Four of the Seven Churches of Revelation don't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in The Bible.

Which is surprising considering how much of Acts is dedicated to Paul's time in this same region, and his Epistles sometimes further mentioning other cities near or related to the city of the Church being addressed.

The three that are mentioned are Ephesus which comes up a lot actually, perhaps more then any other location outside the Promised Land.  Thyatira which is the home town of Lydia who Paul met at Philippi in Acts 16, and Paul visits unnamed cities in the same general area.  And then Laodicea is mentioned in Colossians 2:1 and 4:13-16, and it's probably among the cities of Phrygia alluded to in Acts.

But Smyrna, Pergamos/Pergamon, Sardis and Philadelphia are not mentioned, by those names at least, anywhere but in Revelation.

Studies of the Seven Churches often see symbolic or poetic significance in the names used to refer to these cities.  That is a potential reason why some of them might be called by different names then what other ancient writers including other NT writers would call them.

In the case of Pergamos, it's not even that name's real etymology sited but the idea that it can be reinterpreted to mean "perverted marriage" because it's a Church that married the World.

Pergamos has a tendency to be the most mysterious to me, even if purely symbolic/spiritual a city being said to be where Satan's Throne is located is a pretty big deal.  And by secular standards Sardis and Pergamon were two of the most important cities of the region, so their being missing in Acts is much more of an enigma then Smyrna or Philadephia, or for that matter Thyatira and Laodicea being mentioned pretty rarely.

I argued in the past that the Martyrdom of Anitpas makes the Serapeum most likely to be the Pagan Temple Jesus had in mind, not the more popular Altar depicting the Gigantarchy.

But what's interesting is that as I was doing more research into this I discovered that The Illiad mentions a Citadel in Iliom called Pergamos.  In fact that Citadel is said to have a Seat for Apollon.

Homer, Iliad 7.17 ff :
"Now as the goddess grey-eyed Athene [on Olympos] was aware of these two [the Trojan princes Hektor (Hector) and Paris] destroying the men of Argos in the strong encounter, she went down in a flash of speed from the peaks of Olympos to sacred Ilion, where Apollon stirred forth to meet her from his seat on Pergamos, where he planned that the Trojans should conquer. These two then encountered each other beside the oak tree, and speaking first the son of Zeus, lord Apollon, addressed her : ‘What can be your desire this time, o daughter of great Zeus, that you came down from Olympos at the urge of your mighty spirit? To give the Danaans victory in battle, turning it back? .

Since I know from my past Revised Chronology interests that many question the traditional site of Troy, I decided to see if any have argued that Troy and/or Iliom was actually Pergamon.  And in so doing found this website.
http://thetroydeception.com/

I don't think I can agree with the claim that this mistake was a deliberate conspiracy, it's probably the same as many other mistaken identifications I've dealt with regarding locations in Israel, it just happened because of details being lost to time and people reading these texts who don't live there making assumptions.  The Dardanians role in the story could be part of the issue  I should maybe mention here my support for the theory that Homer was contemporary with Gyges of Lydia.
[Update: I've since learned others have proposed the same theory in different ways.  Like Troy: The World Deceived by John Lascelles.]

How does this relate to the issue of Pergamon being missing from Acts?  Because Acts does mention Troas in chapter 16, arriving there in verses 7&8 and leaving in verses 10&11.  Troas is placed in Mysia there which is also mentioned on the above site and on Pergamon's Wikipedia page as being where Pergamon was.  

It's important to the timeline of Acts as the narrative voice changing from third person to first person here leads many to conclude this is where Luke joined Paul's party.  Pergamon as a cult center of Aesculapius was a place many Physicians would have visited regularly.

Now at first glance the website I linked to above might be skeptical of the Acts 16:11 Troas being their real Troy since it's against thinking Troy was right by Samothrace.  But Luke doesn't actually say they were that close, in fact they possibly stopped at a Neapolis first, which could well be the Neapolis of Lesbos which as the above link says was just west of Mysia.  Or even if this Neapolis is a place reached after Samothrace, Luke says they set a course to Samothrace, there is no indicator of how far away it was.  Maybe people misunderstanding Act 16 is the real origin of the error that Troy was near Samothrace?

Troas is visited again in Acts 20:5-12, and there it is seemingly nearer to Lesbos (Mytilene) then Samothrace, in fact they would not have sailed to Assos if they were leaving from the Hisarlik site, that trip would have been much shorter by land.

If the Seat of Satan Jesus refereed to was chiefly the Serapeum, the mythological memory of Apollo's seat could still have also been in mind.  Hellenic comparative mythology I'm pretty sure often identified Serapis with Apollo.  Aesculapius was a son of Apollo who also had a Temple near by.

The Seven Church Ages theory of the Seven Churches promoted by many Protestant Historicists and some Futurists tends to see the message to Pergamos as partly a Prophecy of when The Church married Rome, the era of the Ecumenical Councils.  Well Rome in John's time saw themselves as the successor of Troy via Aeneas, the Aeneid written to celebrate that identification also used Pergamos as synonymous with Troy.  In fact the Illiad itself mentions Aeneas in connection to Apollo's temple at Pergamos.

Homer, Iliad 5. 445 ff (trans. Lattimore) (Greek epic C8th B.C.) :
"Apollon caught [the wounded] Aineias (Aeneas) now and away from the onslaught [of the battle], and set him in the sacred keep of Pergamos (Pergamus) where was built his own temple. There Artemis of the showering arrows and Leto within the great and secret chamber healed his wound and cared for him."

Wow, that's really interesting given what happens later in Revelation, with a Head of the Beast having a mortal wound that is healed and being given Satan's Seat.  Aeneas was a son of Aphrodite/Venus as I mentioned in the post I made yesterday. Still I have my skepticism of the seven ages theory.  Also the context of this wounding in the Iliad is not with a sword or to the head but a boulder to the thigh.

I've learned while researching this that Pergamon's Serepeum wasn't built till the reign of Hadrian, so the tradition about that being where Antipas was killed must be false since Revelation was written well before then

Pergamon became a center of the Imperial Cult under Augustus in the late 1st century BC.  Augustus deification of himself involved associating himself with Apollo, while also claiming descent from Aeneas.  So like Smynra the Imperial cult is probably the real backstory behind Martyrdom being mentioned here.  I wonder if those books about Pergamon being Troy have a specific theory about where Apollo's sanctuary was?  If the text of the Iliad can be interpreted as implying it's the highest peak, that would be where Trajan built his Temple, further tying it to the Imperial Cult. Did Trajan simply build over where Augustus and other prior Emperors had been worshiped?  And did Augustus in turn choose the site of an ancient Temple to Apollo? But then Trajan preferred to associate his deification with Zeus rather then Apollo?

Later in Revelation 13 Satan gives his Seat to The Beast, and The Beast is often viewed as being in some way Rome or a Roman Emperor.

Pergamon was a known cult center of Aesculapius going back to the fourth century BC according to Pausanias.  But the surviving remains near the Serapeum like the Serapeum itself are mainly a 2nd century AD construction.

I've decided I can't agree with the Fullness of the Pergamon was the original Troy theory because of how Young Pergamon is archeologically, one of these Pergamon theory books date the fall of Troy to  811 BC but Pergamon was founded later then that.  But I do think locals in Pergamon saw themselves as the real Troy all through antiquity and that belief influenced some aspects of the Iliad.

I'm not today going to propose any theories about Smyrna or Sardis. [Update: in light my newer theories about the Latest Date for The Revelation I now think Smyrna and Sardis didn't have Christian communities till the Second Century.]

I do have some interesting thoughts on Philadelphia.

Philadelphia was the name of several cities in antiquity and could easily have been a nick name to many more.  The Philadelphia traditionally identified with the Philadelphia of Revelation is the city today called Alasehir.  But Alasehir was still a predominantly Pagan city well into the sixth century with it's major Church not being built till 600 AD.  That's not what I'd expect from the Christian legacy of one of the two most praised Churches in Revelation.

Ammia in Philadelphia is the designation of a Prophetess mentioned by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History Book 5 Chapter 17 quoting a Miltiades criticizing the Montanists.  Montanus and his women claimed to have inherited their Prophetic gifts from Quadartus and Ammia in Philadelphia.  Quadartus is also mentioned in Book 3 Chapter 37, it's possible he too was in or from Philadelphia but not certain.  Eusebius and Miltiades considered these Prophets valid, it's the Montanists' claim of succession from them they're rejecting.

What's interesting is that when Montanus and his women claimed to have inherited their Prophetic gifts from Ammia and Quadartus, it was supposedly a line of succession they got from the Daughters of Philip from Acts 21:9.  And Montanus and his women were from Phrygia.  The exact locations of Pepuza and Tymion where Montanus claimed New Jerusalem would descend and thus made his head quarters are also a mystery, we just know they were in Phrygia.  I've come to suspect they may have been simply Montanus's personal pet names for cities usually known by other names.

I believe that Philip one of the Twelve Disciples and Philip the Deacon aka Philip the Evangelist are in fact the same person, no NT passage mentions both by name together.  I get why people assume Acts 6 allows no overlap between the Twelve and the Seven.  But remember in John chapter 12 the Philip who is of the Twelve serves as the contact between Greek Speaking Jews interested in Jesus message and the Twelve, so Acts 6 could just be him still playing that role.  And Stephen is mentioned first even over one of the Twelve because he became the first Martyr, while when Acts was written Philip's own Martyrdom probably hadn't even happened yet.  Deacon was not meant to be a rank in the NT Church, it was a word meaning "servant", Jesus, Peter and Paul intended for the Church's Elders and Overseers to see themselves as servants.

Polycrates of Ephesus records some traditions I think are wrong like identifying a John with The Beloved Disciple when I view them as different and if either was ever in Ephesus it wasn't John.  But he doesn't call that John one of the Twelve.  The only one of the Twelve whom Polycrates mentions is Philip, he says this Philip was one of the Twelve and had at least three daughters, Philip and two of his daughters fell asleep and were buried in Hierapolis in Phrygia.  Eusebius in Book III chapter 31 also cited another source for Philip and his Four Daughters who were Prophetesses coming to Hierapolis in Phrygia.

Philadelphia isn't mentioned at all in Polycrates discussion of Asian Churches observing Passover on the 14th.  It's not the only city from Revelation 2&3 missing, but Hierapolis is the only Church mentioned that doesn't appear to be one of the Seven.  Thyatira and Pergamon he might have left out since they were specifically associated with bad doctrines in Revelation, but if Philadelphia's Church kept Passover on the 14th that is something he'd want to mention, and perhaps try to explain away if they didn't.

Hierapolis means Holy City, as in a sacred city with an important Temple(s), because it had a lot of pagan temples.  The message to Philadelphia is the one that speaks of the City of God which is New Jerusalem and the Temple of God.   In Revelation 3:12 Jesus promises to make the Overcomer a Pillar in the Temple of God, Paul refers to the Apostles in Jerusalem as Pillars in Galatians 2:9.  Revelation 21:14 says the Twelve Apostles are the Foundations of New Jerusalem, and in Ephesians 2:20 Paul says the Apostles are the Foundations of The Temple of God.  Based on Polycrates I think Philip was the only one of the Twelve who fell asleep in Asia. 

New Jerusalem is called the Holy City in Revelation 21:2 though it's a different Greek word for Holy, Hagias/Hagian.  However the word for Holy that is the first part of Hierapolis happens to look like the beginning of how Jerusalem is spelled in Greek.  Greek was often a very precise language, but I think Hieros and Hagios were understand as synonyms, or at least that mostly anything which can be described as one can also be described as the other.  Also the only time either of these words for Holy appears in Revelation 2-3 is the beginning of the message to Philadelphia.

Philip is a name derived from the same Greek word for Love as the first syllable of Philadelphia. The meaning of Philadelphia is often said to be "brotherly love" but Greek was unlike English in that the words for Brother and Sister used in the New Testament are just slight variations on each other, and so the last part of Philadelphia is almsot arguably closer to the word for sister since city names often wind up mostly feminine in form.  So maybe there is some wordplay going on here where the name also suggests the sisters who were daughters of Philip?  The first Hellenistic Monarch given the epithet Philadelphos was Ptolemy II who was given it in reference to his love for his Sister, so yes it absolutely can mean Sisterly Love.

One of the most famous sites in Hierapolis is the Ploutonion, a ceremonial gateway to Hades, the Underworld.  Jesus introduced himself in the message to Philadelphia as one who is Holy and as He who openeth and shutteth and has the Key of David.  In the other messages the titles for Jesus used here are references back to titles from chapter 1, but David isn't mentioned in chapter 1 and the only Keys mentioned in Chapter 1 are the Keys of Hades and Death.  Sheol comes up in some Davidic Psalms, including one Peter quoted in Acts 2.  The Key of David and the talk of opening and shutting also comes from Isaiah 22:22, and the context there can maybe also be inferred to relate to the Resurrection.

Some people see in the message to Philadelphia possible allusions to the city having a history of Earthquakes, well it was the same for Hierapolis, being damaged by Earthquakes in 17 AD and 60 AD.  As Colossians 4:13 indicates, Hierapolis was close to Laodicea, so that could be why they're next to each other in Revelation chapter 3.  Hierapolis was between Laodicea and Alasehir but much closer to Laodicea, and some think Hierapolis hot springs provide context to understanding the lukewarm water of Laodicea, Jesus is definitely contrasting Laodicea and Philadelphia spiritually.

Antiochus III aka Antiochus The Great settled 2,000 Jews in Phrygia in the early second century BC, by 62 BC the Jewish population in Hierapolis was 50,000.  Jews from Phrygia were at Pentecost according to Acts 2:10, Paul was there in Acts 16:6 before heading to Mysia/Troas and then returned there in Acts 18:23.  Alasehir in contrast does not seem to have ever had a Jewish population.

Based on John 8, those who say they are Jews but are not but are of the synagogue of Satan, probably refers to non Christian Jews.  It's unfortunate that today some people use that to justify their Antisemitism, these privileged Jews were being criticized for persecuting those with different beliefs, modern Jews living in America and Europe are in no position to be the persecutors, at least not to Christians.  Today it is if anything many Christians committing the sins of the Pharisees in John 8 and the Synagogue of Satan.

Philadelphia is presented in Revelation as a city where Christians aren't facing the immediate threat of death for their faith the way they were in Smynra due to the presence of the Imperial Roma cult.  But while Christians were the minority everywhere this city is one where it seems to have been particularly not easy to be a Christian culturally.  How many Pagan Temples Hierapolis had could be the reason for that.

If Montanus knew full well that the Philadelphia of Revelation was in Phrygia, that could make sense of his ability to develop a belief that Phrygia was where New Jerusalem would descend by ignoring how New Jerusalem being referenced in that message isn't about Geography. In fairness to Montanus however, Revelation 21 makes New Jerusalem large enough that if you place it's exact center at Jerusalem and/or Bethlehem and/or Bethel, it would include all of Phyrgia.

Papias is also said to have spent time in Hierapolis. And it should also be noted that Apolinarius a chief early critic of the Montanists was a Bishop of Hierapolis, so they had opposition in Phrygia as well.  Indeed there was a Bishopric in Hierapolis that existed all through Pre-Nicene and Post-Nicene Early Church History, while the one for Alasehir doesn't appear till the time of Nicaea.  And in the Fourth Century Hierapolis became a majority Christian city very quickly, unlike Alasehir.

My Philadelphia theory is not one I'm gonna promote as strongly because I lack any independent evidence that Hierapolis was also known as Philadelphia.  But even if I can never find that smoking gun, I'm willing to consider that this city might have been called that only by it's Christian population, perhaps as a pun on the name of the Disciple who was buried there.

Update 2023: Both these theories I have become inclined towards.  

For Pergamon I do still think people in that believed they were Troy and that may have influenced what's said in Revelation, but Toas in Acts probably refers to the Troad region and not a single city.

For Philadelphia I realize I was missing the point by making such a point out of the Philadpehian Church's seeming insignificance.  The message about them being the smallest and weakest Church by Secular Standard but the truest in their faith.  But also maybe Eusebius couldn't give a list of Bishops because they never accepted Episcopal Polity before Nicaea.  And maybe a Pro-Montanist could argue the Montanists were the legacy of Philadelphia.

Some of the circumstantial stuff I mentioned could still be interesting.  Polycrates letter only accounts for 3 of Philip's 4 daughters, so maybe the remaining one settled in Philadelphia where she became the Sempai of Ammia.  

And some of these regions terms within the Province of Asia were flexible and so maybe Alasehir can be considered part of Phyrgia even though it's usually classified as Lydian.  The location of Pepuza is known now, and was when I first wrote this, I had simply been influenced by outdated information.  It is arguably closer to Alasehir then it is to the Laodicea/Hierapolis/Colossae area.

The 390 years and 40 years of Ezekiel.

 Ezekiel 4:4-6.

 Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.  For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.  And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

I've talked on another blog about how I feel these time-periods make most sense as ending with the Captivity of Judah, rather then beginning with a Captivity.  And I've mentioned on this blog before how this does NOT support the Historicist Day=Year theory logic because a period of Days did still happen.

Still, it remains popular for variations of both Zionism and British Israelism & Two House theology to insist the 390 years points to some relatively modern event.  This is done by misusing Leviticus 26.  Problem is Leviticus 26 is about the Jubilee, and it uses Times as a synonym for Years like Daniel and Revelation do for certain prophecies.  If Leviticus 26 has any eschatological significance, it is in terms of expanding the "Tribulation period" from the usual expected seven years to a full Jubilee.  Or perhaps a Jubilee separating the end of the Millennium and descent of New Jerusalem.  And that is something I may talk about more in the future.

But for now, I want to talk about how these time periods were fulfilled if they indeed began rather then ended with their captivities.  Perhaps as a second fulfillment.

The Babylonian captivity is commonly refereed to as 70 years.  Chuck Missler has talked about how there were really two overlapping periods of 70 years, 608-538 BC and 588-518 BC.  The Captivity and the Desolation of Jerusalem.  From that however, I notice it becomes possible also to say that there were 40 years from the final Captivity of Judah, to the initial decree to rebuild it issued by Cyrus and return from Captivity under Zerubabel and Jeshua.  So Ezekiel's 40 years for Judah was fulfilled without needing to multiply anything by 70.

 [Update January 23rd 2017:  Well my generally solid math skills totally betrayed when I made this and allowed me to think 588-538 BC was 40 rather then 50 years.  That puts a hole in this premise. But given that later then the Temple's destruction many Judeans fled to Egypt as Jeremiah records.   And Ezekiel also talks about a 40 year Captivity of Egypt.  Maybe that's how the 40 years for Judah can fit?]

722 BC being the usual date for the final fall of Samaria, makes 390 years later the year 332 BC.

That is the year Alexander The Great first came to the land of Israel and Judah.  Early in that year he finished besieging Tyre, and by the end he'd entered Egypt.  So anything he is recorded as doing in the lands of the 12 Tribes before going to Egypt would have happened in 332 BC.

Much is made about Josephus account of Alexander's activities in this year in Antiquities of The Jews Book 11 Chapter 8.  Many say Josephus made it all up, but I believe the account is true.  And I certainly believe Josephus over The Talmud which gets the High Priest wrong.  Alexander was shown Daniel's Prophecies of him like how Cyrus was shown Isaiah 44 and 45.  And he honored Yahuah in The Temple in Jerusalem.

Less talked about however is what Josephus tells us about Alexander and the Samaritans, chiefly in section 6.  Josephus does so from a perspective of hostility towards the Samaritans.  It was a bit more complicated then his relationship with The Jews.  But most importantly the building of the Samaritan Temple was sanctioned by Alexander, that happened earlier in Section 4.

Jesus of course agreed with the account in 2 Kings 17 that the Samaritans descended from Gentiles, when he called them not Israelites.  But some remnants of Ephraim and Manasseh may have intermingled with them.

Could Macedon have been another nation descended form the Lost Tribes?  Dan is linked to Greece in Ezekiel 27, and I've argued that possibly is backed up by Daniel 8.  I've also argued for linking Asher, Western Manesseh, and Zebulun & Isshacar to Celtic tribes, and Macedon had a Celtic element.  The Slavic elements of modern Macedonia come from Slavs migrating south during medieval times and later.

Joel 3 also refereed to Judeans being sold into slavery to Greeks.  And God says that from there God shall raise them up to bring Judgment to Tyre and Sidon and Philista.  Alexander besieged Tye and Gaza, and totally destroyed the latter.

Most historians and archeologists think the earliest Macedonian King likely to be historical was Perdiccas I.  Dates for him vary but he seems to emerge around 700 BC.  After the fall of the Northern Kingdom.

Whether the ancient Macedonians counted as fellow Greeks was a mater of controversy, it seems most Greeks didn't want to claim them till after Alexander became so important to Greek History.  Yet The Bible agrees with calling them Greeks at least in the context of Daniel 8.

Zechariah 9-11 is like 12-14, three Chapters that are all one Prophesy.  It's perhaps even more confusing to interpret, many isolated verses are important and well known, but how they all fit together is difficult.

Zechariah 9 also alluded to The Resurrection in verses 11 and 12.  And I have argued Alexander was among those Resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53, without mentioning Zechariah 9. 

Chuck Missler has argued much of Zechariah 9 could be about Alexander The Great, Greece is mentioned.  But Ephraim is mentioned as well, and others have seen this Prophecy as being important to figuring out how Joseph and Judah will finally be reunited.  Britam sees the later part as a double fulfillment Prophecy about both the Maccabean revolt and a future Messiah Ben Joseph.

Zechariah 9:13

 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

Could this be poetically linking Greece to Ephraim similarly to how Zion is to Judah?

John R. Salverda has attempted to argue legends about Sisphus in Greek mythology are partly inspired by Joseph of Genesis.  He and Britam in general make lots of Arguments I would not support.  But his argument that Ephyra, the name of a couple of ancient Greek cities, could be linked to Ephraim is interesting, given how Ephraim is technically a plural or dual form, the singular would be close to Ephyra or Ephrya.  Ephrath was the feminine plural.  One Ephyra was a city of Epirus, the homeland of Alexander's mother Olympias.

Salverda's arguments also bring up the possible Salmoneus and Solomon connection, which I mentioned in my last Song of Solomon post.

But just as Cyrus decree was only the beginning of Judah's return from Captivity, so 332 BC was only the beginning of Ephraim's.

Could Antiochus Epiphanes claim descent from the Lost Tribes?

I've already talked a lot about the possible familial connections of the Seleucid Dynasty in my three part Genealogy of The Antichrist study.

In light of my recent speculation that the Eight King could be Antiochus Epiphanies himself.  As well as my other speculation that The White Horseman could claim, validly or not, Ephraimite descent and try to claim he's Messiah Ben-Joseph.  This is an interesting speculation.

As I said before, I don't think he'll admit to being the hated Epiphanes, I think it's possible if he is open about being someone from the past, he might claim to be his more fondly remembered father.

I do not necessarily endorse Lost Tribes became Western Europeans theories in general.  But the nature of tribal migrations is complicated.  And Dan certainly had an interesting history.  Also my theory is more about him claiming such a lineage then if it's actually true.

Antiochus Epiphanes is not usually someone advocates of such theories seek to claim.  But I have a different perspective.

The Macedonian Royal family claimed descent, like the Spartans, from the sons of Herakles and through him to Perseus and Andromeda of Joppa and the Danoi.  All allowing possible connections to Dan or Edom.  But the Seleucids have no provable direct connection to the Agrid line however.

The sons of Herakles whom the Spartan and Macedonian royal families claim descent from supposedly intermarried with the leading family of the Dorian tribes.  Some engaged in Lost Tribes related theories have speculated that the Dorians could have a connection to Dor, a port city of Manasseh, one governor of Dor had married a daughter of Solomon.  Dor is also associated with the Tjekker of the Sea Peoples.

The Macedonians were distinct from the other Dorian derived classical Greek nations in also having some Celtic stock to them.   So Oliver Stone was not being completely random casting Irish and Scottish actors as Macedonians in his Alexander The Great film.  The relationship between the Celtic and Cimmerian peoples is complex.

Apama the wife of Seleucus I was the daughter of Spitamenes, a Perisan Satrap.  He had in his ancestry Persian and Median rulers and through them Assyrian ones too.  The mother of Esarhaddon was possibly an Israelite.  Further back there were Assyrian Kings named Asshur-Dan about whom we know little, making me wonder if connections between Assyrian Royalty and the Denyen might have taken place.

The City of Antioch itself is pretty much in the heart of the Danuna/Laish Dan area.

The Crimmerians are at the center of the main Lost Tribes became Europeans theories.  Most critics of the view just point to the obvious connection between the Cimmerians and Gomer son of Japheth, that Bill Cooper documents well in After The Flood.  He covers it in both the Where to Begin chapter and Appendix 3.

Thing is, the name Gomer also appears in Hosea as the name of the prostitute God has Hosea marry who becomes a symbolic type of Ephraim/Israel.  So advocates of the theory suggest using that name could also be a prophecy about a future intermingling of the descendants of Gomer and the Northern Kingdom.

Khumri is how the Assyrians rendered the name of Omri, which they used to refer to the Northern Kingdom in general even well after the House of Omri fell. The basis for connecting the northern Kingdom exiles to the name of the Cimmerians has often been just based on arguing that Khumri could've become Ghumri and Gimri and so on.  That I think is largely what makes it look silly to people.  Though more implausible things have happened in etymology.

Our pre-history of the Cimmerians is pretty speculative, drawing mainly form Herodotus and other heavily contrived Greek accounts.  But a connection between their name and Crimea I do consider likely.

The first appearance of the Cimmerians in Assyrian records is during the reign of Sargon II, dated to about 714 BC.  After the first two main deportations of the Israelites.  At this time they seem to be "In the midst Mannae" a buffer state between Assyrian and Uratu, rather then where they usually were later.  They assisted Sargon in his war with Uratu.  Mannae is mentioned in The Bible as Minni in Jeremiah 51:27.  Their kingdom was located south and east of Lake Urmia.  Firmly within Median territory where many exiles had been taken according to II Kings 17:6.

Later the Cimmerians during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal would become enemies of Assyria, and ally with other traditional enemies of Assyria.  It's not implausible that descendants of exiled Israelites would have been attracted to joining up with the Cimmerians.

The Cimmerian nation at it's greatest extent expanded into many other regions of Turkey, like Pontus and Cappadocia.  In Hellenistic times the Cimmerians who remained in the region were known as the Galatians.  The Hellenistic kingdoms of Galatias, Cappadocia and Pontus royal families intermarried a lot with the Seleucid Dynasdty, as well as Pergamon and Commagene.  The mother of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus.

The Seven Heads and Daniel 7

In the past I've been hostile to viewing the 7 Kings as 7 Kingdoms or Empires rather then a specific succession of individual Kings.  Chris White argues they are 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms.

I'll never be convinced of a model that adds two empires or even one before Nebuchadnezzar.  But my perspective on this changed when I noticed something about how Daniel 7 and the Beast from the Sea in Revelation are compared.

This thesis here could damage a lot of my earlier theories.  But not my over all view of Bible Prophecy.

Seven is also the total number of heads in Daniel 7, 1 Lion, 1 Bear, 4 of the Leopard and the Ten horns are defined as on a head in Daniel 7.  The Beast of Revelation 13 is all four of Daniel 7's beasts merged together.

So we have 7 Kingdoms, each also with one specific of their Kings to single out.  That is how I now look at it.

The 7 kings do NOT each have to be a type of The Antichrist, that is just a made up rule some people have for studying this.  Cyrus is indisputably the Second King in question here, he is never portrayed negatively in Scripture.  In fact he is the only Gentile The Hebrew Bible ever declares a Messiah, and it's God himself saying it to Cyrus in Isaiah 44/45.  Some of them may be types, but they don't all need to be.

In fact even though I've done and may still do a lot of talking about potential types of The Anitchrist on this Blog.  The Biblical endorsement for the concept of types are entirely about Jesus, Paul in Colossians saying everything in the law was a foreshadowing of Jesus that had already been fulfilled, Jesus saying the Volume of The Book is of Him.  There is no Biblical basis for calling ANYONE a type of The Antichrist.

This model has to make Rome the 7th rather then 6th Empire.  How can Rome possibly be yet Future in John's time?  Or be said to have not lasted very long?

The 7 Kings we're are looking for are not rulers or occupiers of Israel/Jerusalem.  Revelation 17 is specifically about Babylon, it's about 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms who ruled Babylon, starting with it's native kingdom.  Daniel 7 is in the Aramaic part of Daniel, the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians of Daniel's time.  And he was in Babylonia when he had this vision.  The four beasts are described as World Empires and all four are, but to the point of view of the Babylonians Daniel first made this Prophecy for, no one truly became a world empire till they conquered their world.

Rome did NOT rule Babylon at any point during the New Testament era or before it. John wrote Revelation at the latest during the reign of Domitian.  The second Emperor after that, Trajan, was the first Roman to take Mesopotamia and Assyria. and it was at the very end of his reign that he did.  Then Hadrian succeeded him, and he pretty much immediately gave them back to Parthia.  So Rome only ever ruled Babylon for a very short time, just a few years.

The ruler of Parthia when John wrote was Pacorus II. (Who's mother was a Greek concubine, further showing he can count as a Greek King, and his father's maternal grandmother had Seleucid ancestry).  When Pacorus died Trajan was already Emperor of Rome.  Later in the 160s AD there was another Roman military incursion into Mesopotamia, but it never reached Babylon, it's focus was on Seleucica.

While it's not a coincidence that the 4 heads of the Leopard are the same number of horns the Notable horn of the Ram breaks into.  I think what they represent specifically here could be sort of different.  We are dealing with four Hellenistic era Kingdoms that ruled Babylon.  The first is Alexander himself, then comes the successors.

I believe Parthia while often thought of as a quasi Persian empire can be looked at as coming out of Alexander's Empire.  He had conquered that region, and by the New Testament period the Arascid Royal Family had Seleucid blood intermingled into them.

Babylon was taken from the Seleucid Empire by Parthia in 150 BC.  It was still firmly Seleucid during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasomonean revolt.

Antigonus and Seleucus Nicator fought over Babylon early on after it was clear Alexander's own Dynasty would not survive.  Eventually Seleucus secured it.

I'm going to consider Ptolemy the true successor to Alexander in this context.  He had Alexander's body buried in the city named after him, an act that secured succession in Macedonian custom, and was possibly a half brother or cousin of Alexander.

The 4 Heads of the Leopard could be viewed as Antigonus in Macedon =The West, Antioch=The North, Alexandria=The South and Parthia=The East.  Thus fitting the Four Winds of Heaven reference in Daniel 11.  Though for that context we could also say the West was the Macedon-Greece homeland which was originally ruled by the Antipards but which the Antigonids took as they lost what was originally allotted to them to Seleucus.

So the 7 King(dom)s of Babylon from Daniel are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander The Great, Antigonus, Seleucid Dynasty, Pacorus of Parthia, and Trajan of Rome.

In the past I firmly argued that I believe The Antichrist's Death and Resurrection must both be in the future.  And I was not comfortable with the theories making him some past King being brought back.

But in light of this, I must be consistent with my clear understanding of Revelation 17's terminology.  "Was, and is not" means the Eight King is one of the first 5, since it defines the present of this message as the 6th.

I still believe the Beast Empire is largely a Revived Roman Empire, but the Little Horn shows up among the ten horns in Daniel 7, distinct from Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the 4 horns.  He's ruling Rome but not as a Roman himself.

I don't believe it has to be someone who died from a head wound.  The doctrine of The Antichrist's Resurrection to me is proven not by the mortal head wound being healed but by his ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and how that theme ties into Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-32, (though fatal sword wound references are there too).

It could be he's already an early example of the second resurrection when he receives the mortal wound, and what amazes people is him surviving something that should have killed him, because he now has a body like a fallen angel.

Alexander The Great is distinct as being in a sense the main King of the Leopard as a whole as well as one of the heads.  I see Daniel 7:12 saying both that the Assyrian, Persian and Greek nations will exist during the Millennium.  And that their main three Kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great, are saved individuals and will exist in The Millennium too.

That only leaves Antigonus and the Seleucids.

Daniel 11:40-45 seems to have The Antichrist as separate from the King of The North.  However, I've explained why I'm no longer certain that even is The Antichrist, and that it might be Augustus.  But if that is the End Times and is The 8th King, it's while he's not a ruler of his original kingdom anymore but of the 10 horns to emerge from Rome.

There is nothing to link Antigonus to the Antichrist, but a lot of reasons to link the Seleucids.  Daniel 8 as well as Epiphanes doing the first Abomination of Desolation, which Jesus clarifies there will be one yet future.

I argued in the past when discussing Daniel 8 that there The Little Horn is the Seleucid dynasty as a whole, not just 1 or 2 individuals.  So unlike others who've argued a thesis similar to what I'm arguing here, I don't necessarily think it's Antiochus Epiphanes himself who is the Seleucid ruler that will ascend out of the Bottomless Pit, but certainly could be.

There are reasons to believe The Antichrist will be someone The Jews accept at first until the Abomination of Desolation happens.  If he's Epiphanes and is known to be Epiphanes, that would be unlikely.  Epiphanes is up there with Hitler and Haman on the most hated by Jews list.

I do think it must be a Seleucid mentioned in Daniel 11, making him a Biblical figure.  Seleucus I might be the candidate to start with, but while important to Seleucid history obviously, what's said of him in Daniel 11 is brief and pales in comparison to some of the others.  But it is interesting that a legend existed in the ancient world that his mother Laodice claimed he was fathered by Apollo.

Three times in Daniel 11 a king is described as "doing according to his will".  One of these is verse 36 which is clearly past the immediate history of Epiphanes already, after the Hasmonean Kingdom has fallen to Rome.  And may or may not be about The Antichrist.  It's first used of Alexander The Great at the start of the chapter.  Between them it's in verse 16.

Verse 16 is during the time of Antiochus III The Great's wars. And usually he is identified by scholars as the one "doing according to his will" there.  But Hippolytus of Rome in his Daniel commentary confusingly says this was an Alexander not known from any other surviving historical sources we have on the period.  He might have gotten confused by how that phrase was earlier affiliated with Alexander The Great, or maybe it's a scribal/copyist error.

It was under Antiochus The Great that Israel was taken from the Ptolemies and became part of the Seleucid Empire.  He is overall remembered fondly by The Jews as recorded by Josephus.  His relationship with them in Daniel 11 seems positive.  He continued Alexander and the Ptolemies general policy of not interfering with their Faith or The Temple.

But Josephus seems to be familiar with only 1 Maccabees and not 2 Maccabees.  2 Maccabees chapter 1 seems to refer to the death of Antiochus III and deems him ungodly.  Some see the benefits Antiochus gave The Temple as having been good for the Priestly class but not really for the common people.

Epiphanes is still the key link this dynasty has to The Antichrist.  It's highly possible he will lie about who he is, even when he first reveals himself to be a resurrected past individual he may lie about exactly who he is. Maybe he'll try to claim he's Elijah or David or Solomon or someone like that.  Or maybe just a simple matter of lying about which Macedonian or Seleucid ruler he is.

Some have agreed that Daniel 11:36-45 can't refer to anything Epiphanes did, yet still feel that the tone of the text wants us to think of him.  This could agree with a notion that he was recorded earlier as the 5th King and 36-45 is about him as the 8th King.

On the notion that we're dealing with a ruler of one of the earlier Kingdoms now ruling/reviving Rome.  Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome, and Polybus said he liked to rule as if he were a Roman.  Maybe he is the ideal person to revive the Roman Empire.

Which would create more options for someone he could claim to be, like Augustus.

But one interesting option is for him to claim to be Constantine XI, the last Byzantine Emperor.  Like all later Byzantine Emperors he was firmly Greek, so Antiochus could remain the same ethnicity and native language.  Constantine XI supposedly died in battle when Constantinople fell to the Turks, but his death was never solidly confirmed.  So a rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a statue and hid him beneath the Gate of Constantinople and would one be awoken to drive to the Turks.  His legacy has remained important among the Greeks, drawing on it during their War of Independence in the 19th Century.

And the legend of his return no doubt became interwoven with the Last Roman Emperor tradition.  The original seed of which, the late 4th century prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl called him a King of The Greeks named Constans.

One argument against the idea that 36-39 could be about Epiphanes is that he was consistent with the religion of his fathers.  However there is also a sense in which Epiphanes did change the religion of the Seleucid Empire, ironically the opposite of the change Augustus later made in Rome.  Apollo had been the favored deity of earlier Seleucids, but Epiphanes downplayed him and was more fond of Zeus.  But it still would be absurd to label Zeus a god "whom his fathers knew not" for any Greek people.

But if Epiphanes returns in the End Days his religion may be different, especially if he comes back after being resurrected and thinking Satan was responsible for it.

He did deify himself, technically the full name he used was Antíochos D' ho Epiphanḗs (Antiochus God Manifest, or Antiochus Zeus Manifest).  I've noticed that while none of the known forms of Epiphanes/Epiphany I've found used in ancient Greek texts have a Greek gemetria value of 666, it isn't difficult to construct a form that does have that value, it seems 1 or 2 letters could make the difference.

Update August 2016: I just argued that the Eight King could be a Ptolemy.

Was Alexander The Great Resurrected in 30 AD?

This is a follow up to an earlier study I did.  Were some of the Angels once normal human beings.  Where I argued many Old Testament Saints who were resurrected in 30 AD now also serve as Angels.

Why argue that a notorious Gentile Pagan world leader could be among those?  We begin in Daniel 7.

Daniel 7 is a prophecy where the symbolism has two layers to it.  The Beasts represents the kingdoms/nations of those world empires.  But also for the first three at least their most notorious Kings who made them world empires.  The Fourth is more complicated because Rome's history is more complicated.

Daniel 7:12 after describing the fourth beast's destruction says "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." This shows that those three nations will still exist in the Millennium.  But I also feel it should also apply to the three Kings.  Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great.  Which would make those three saved individuals.

With Nebuchadnezzar we know he's saved because Daniel 4 records his Salvation.

Some Dispensationlists teach salvation was different before The Cross, it's by Faith Alone only after.  Problem is Paul was using the Old Testament to prove his point.  In Galatians we are told Abraham was saved by Faith when he believed God in Genesis 15.

What exactly you needed to believe may have been different, since the NT wasn't written yet.  But it was still by Belief.  Jesus also tells us as The Queen of Sheba was saved because she believed Solomon, and the men of Nineveh because they believed Jonah.  That they repented was a different cause to a different effect.

Isaiah 44-45 records a message God wrote to Cyrus before he was born.  We know from the end of 2 Chronicles and beginning of Ezra that Cyrus did as God told him.  Josephus records that it was Daniel who showed Isaiah's scroll to Cyrus.  So Cyrus was saved by believing Isaiah's message I suspect.

Josephus later records that Daniel's prophecies that mentioned Alexander The Great were shown to Alexander when he was in Jerusalem.  If you read Josephus account of Alexander in Jerusalem with this Biblical precedent in mind, you'll be left with little doubt that he was Saved at that time.  And because I believe in Eternal Security, none of his later sins either disproved that salvation or undid it.

As I said before on the subject of the 30 AD Resurrection of Old Testament Saints.  Maybe not all were resurrected then (Matthew's text says many not all) and some are being saved for later.  So if we ever find Alexander's body it would not disprove anything I argued for above, only what I'm about to argue for below.

I've looked at the history of historical references to Alexander's body and/or tomb and found some things curious.

The last recorded visit that takes place before 30 AD is when Augustus visited it.  Where he accidentally damaged his Nose trying to place a reef on the body.  Dion Cassius, LI, 16 and LXXV, 13. reports Augustus' request to see the body of Alexander. "But touching the nose he did some damage to it. Asked if he wanted to visit the tombs of the Ptolemies, he refused, saying that: "I came to see a king and not dead men".  Also Suetonius, vit. Auq. XVIII.

The first visit known to happen after 30 AD is Caligula's also recorded by Suetonius.  He removed Alexander's breast plate, but the body isn't really directly mentioned.  You'd think the man with the more reckless personality seeking to do a more difficult task would do more damage to it?

Dion also records that in his own day the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus sealed up the Tomb.  He also mentions that Severus placed in the Mausoleum all the secret books "so none could read the books nor see the body".  Septimius Severus was also one of the Emperors who persecuted Christianity, and his wife was a notorious opponent of Christianity.

The next Emperor, Caracalla, placed items in the Tomb but again the body isn't mentioned.  A modern theory that he moved the body to a tomb in Macedon has been formed.  Why would he do that while still honoring the Tomb in Alexandria?  He also believed he was something like a reincarnation of Alexander (he was one of the crazy Emperors) maybe a lack of Body there helped reinforce that idea in his head.

The Body itself seems to have always been visible and referenced before 30 AD, but after that direct references to the body are avoided.  Maybe it disappeared in 30 AD?

It was in the 4th Century that certainty of what structure was Alexander's Tomb was lost.  Some theories interestingly have one of the earliest Christian Churches of Alexandria built over the Tomb.  One specifically is a Church called the Church of Alexander.  There were no Church Buildings before the Third Century, so Church building was still a new thing during this period.  Why would Christians want to build a Church over his tomb and name it after him?  Did early Alexandrian Christians have a tradition we've lost?  Could it be in 30 AD Alexander rose again and proclaimed the Olympian gods false and that the recently Crucified Jesus of Nazareth was The One True God?

Let's return to Scripture.  Acts 16:8-12

And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas.  And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, "Come over into Macedonia, and help us."

 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.  Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.

I agree with the theory that the part of Acts 16 where Paul is at Troas (Troy) is where Luke (The Macedonian physician) joins him, because it's there that the narrative voice changed from third person to first person.  But it's sometimes tied into that to identify Luke with the man who appeared to Paul in the vision asking him to come to Macedonia.  But that to me is clearly an Angelic personage.  Paul probably sought a Macedonian who was in Troas after that vision to help him as he decided to head to Macedonia.

To 1st Century AD Greek speakers the biography of Alexander was as well known as the biography of George Washington is to us.  And this part of the Acts narrative was very likely to make readers think of Alexander.  Paul is sort of following Alexander's footsteps in reverse.  Troy was one of the first places Alexander made a point to visit after he traversed from Europe into Asia.  Paul is from Troy going to leave Asia and enter Europe with Macedon being the first place he goes.  A city founded by and named after Alexander's father.  Mention is also made of Samothace, the Island were Philip and Olympias (Alexander's parents) met while being inducted into a Dionsytic cult.

Other scholars have suggested that either Alexander or Philip is who the readers were meant to assume this man was.  But they do so without tying any of these Resurrection or Daniel related issues into it.

Alexander did not have to be Resurrected to be used by God for this vision.  Samuel did not need to be physically Resurrected to be used by God to deliver a message to Saul.  But on this side of The Cross, Abraham's Bosom is empty, so the nature of the after life is different then it was before.

Saul was a namesake to Paul's Jewish name.  But also similar to Alexander in some ways, both were important Kings of their nations but who's descendants didn't inherent their Thrones.  For Alexander this detail about him is among the things Daniel predicts in chapter 11.  Both also got angry and threw spears at people.

So, who knows, it's not something to build a huge doctrine on.  But it's interesting.

Update March 4th 2017:  I now consider this theory mostly defunct for two reasons.

1.  I now strongly suspect those Resurrected in 30 AD are limited to people buried on the Mount of Olives at that time.  And it's not likely Alexander's body wound up there.

2. Now that I believe in Universal Salvation, I no longer aboslutly need Alexander to have been Saved in his Mortal Life to possibly be on Earth during The Future Messianic Era, thus fitting Daniel 7.  Though I still feel that is probably necessary to be here during the Millennium, and I do still think Alexander was possibly Saved in that sense.

Update October 23rd 2017: I have become more skeptical of the Mount of Olives model.  And also decided that even if the 30 AD Resurrection began there, it may still have not been limited to it.

On the subject of Unviersal Sa;vation, I also don't even think those Resurrected in 30 AD were only of Believers, since I tie that Resurrection to Daniel 12.  Either way I do still count Alexander, however flawed he was, as a righteous Gentile.

Update November 2018: Since that last Update I've become more convinced then ever of the Mount of Olives model.

But the main reason for this new update is that I've learned there are references to Alexander's Body in Alexandria following the time of Caligula. I've learned this while researching the theory that Alexander's Tomb become the Tomb of St Mark in the 390s AD.