the Sea” implies a Jewish background for the second Beast as opposed to the Gentile Background of the First, and Alexander fits that even though he was considered an Apostate.  He had formerly been a Governor of Judea but was Prefect of Egypt when the War started and was vital to Vespasian becoming Emperor due to the control that position gave him over the Empire’s Food Supply.  And he was involved in that Ceremonial Deification of Vespasian as Pharaoh as well which did include performing false Miracles.

When the Image of The Beast is introduced in verse 14 many translations wrongly say the Image was “made”, but the Greek doesn’t use a word for Create here, it should read that they Set Up the Image, meaning the Image could be something that already existed.

In Genesis 5:3 Seth is called the Image and Likeness of Adam as his son.  Multiple New Testament passages further connect Jesus as the Image of God to Him being The Son of God, like Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:15.  So there is Biblical Precedent for a person’s Image being their Son.

The Image of The Beast in this model would be Titus the Son of Vespasian who had the same full name and was also elevated by Tiberius Julius Alexander who joined him in the Conquest of Judea where he was proclaimed Imperator after destroying Jerusalem.

The name identified by the number 666 can’t be Nero because that’s based on Aramaic/Hebrew Gematria and Revelation is in Greek with this number clearly echoing 888 as the Isopsephy value of Iesous.  Nero in Greek has an Omega in it so Nero can never work, the same goes for trying to make Nero fit the 616 variant.  It is also verified by Chapter 39 of Suetonius Life of Nero that the Isopsephy associated with the name of Nero was 1005.

If the 616 Variant is correct (which I consider unlikely) that probably points to Theos Caesar and/or Dios Caesar which were used for the Deified Roman Emperors in the Eastern Provinces, but in that context it doesn’t apply to only one.  Revelation 13:1 and 17:3 do seem to imply the Blasphemous Name associated with this Beast is on each of the heads and not merely an individual name.

I don’t know how to make 666 fit Vespasian, but I also have come to doubt it literally refers to the actual name.  I still think Iapetos is the best name for 666, ways to make that poetically fit Vespasian are possible.  

Some even question the practice of using Isopsephy/Gematria entirely and suggest like other symbols in Revelation the key is its Hebrew Bible precedent.  666 as a number has two notable appearances, being associated with Solomon in 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13 but also with Nebuchadnezzar's Image in Daniel 3.  The Builder of The Temple and its destroyers, and one could also call Solomon spiritually a destroyer based on his moral failures the next chapter records.  Daniel seems more directly the source material of Revelation then Kings or Chronicles.  Nero was Emperor when the Rebellion started but wasn’t personally involved.  Nebuchadnezzar was personally involved in all his Sieges of Jerusalem and the first one was while still serving under a prior King.

That leads us to the matter of Jerusalem as Babylon.  The arguments for it are well known but in the past my issue with holding that view at the same time as The Beast being Rome was that I misunderstood Revelation 17 as implying Babylon held power over The Beast, but I now know the text doesn’t describe her as Riding the Beast.  Berenice in her affair with Titus seems frankly like a good personification of the Harlot.  The word “kill” isn’t actually used in Revelation 17 or 18 (and with Jezebel in chapter 2 only her children are killed), the City is destroyed by the people represented by The Harlot still live on to, in my view, eventually become the Bride of chapter 19 and Lamb’s Wife of Chapter 21.

Revelation 17 also strictly speaking says the Ten Horns hate Babylon and destroy her with fire not the Beast himself.  This could be relevant to how Vespasian was in Rome when the final Siege happened but also Titus himself did not want to Destroy the Temple, his troops and allies got out of control.  I also have considered that because of how the word “Wilderness” is used in Revelation this final destruction of Babylon refers to the fall of Masada.