Things that are NOT signs of the End (a partial Matthew 24 commentary)

[1] And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
[2] And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
[3] And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?

I agree with Preterists that when The Disciples said "these things" they were thinking of what Jesus said in the prior verse and probably also what He said at the end of chapter 23.  And I suspect they assumed those things happen at the same time as what they asked about next, the sign of Jesus's Parousia and of the end of the Age.

However there is a theme throughout the Gospels of the Disciples being mistaken about certain things and Jesus then trying to correct them.  And that this is one of those is implied by what Jesus says next.

[4] And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Assumptions are frequently key to how deceptions work.

Verses 5-7 are what verse 8 calls the beginning of sorrows.  They are also called the Non Signs by the late Chuck Missler because of the last part of verse 6  "see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet".  But I think it's particularly notable that the "wars and rumours of wars" was what directly preceded that statement.  

The Temple was destroyed because of a war, and it wasn't the only war going on at that time, there had recently been rebellion in Britain and then civil war broke out because of Galba overthrowing Nero starting the year of the four emperors.  The rumors of wars refers to wars that could have happened but were averted, like the tensions between Rome and Parthia at this time.

I'm still of the opinion that the fist proper false Christ was Bar Kochba, but still a more fluid definition of what it means to be a false Christ is applicable to many people both before and during the first Jewish-Roman War.

The verse that proclaims all of these to be not actually signs is rightly used often to make fun of the more sensationalist Futurists.  But it's 70 AD Preterism especially Full Preterism that it outright founded upon ignoring the ramifications of Jesus saying this, if the end was always a mere 40 years away max then it was never not nigh.

I think even the Persecution discussion is really part of the Non Signs, Roman Persecution started with Trajan but the first empire wide one was under Decius and the only really great one was the Diocletian Persecution.  But the end of Roman persecution ushered in Persian Persecution, and even today in many countries Christians are being persecuted.

I've also come to agree with Preterists that the word for "World" in verse 14 being neither Kosmos or Aion is one that can be interpreted as meaning the domain of the Roman Empire.  But even then The Gospel still hadn't reached all of the Roman world by 70 AD.  

It was in the late Second Century that it first came to Gaul and Britannia, I'd been attracted to the various legends and fringe theories about New Testament characters coming to First Century Albion myself in the past, but they don't hold up as even Geoffrey of Monmouth says The British Church began with Lucius in the time of Eleutherius, around then is also when Tertullian first mentions Christians being in Brittan.  There are misleading legends tied even to that Lucius as I don't think he was a King but maybe was Lucius Ulpius Marcellus.  And The Church in Gaul started a little before then with Pothinus and Irenaeus who moved there from Ionia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Miletus).  With Britain you can try to make an excuse that it wasn't part of the Empire yet when Jesus made this Prophecy, but Gaul absolutely was.

Still while verse 14 can be interpreted as having that limited scale I'm inclined to think it's not.  That word translated world is a particularly fancy Greek word for Household.  While Greco-Romans did use if for the Imperium like in Luke 2:1's account of the Census decree.  I think Jesus means the Household of Adam, since Son of Man is the title for Himself that He likes to use when describing The Parousia.

Preterists will then try to prove this was fulfilled in the first century by taking certain things Paul said in Romans and Colossians out of context.  Paul is talking about what the mission of The Church during the Age of Grace is, in context he clearly does not see that mission as actually already accomplished or he wouldn't still be doing what he's doing.  When Preterists "Proof Text" like this it's just like the worst Futurist bad understanding of the concept of using Scripture to Interpret Scripture, just cause those verses use similar language doesn't mean they solve each other.

Verse 15 is where the actual signs of the end start, that is the fig tree showing it's leaves in verse 32, the Generation that sees that is the one that shall not pass away in verse 34.

I've already deconstructed the notion of that being applicable to anything in 70 AD.  I think the similar yet different description in Mark can be applicable to Hadrian's Abomination, but Matthew is different.  Getting into that here would distract from the main point at hand, I'm still not entirely decided on it myself.

Revelation Chapter 6 and the Non Signs

I apologize that this post shall in some sense be repeating some stuff I covered early in the Blog's history, but it shall also reflect some things I've changed my mind on and is a good reintroduction to how to refute the "Pre-Wrath" view of Chris White.

The basic error of their view is identifying The Parousia in Revelation using the characteristics of it from the Olivte Discourse that are the least unique to the Parousia and also least important to defining what the Parousia is.

The thesis of this post is that all of Revelation Chapter 6 (the first 6 seals) correlates to the "Non Signs" or "Beginnings of Sorrows" portion of the Olivite Discourse.

Matthew 24:4-8, Mark 13:5-8 and Luke 21:8-11 is what Chuck Missler liked to call the "Non Signs" portion of the Olivite discourse.  Jesus specifically said "that ye be not troubled: for all [these things] must come to pass, but the end is not yet."  Chris White however continues to obsess over insisting these are End Times specific events (he specifically argues they are the first half of the "70th Week").  But that is willful disregard of what Jesus specifically told us.

In Matthew 24 the persecution refereed to happens after the era of these non signs, in Luke 21 it is said to happen before them (Luke's I believe is about the Jewish in origin persecutions depicted in Acts) and in Mark 13 this persecution seems to be happening at the same time.  Mark is about the many persecutions Christians have faced in the last 2000s years, (even after the West became Christian in other regions persecution continued, especially for the "Nestorian" Church.)  Only Matthew is about a specifically End Times global persecution that might be carried out by the "Antichrist" but it might be the "Antichrist" will present himself as "saving" Christians from it.  And that is how I feel the Fifth Seal factors in.

I used to disagree with associating the Non Signs with the Four Horsemen because I understood this fact and I used to believe the Four Horsemen are specifically end times.  But I have come to take what can be considered a Historicist view of Revelation 6.  My overall view of Revelation remains Futurist because, well I'm open minded on the first 4 Trumpets (chapter 8 is more plausible to interpret histrionically then chapter 9) but the Seventh is definitely yet Future, the Seventh Trumpet is the Last Trump, that I still strongly believe.  But one element of the Non Signs is missing when you make them just the Four Horsemen, the Earthquakes.

The "Pre-Wrath" view of Chris White and some other views I've seem argued for, insist the Sixth Seal is the Rapture because Matthew 24:29 refers to an Earthquake and the Sun being darkened and stars falling from heaven.  In Revelation the Sixth Seal is the first time those three things happen but it's not the last.  And in Matthew 24 this is NOT the first reference to Earthquakes.  Also The Sixth Seal doesn't talk about lighting or thunder.

The Earthquake of Matthew 24:29 I view as the Earthquake of the Seventh Trumpet in Revelation 11:19, and maybe the Ark being seen in Heaven is the Sign of the Son of Man of Matthew 24:30.  The stars falling from Heaven is what the Dragon's tail does in Chapter 12, the start of Chapter 12 is also what I believe Luke's "Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars" refers to.  And the Sun and Moon were already darkened in the 4th Trumpet.

Actually I have now realized Matthew 24:29 does NOT even refer to an Earthquake, that word is in the three Olivte Discourse passages only during the Beginnings of Sorrows.  At the Parousia it's the powers in heaven that are shaken, which I think is an allusion to Revelation 12's War in Heaven.  I do believe an Earthquake happens at the time of the Parousia because of where I place it in Revelation, but there is in fact no Olivte Discourse basis for that.

Revelation 11 also clearly tells us that Wrath does NOT come till after the Seventh Trumpet.  So when the Kings of the Earth think Wrath has arrived in Revelation 6:15-17 they are wrong and mistaken and indeed not heeding what Jesus said about the Non Signs.

No account of the Olvite Disocurse refers to the Moon becoming Blood, Blood is a BRIGHT shade of Red so the Moon being darkened CANNOT be the same thing.  Only three verses of Scripture refer to the Moon becoming like Blood, the Sixth Seal, Joel 2 and Acts 2 when Peter quotes Joel 2.

Joel 2 says the Sun will be darkened and the Moon become like Blood BEFORE the Day of the LORD, not on or during but BEFORE.  And Peter is referring to this prophecy as having already been fulfilled in some way by Pentecost, presumably by the Earthquake and Darkening of the Sun associated with the Crucifixion.

So I don't think the Sixth Seal is about a singular event, it's a Prophecy of every-time people mistakenly think the End is Nigh because of perfectly common events like Earthquakes, shooting stars and Eclipses.  Earthquakes are often accompanied by volcanoes and there are accounts of volcanic eruptions making the Sun look dark and the Moon look red.

I've seen an argument that these kings of the Earth saying "hide us from the face of Him that sits on the Throne" is proof they are seeing the Parousia right now.  But again Jesus warns of there being people who will think the Parousia has happened or is happening but it isn't.  The fact that a lot Christian are forgetting to factor into all this is that now over half the world's population believes in the Biblical God and Jesus in some capacity at least nominally.

So again we can't build doctrine on the testimony of fallible mortals.

The Curse on Jeconiah?

My addressing the Genealogies of Jesus on this Blog has generally mostly focused on dealing with Luke's Genealogy for various reasons.  But I've come to realize that it's about time I paid more attention to Matthew's as well.

This particular topic however can be viewed as a transitional one, since the names of Sheatiel and Zerubabel being in Luke 3 means the Curse on Jeconiah issue has been used against both (though both names being common during the Persian period means there's no proof they're meant to be the same individuals).

I'm not going to use the usual Chuck Missler tactic of talking about how God worked around it.

In Jeremiah 22:28-30 Yahuah puts a Curse on Jeconiah, calling him Coniah.

Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?  O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Yahuah.  Thus saith Yahuah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

And this gets used to say clearly Jesus (and his half siblings) are not eligible to inherit The Throne of David.

Now it makes some sense to me for Atheists to use this as a criticism of The Biblical record as a whole.  But as I'm about to show using this as a Jewish objection to Jesus doesn't really think things through.

Jeremiah is the only Biblical Author to mention this Curse.  And he's the Prophet who explains that Yahuah reverses His Blessings and Curses based on obedience in places like Chapter 18.  Ezekiel, the other major Prophet of that time, not only doesn't seem to view Jeconiah as Cursed but seems to never regard Zedekiah as a rightful King at all since he dates events of Zedekiah's reign as if Jeconiah was still King.

Earlier in Jeremiah 22 setting the stage for this Curse Yahuah says in verse 24.

As I live, saith Yahuah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

Compare this to Haggai 2:23 where Yahuah says of Coniah's grandson Zerubabel.

In that day, saith Yahuah of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith Yahuah, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith Yahuah of hosts.

So that's clearly a reversal, exactly what Jeconiah lost according to Jeremiah 22 Zerubabel has back according to Haggai.  And other Prophets of this time like Zechariah speak similarly of Zerubabel.

And indeed the line of Exilarchs acknowledged by Rabbinic Judaism as the heirs of David in Exile all descended from Zerubabel.

People making this objection often also claim it has to be strictly Pater-Lineal descent, so that leaves out the lines coming through Hillel The Elder who was a Benjamite, his Davidic descent was though his Mother, and through a son of David even further removed from Solomon then Nathan was.

So without the house of Zerubabel, we have no known descent from the Royal Line.

Who is The Bride of Christ?

I did a post defending The Church as the Bride of Christ once.  My views on a number of things have changed since then, mainly my becoming less Dispensational.  I now believe The Church is grafted into Israel.  Though I do still believe there are probably some unique promises for Church Age believers.

So while on the one hand I want to talk in this post about how I'm more open to rethinking how we think about the Bride of Christ then I was then.  I first want to talk about how the main people you'll find on a google search for "The Church is not the Bride of Christ", are absolute Dispensationists as much as Chuck Missler is, just changing which Covenant people they say is The Bride.  And in so doing say things that bug me even more now then they did back then.

Jerusalem is the Lamb's Wife quite clearly in Revelation 21.  And to them the word Jerusalem can't possibly apply to The Church.  One went all in on this "Revelation is about Israel not The Church" idea saying even the Seven Churches are about Israel not the Church.  I think it's absurd to say something so important to the New Testament would be totally absent from the closing book of The Bible.

I could point out to them how the message to Philadelphia and the description of New Jerusalem clearly tie themselves to how Paul taught his The Church is God's Temple doctrine, via the Twelve Disciples as Pillars.  Or that Jesus told the Twelve Disciples at the Last Supper they would rule the Twelve Tribes.  They simply wouldn't care.

But now to how I'm more open.

The thing I've noticed is that Psalm 45, generally agreed to be a Messianic Psalm, has The Messiah and His Wife and their Children, as distinct entities.  Isaiah 53 also says the Suffering Servant will have Seed.  These do not mean Jesus will reproduce biologically, they are about John 1 teaching how Jesus gave us the ability to become Sons of God.  And probably also about The Man-Child being The Church. 

In Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 Jesus refers to His Disciples as the Children of the Bridegroom or Bridechamber.  Some Translations try to make this say servants, but the Greek text of the Textus Receptus says children making the KJV right here.  What John The Baptist says in John 3:29 can be taken in context as saying the former disciples of John becoming Disciples of Jesus are The Bride, but I think that's an oversimplification, he doesn't directly say that.

I think it is believers as the Temple of God/Body of Christ that include The Bride and the Children together.  My post about The Vail of The Temple suggests good reason to see The Bride and Groom as the Holy of Holies/Holy Place, The Vail torn means they are no longer separate.  The Children may then equate to the Inner Court.  Originally only Aaronic Priests could enter it, but now all believers are Priests.  There are no separate courts for Gentiles or Women as Galatians 3 shows.  Ephesian 2:14 also says the Wall of partition has been torn down.

I believe Israel is the Woman of Revelation 12, I've argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and 17 possibly are the same Woman, and returned to that in my recent Eden and Sinai post.[but that argument is now corrected by Eden may have been in Yemen].  The one thing that I was uncomfortable with about that is the implication of no happy ending for Israel.

Unless we conclude that this is also the same Woman who becomes the Bride in Chapter 19 and the Lamb's Wife in Chapter 21.  It makes sense given Paul's discussion in Romans of the divorce and Re-Marriage of Israel.  It's not explicitly stated they are the same because God promised He "will remember their Sins no more", Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17.  Remember in Revelation 18 God calls His People out of Babylon.

In fact that Greek word translated Bride in Revelation 19 is the exact same word used for Woman in chapter 12 and 17.  A word that more specifically means Bride isn't used till chapter 21. And likewise the word for Wife is usually the same word translated Woman.

It might be Isaiah 62 equates to verses 7-9 of Revelation 19, and then Isaiah 63 equates to verses 11-16.

Update: Types

Chuck Missler likes to back up his dispensationalist view of The Bride of Christ doctrine by talking about a theme of  "Gentile Brides" in the Old Testament.  I think he said there are at least 7 once.  But that whole thing is built on sand, having only really Ruth to go on.

Havvah/Eve was made from Adam's flesh, so you can't call that a marriage between separate Blood Lines.

With Rebecca in Genesis 24, the whole point was Abraham sent his servant to get a Wife for Isaac from the descendants of his brother.  Then Jacob's wives came from that same family.

Tamar was not a Canaanite, it was the unnamed wife of Judah who was clearly identified as one.

Rahab the Harlot is not depicted as marrying anyone in the Hebrew Bible, and I've shown that the Recab of Matthew's Genealogy cannot be referring to her.

Of the Wives of David, the only three who have any particular narratives about them are all clearly Israelites. Bathsheba even came from the same Tribe, Judah, as the granddaughter of Athitophel, though her first Husband was a Gentile.  Abigail was from Carmel but had been married to a Calebite.  And Michal was a princess of Benjamin, perhaps making her the most likely to be a type of the New Jerusalem.  Or perhaps Michal is Old Jerusalem and Bethsheba is New Jerusalem.

Esther also was a Benjamite, in that scenario it's the groom who was a gentile.

Solomon's marriages to foreigners are not depicted positively.  And my studies of the Song of Solomon have firmly lead me to conclude that Shulamith was a granddaughter of Solomon.

Nor does Psalm 45 in anyway make it's Bride a Gentile, despite how some seek to abuse the text to make it about the Queen of Sheba.  The "Queen in Gold of Ophir" verse is simply about her wearing expensive imported clothes, because Solomon got his Gold from Ophir.  What's interesting is that Gentile women attend the Wedding.  Her being told to forget her own people and her father's house use "Am" not "Goyi" for people, it could be used in the sense of being from a different Tribe of Israel.  Again reflecting how in Deuteronomy 33 the Beloved is of Benjamin.  But also the most significant verse to use "Am" is Genesis 48:19 of Manasseh.

So getting back to Ruth, the thing about her is she's not the only Wife depicted in the story.  Naomi (Who Chuck Missler says represents Israel) is also a Widow, and her husband's name makes him a possible type of the King, Elimelech.  The narrative point in this Book is about Ruth being a gentile who becomes an Israelite via Faith in Israel's God, not about a Gentile Bride being separate from Israel.

So don't let anything I said above make you think I'm against Mixed Marriages, I have a post on my other Blog defending them.

Update April 16th 2018: Methosius of Olympus.

 Methodius of Olympus a Pre-Nicene Church Father taught that The Woman of Revelation 12 is The Church and The Man-Child the Saints. That is a confusing explanation, but I think a product of being at least partly aware of the truths I just laid out above but being blinded by the Anti-Semitism the Early Church had already developed.

Of course that could be explained by language like in Ezekiel 16, where Judah, Samaria and Sodom are refereed to as well as their "daughters", referring to the people of the City as the City's children.

Methodius's writings we don't have in full.  This looks to me like evidence he was a Pre-Nicene father who wasn't Post-Trib since I don't see how making the Man-Child the Saints rather then Jesus can be made compatible with Post-Trib.  But I'm not gonna bet on that because playing games with the chronology of Revelation is what Post-Tribbers do.  (I'm also well aware he wouldn't have used terminology like Post-Trib).

So Methodius might have provided a way to make distinguishing the Bride from the Children of the Bride not even Semi-Dispensational.  But to me that way of looking at it would still have to be Mid-Trib, since it has the Church still existing on Earth after the Rapture.  However there are other pieces of the puzzle that wouldn't quite fit.

Update May 14th 2018: Paul's views on the matter.

All three passages that can be cited as sounding like they're describing The Church or Christians as The Bride rather then the Children are from Paul.

Now I'm someone who wants to refute the notion that Paul was in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, I have posts already dedicated to that issue.  But on this I must admit to being currently a little stumped.

Romans 7 is totally misunderstood however, that marriage related Law is what Paul singled out because he wanted to demonstrate that you are no longer under the Law at Death, and now we are Dead to the Law.  At best it actually makes Believers the Husband not the Wife.  Because we Die in Christ at Baptism.

However Ephesians 5:21-33 and 2 Corinthians 11 do seem to be making The Church the Bride of Christ.

Whether or not those passages can be reinterpreted differently.  Paul is one witness, I have multiple witnesses above on The Church being the Children of the Bridegroom.

Update August 2018: I've contemplated these Paul passages some more.

Ephesian 5 is not really doctrinally calling anyone a Bride or Bridegroom, just telling Husbands to love their wives like Jesus loves them.

2 Corinthians 11:2 I think may have some translation issues.  First of all the word translated "espoused" is not the same Greek word that refers to betrothal elsewhere like when talking about Mary and Joseph, but a form of the same Greek root that the word "harmony" comes from.  Looking at other usage of related words "joined" may be a better translation.

The word for "Husband" Andri, can also just mean an adult male, no word for wife or bride is used.

Some things about the word order are not what I expected either.  The Young's Literal Translation reads.

for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ,

Which is interesting, but I'm not sure how accurate it is either given the Greek word order.  For one thing, it might be possible it's actually the Andri who's being called a pure virgin.

Basically, it could be this verse is really more about the Body of Christ Doctrine then the Bride of Christ.

The Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30

Deuteronomy 30 is considered the first and most important Prophecy of Israel's return to her Promised Land.  Other Prophecies we turn to from Prophets like Isaiah are arguably just elaborating on that.

Some think this can apply to 1948 and what's been going since.  I long ago sorta agreed with that, but have during the time I've written on this blog been inclined to agree with those who say it obviously can't fit, and my mind as of this post hasn't entirely changed on that, but.......

Nehemiah chapter 1 quotes Deuteronomy 30, as having already being fulfilled by the return from the Babylonian Captivity.

Unless you want to reject the Canonocity of Nehemiah, (which I know of people who would, but I'm not addressing this post to them,) you have to accept this as correct.  Now another Captivity happening under Rome is why we know there is another return from Captivity coming.  But Deuteronomy 30 has been fulfilled at least once already.

Doesn't matter how at face value laughable it seems.  Critics of Christianity mock plenty of the New Testament's claims of Old Testament fulfillment.  But good Christians should accept and defend those no matter what.  From Peter applying the end of Joel 2 to Pentecost, to the claim that Jesus was a Nazarite because he was from a town called Nazareth.  I've gone out of my way on this blog to defend the New Testament's quotations of Isaiah 7 and 8.  But the Acts 2 reference is more comparable here, yet equally criticized by some, as it's about a stage in God's Covenant relationship with His People.

Christians can believe there is a second fulfillment coming, that may be grander then the first, as I certainly do with Joel and Pentecost in my view of Revelation 6-7.  But we can't question the accuracy of the cited fulfillment.  We use Scripture to Interpret Scripture.

That means Nehemiah has destroyed much of the argument that it's absurd to apply these Prophecies to 1948.  It's no longer true that it has to be something obviously Supernatural, and that no Gentile human governments can be the means by which God does it.

I would argue the Anglican British Government (and the Rothschilds if you insist on overstating their involvement) come closer to being worshipers of The God of The Torah then the devout Mithra worshiping Cyrus, or the Zoroastrians who made the later decrees.

But the main reason I can argue 1948 fits better is that it more naturally fits the idea that they're returning from all over the world, from it's very edges, from many nations.  While in Nehemiah's day at face value it seems like a return from just one nation.  Perhaps we could infer these decrees also became a rallying cry to Israelites who wound up in other regions for whatever reason, but if so that was only a small part of it.  The prophecies specify people returning by Ships, they specify Israelites returning from Ethiopia, and somehow even people returning by air (but not all of them, that will be important later).  Those details fit 1948 and since, but are harder to apply to Nehemiah's time.

Rob Skiba, one of the main people I'm responding to here, is totally against viewing that return as including the Northern Kingdom's exiles.  Though Chris White and Chuck Missler argue it did, that Babylon inherited Assyria's captives.  However Assyria never kept them in Assyria in the first place, and Ezra and Nehemiah's long lists of returning clans includes no references to Joseph, Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuben, Gad or Naphtali.  Asher wasn't part of the Assyrian deportation in the first place which is why Anna was in Judea.  Yet again the people saying clearly 1948 can't fulfill these are basing it partly on asserting modern Jews are only from the Southern Kingdom.

The only thing one could argue that Return had that today's doesn't is returning in obedience.

Christians typically assume they can't be returning in obedience unless they've accepted Yeshua/Jesus as their Messiah.  But to a Jew that's a non issue, and they would be offended if you told them otherwise.  Fortunately I've become a Universalist.  I do believe the culmination of all this involves Jesus being recognized as The Messiah, but at the start of the process I know there are other ways to be obedient.  So I won't offend Jews by telling them God's Promises to them doesn't apply till they accept Jesus.

Now there is a strictly Hebrew Bible basis for questioning the obedience of modern Israel that some have made, and that's how they aren't even really trying to govern themselves by the Torah.  Some online today limit Canon to only The Torah, they reject Nehemiah so I can't really respond to them here.  Ironically in this case it's being a Paulian Evangelical Universalist Christian that makes it easier to defend Israel here.  To me Paul's declaration that we aren't under The Law anymore doesn't apply just to Christians, Jesus saved and liberated everyone.  And as a civil Government the Torah is utterly unworkable in the modern world.

But if I were a citizen of modern Israel, there are plenty of policies of the modern government I would object to.

So the question becomes, was Israel in perfect obedience in Nehemiah's day?  By some priorities they were more so then modern Israel.  But no, they certainly still had issues that the Prophets from that time period like Zechariah, Haggai and Malachi were addressing.

But they no longer had the main problem that lead to the Captivity, their tendency to fall into Idolatry was cured.  Whether or not modern Israel still has the same issues as first Century Judaism would be a complicated debate, but since most Modern Jews aren't Sadducees, I think a good case can be made that they don't, from a Christian, Rabbinic or Karaite perspective.

So it is my view that 1948 was the beginning of the restoration of Israel, but it's not complete yet.  Ezekiel 37 clearly isn't fulfilled until the Resurrection.  The time between the Decrees of Cyrus and Nehemiah was longer then between 1948 and now, and Nehemiah's decree was only the beginning of another phrase. 

The issue of Israel's return is also part of the Rapture debate.  You see to many Post-Tribbers the Rapture is the same as Israel's return, hence the emphasis on saying it must be a supernatural return.  Ignoring the clear references to many returning by "Ships of Tarshish".

The Church is New Jerusalem/Yahuah-Shammah.  But we're not all there is to Israel, there is still the land allotted to the Tribes, the Levites, the Priests and the Prince, which are all separate from Yahuah-Shammah.  It's after the Rapture that Israel is protected in the Wilderness.

Post-Tribbers deny that we are actually taken to Heaven at the Rapture.  Jesus clearly said in Mark 13:27 "And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.".  But more importantly then that, Revelation 13 says the Best will Blaspheme "Them that dwell in Heaven", chapter 14 has the Resurrected 144 Thousand on the Heavenly Zion.  New Jerusalem doesn't descend until after the Millennium and Gog and Magog and the White Throne Judgment.

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.

Does The Bible talk about the End Times more then the Life of Jesus?

Chuck Missler likes to say it does, calling it.

"a period of time about which the Bible says more than it does about any other period in human history- including the time when Jesus walked the shores of the Sea of Galilee or climbed the mountains of Judea. "

And my being uncomfortable with that implication is perhaps a factor in why, even though I am ultimately a Futurist based on my view of Matthew 24 and Revelation, and Paul's Thessalonian Epistles, and 2 Peter 3.  I'm increasingly becoming sympathetic to Preterist interpretations of many passages where my fellow Futurists aren't fond of Preterist interpretations.  Because I do believe the Death and Resurrection of Jesus is the time period around which The Bible revolves

Not all Preterism is so focused on 70 AD, some say much was fulfilled by within Seven Years of Jesus Crucifixion.  And that is where I am in terms of the 70th Week of Daniel, I don't think it refers to 66-73 AD.  I think it was 30-37 AD or maybe 29-36 AD.  And that Jesus was Crucified at it's beginning or end but NOT the Middle.

Still 70 AD can be viewed as in some senses "close enough" to the time of Jesus, plenty of people lived through both time periods.  And I think Jesus did especially in Luke foretell the events of 70 AD often.

I already made one post on Zechariah 12-14, and how I'm unsure what to think of it but am growing more and more open to it being about 30-70 AD.  And I recently became aware of a new argument for that.

Zechariah 13:7 is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27 as being fulfilled by His arrest.

 Then saith Jesus unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, "I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad"."

The following verses of Zechariah 13 are the basis for saying in the End Times two thirds of all Jews will be massacred, probably by The Antichrist.  Preterists have argued this was filled by by how many Jews were killed in the 66-73 AD Jewish-Roman War.  I will object to any claims that 70 AD fulfilled Matthew 24, but as far as Zechariah 12-14 (and much of Luke 21) go, it fits.

And on Daniel 12 I have strong reasons for believing that can apply to the First Century AD also.  As The Book of Revelation defines it's existence as the unsealing of Daniel.  And the Resurrection alluded to is the same one alluded to in Matthew 27:52-43, as those are the only two Resurrection verses that say "many" rather then All.  And I've shown that Daniel 36-45 is about Augustus Caesar.

And my thoughts on Isaiah 19 are also complicated.

I also think some passages usually assumed to be about before The Millennium are actually about after The Millennium.  Like the Gog and Magog invasion.

Lost Tribes follow up post

This is a follow up to many Lost Tribes relevant posts I've done on this Blog.  Starting with The Lost Tribes and Bible Prophecy.  To deal with some bad theology linked to the Lost Tribes I recommend my post Ephraim and The Fullness of The Gentiles.

Main thing in that I don't stand by anymore is the speculation on Samaria being Mystery Babylon.  My far more recent Mystery Babylon posts including about the Kings of The East all show how Babylon can only be in Mesopotamia.  But that the Lost Tribes are Relevant to that is still possible, because The Lost Tribes went East not West.

But I want to revisit my objections to Chuck Missler and Chris White's arguments against the Lost Tribes concept.  I largely still view things about the same, but I've also noticed the issue is much more complicated.  The question is how many Tribes were actually deported?

Biblically the number Ten is applied to the tribes that make up the Northern Kingdom only when it was founded, never of the deportation itself.  1 Kings 11 tells us Jeroboam was given Ten Tribes, while Solomon's son kept one for David's sake (Judah) and one for Jerusalem's sake (Benjamin).

Which tribes were those ten?  It's a bit of a controversy since the traditional assumption is Simeon was one even though Simeon's main allotment was south of Judah.  Genesis 49 foretells Simeon and Levi both to be scattered among the other tribes, and this was fulfilled in different ways.

You may think that only leaves nine tribes, but not quite.  One factor forgotten is that Manasseh was divided into half tribes on either side of the Jordan river.  Because he was the firstborn of Joseph and so had a double portion just as Joseph himself did. In the Song of Deborah, Manasseh is treated as two tribes, Machir and Gilead.

Or maybe the key to solving this riddle is in how the land seemed to be divided under Solomon in 1 Kings 4 7-19.

The deportation was indeed not really of the entire population.  The deportation under Tiglath-Pilesser III which is recorded in 1 Chronicles 5:26, and 2 Kings 15-16, was mainly of the three Trans-Jordan tribes and Naphtali.  And then 2 Kings 17 is mainly just talking about the capital, Samaria, and surrounding areas, which was in Ephraim but not all of Ephriam.

2 Chronicles 30-31 refers to survivors still in the land in West Manasseh, Ephraim, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun and even Dan.

So returning to my basic theory that besides much of Dan the "lost tribes" went East.  Let's talk about Daniel 7 and 8.

Daniel 7 is Aramaic Daniel while 8 is Hebrew Daniel.  I've speculated before on the significance of two Empires having different Beasts represent them in different visions, noting the Levitical cleanness of the Daniel 8 beasts.  If following the deportation of the Northern Kingdom, there are nations that have both an Israelite and Gentile heritage, maybe that is a reason for the different beasts.

So perhaps in Daniel 7 the gentile focused vision, the four headed Leopard is Javan who had four sons in Genesis 10, and the Bear is Madai and the Lion is Asshur.  While in the Hebrew focused Daniel 8 the He-Goat is Dan who Ezekiel 27 tells us became linked to Javan.  And the Ram is Naphtali, I will do a post in April to explain why I feel the "Hind" used to describe Naphtali in the KJV of Genesis 49 is really a female Ram, or maybe it's the Ram references that are mistranslated.  That would make Daniel 8 about the sons of Bilhah.

The Deutercanonical Apocryphal book of Tobit revolves around a family of the Tribe of Naphtali that become prominent in Assyria and Media after the deportation.  A person mentioned briefly there is Akhair who is more prominent in other more obscure apocrypha, and also maybe the same as a character in Judith.

I did a post on The Medes, Kurds and Adiabene that is relevant here.  And I've speculated before how Iran and Iranians could come from Eran and the Eranites of Numbers 26:36.  And that Pars and Persia could come from the Hebrew name Pharez. The first part of the name of Zarathustra/Zoroaster could also come from the Hebrew name Zerah, I believe the ancient traditional date for Zarathustra placing him around 600 BC.

The Persians were not Elamites, though they probably intermingled with them some.  That confuses people partly because of Isaiah 13.  The Persian king Teispes who lived about 675-640 BC, conquered the Elamite city of Anshan.  He had two sons, a Cyrus who was the grandfather of Cyrus The Great, and Ariaramnes who was the great grandfather of Darius I.  Teispes was the son of Achaemenes, who ruled from 680-655 BC and was born around 705 BC.  Greek writers tended to merge Achaemenes with Perses the mythical son of Perseus and Andormeda, who I talk about in my Tribe of Dan post.

So, I think Achaemenes could be a Naphtalite born in Exile.  Perhaps a relative of Tobit and Akhair.

Perhaps it's also a clue that Susa/Shushan the Persian Capital's name is also the Hebrew word for Lily, Strong Number 7799.  Hosea 14:5 uses the Lily as a symbol of Ephraim/Israel in a Prophecy of their restoration.  If the people saying they went West can use the name Gomer in Hosea to link them to the Cimmerians, then I can use Shushan the same way.

Actually the problem with the Cimmerian part of the Lost Tribes became Europeans argument is that the claimed link between the Cimmerians and the Gauls doesn't hold up.  The Gallic connection to that region went in the other direction, Gauls traveled to Asia Minor well after the Old Testament era ended and became the Galatians.  This was something I myself was still confused on the last time I mentioned the Cimmerians on this blog.  The Cimmerians first show up East of Lake Urmia, from there they migrated.  And their alleged connection to Crimea is based on the unreliable Herodotus.  I think maybe Crimea is the Gomer of Japheth and Ezekiel 38-39, and the Cimmerians the Gomer of Hosea.

Can Sunday worship be the Mark of the Beast?

Seventh Day Adventists and similar groups are obsessed with this idea, tying it into The Pope being The Antichrist theories.

Obviously it departs from the plain reading of The Text of Revelation 13.  Which says it is the Number of the Name of a Man (Anthropos).

Some people will try to deny it actually is a number by saying no other time does The Bible use Gemetria, it always spells out numbers phonetically.  Problem is the Greeks texts all put a line over the Chi-Xi-Stigama which in the rules of Koine Greek tells us it's Gemetria.  The Bible does it different here because the context tells us Gemetria is what it is about.

But for Seventh Day Adventists (who I think are right that there is no NT basis for replacing The Sabbath with a different day) everything revolves around The Sabbath issue which is why they name themselves that.

First of all, Sunday worship does not actually break The Sabbath law, even if you think we are still under the Law.  The Sabbath Law can only be broken by what you do or don't do on The Sabbath.  Nothing in the Sabbath commands make it a sin to, if you're able, also rest a different day.  In modern America most people get both Saturday and Sunday off work.  So even if some global Law DEMANDING Sunday observance was made as Adventists predict, it would not stop Torah observing Christians or Jews from doing what they do on The Sabbath.

The only way it could be even remotely possible to violate The Sabbath with what you do on a different day would be maybe on Friday.  We see for example with The Manna that Israelites tended to do extra work on Friday to prepare for The Sabbath.  But on the First Day of the Week the Sabbath is over, so it's the least likely to be a day you would even be worrying about the Sabbath issue.

Meanwhile nothing in Revelation 13 can be taken as pointing to Sunday.  Nothing about the First Day of the Week, and nothing about Sun-Worship.

If you really want to twist the text of Revelation 13 to allude to a Day of the Week, the Sixth Day is what makes sense, 666 being a multiple of 6.  And I've observed reasons before to thematically link this part of Revelation 13 to Genesis 2 and Adam's creation.  And that the Gemetria of Iesous is 888 has been thematically linked to the Resurrection being on Sunday.

The Antichrist would presumably be taking titles of Christ for himself.  One of those is The Last Adam.  Gnosticism and Kabbalah have given the Last Adam concept their own special meanings.

Islam interestingly does call for weekly observance on Friday to commemorate the creation of Adam.  Because Islam has actually canonized the Apocryphal legend that God ordered The Angels to worship Adam.

Main article: Jumu'ah

The Quran acknowledges a six-part Creation period (32:4, 50:38) and the Biblical Sabbath as the seventh-day (yaum as-Sabt: 2:65, 4:47, 154, 7:163, 16:124), but Allah's mounting the throne after Creation is taken in contradistinction to Elohim's concluding and resting from his labors, and so Muslims replace Sabbath rest with jumu'ah (Arabic جمعة ). Also known as "Friday prayer", jumu'ah is a congregational prayer (salat) held every Friday (the Day of Assembly), just after midday, in place of the otherwise daily dhuhr prayer; it commemorates the creation of Adam on the sixth day, as a loving gathering of Adam's sons. The Quran states: "When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday, hasten earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business: That is best for you if ye but knew" (62:9). The next verse ("When the prayer is ended, then disperse in the land ...") leads many Muslims not to consider Friday a rest day, as in Indonesia, which regards the seventh-day Sabbath as unchanged; but many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bangladesh, do consider Friday a nonwork day, a holiday or a weekend; and other Muslim countries, likePakistan, count it as half a rest day (after the Friday prayer is over). Jumu'ah attendance is strictly incumbent upon all free adult males who are legal residents of the locality.

I remain highly skeptical of the Islamic Antichrist theory, but this is an interesting observation.

But of course a Friday reverence can be connected to Catholic and other heretical Christian beliefs via the completely unsupported by Scripture Friday Crucifixion tradition.  Perhaps the counterfeit mortal wounding and healing of the Beast will follow the Catholic model.

The fact remains, the plain reading of Revelation is that it's a name not a day of the week.

Ephraim and The Fullness of The Gentiles

First off I want to make clear that unlike the likes of Chuck Missler and Chris White, I do believe the Lost Tribes have a role to play in The End Times.

What I want to object to here is the various variations of Two House theology that are predicated on tying Genesis 48 and Ezekiel 47 into Romans 9-11.

Now I am NOT a Darby style Dispensationist, I absolutely do believe that Gentile Believers are grafted into Israel.  But I also believe in the Uniqueness of The Church, we certainly have special promises that didn't exist for Pre Cross Believers.

Now there are some among these like Rob Skiba who will make clear they don't actually think you have to be a biological descendant of Abraham to be saved.  The problem is Romans 9-11 doesn't mention this third category he's imagined of Israelites who became Gentiles, it has just the two Olive Trees and the only grafting in mind is from the Gentile Tree to the Israel Tree, no implication of a past grafting going the other way.

What people overlook in Ezekiel 37 is Ephraim and Judah also have friends who are joined to them.  They correlate to the Gentiles Grafted in in Romans 9-11, not Ephraim. Translations have a tendency to obscure this.  But it's significant that Ephraim and Judah both have companions, not just Ephraim.

We are grafted into Israel, but not into one of the original 13 Tribes.   We are a 14th Tribe.  In Ezekiel 47 we are Yahuah-Shammah.

Rob likes to declare there is no such thing as a Gentile believer, and that Gentile means "out of Covenant".  The problem is he's accepting the very thinking Paul dedicated this Epistle to refuting.  Paul calls some of the believers reading this epistle Gentiles in 11:13.

This idea of Jews using a term like Gentile or Goyim to refer to all Non Jews in a way that excludes them is something that appears in The New Testament because it developed during the Intertestimental period, but it does NOT exist in The Hebrew Bible.  The problem is translations have gone and inserted it into the Hebrew Bible.

So the Hebrew word Goyim/Goyi which means Nation/Nations often gets translated in the KJV and other English Bibles as Gentiles or Heathen.  Then people will use their Strongs and see that same word is also nations and concludes Nations=Gentiles.  The problem is it's really the other way around.  The actual Hebrew words for foreigner or alien are usually translated stranger.  And a word study of Stranger shows that being one was never a barrier to salvation or citizenship, but being one spiritually was not good.

To prove this we can start with Genesis 12 when God first makes his promise to Abraham.  In verse 2 he says "I will make of thee a Great Goyi".  In Chapter 35 verse 11 God tells Jacob.  "be fruitful and multiply; a Goyi and a company of Goyim shall be of thee".

But the clincher is Exodus 19:6, at the giving of the Covenant.  "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy goyi. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

So no, Goyim does not meant "out of Covenant".

When Jesus said he came only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, He meant the Jews.  He spoke during His ministry to those Jews who were spiritually Lost.  But John's Gospel also says at the beginning His own received Him not so the opportunity to be grafted in came to the Gentiles.

Through out The New Testament both Jesus and Paul were opposing this xenophobic attitude towards "gentiles" that had developed.  Romans 1 verses 18-32 is a rhetorical rant.  If you actually find yourself cheering on that rant, you are the problem.  Because the rest of the Epistle is dedicated to refuting everything said in that rant.  There is definitely real sinful behavior in mind there, but it's the Reprobate doctrine Baptists build on this passage that Paul is declaring wrong.

In the verse that is describing a very specific kind of male Homosexual activity.  The word translated "Against Nature" is "Para Phusis"  a technical Greek term that has it's origins in Plato's proto Gnostic Cosmology laid out in Timaus.  It is also used by Philo, a contemporary of the NT era but also slightly older (he wrote some works at least as early as 10 AD) who was a Hellenistic Jewish Philosopher greatly influenced by Plato.  Whether or not he was the first Jew to use the term we can't be sure.

This exact same phrase is what Paul uses in Romans 11 to describe Gentiles being grafted in "unatrually" into the Tree of Israel.  That is God doing something, totally rejecting the notion that doing something "unatrual" is inherently a Sin.  In fact it is the Sin nature that is natural.

So clearly everything about Paul's intent here was people who in no way Naturally descended from Jacob being grafted into Israel.  Nor are they being let in because of some mystical loop hole.  So I don't care if the corrupt Septuagint uses almost the exact same phrase translated "Fullness of The Gentiles" in Genesis 48.

Paul does use a Genesis Patriarch as a type picture of the Gentiles he is talking about, that patriarch is Esau, he quotes the same Esau reference found in Malachi with the intent of refuting how Calvanists view that verse, but regardless Calvanists still don't get it.  I don't think it's a coincidence that many Ancient traditions hint at Edom becoming Rome.  Since Skiba believes in Jasher, he should be even more certain of that then me, because of it's Zepho story.

Some might also seek to take Jesus reference to a Fruitful Nation as a reference to Ephraim meaning Fruitful. Jesus was speaking Hebrew, but Ephraim strictly mean double fruit, what Jesus would have said was likely closer to Ephrath/Ephratah  location in Judah, which Psalm 132 identifies with Zion, and New Jerusalem is the Heavenly Zion.

It's funny because Two House theology usually takes offense at using Judah/Jew and Israel as synonyms, and insist IF Israel is ever used of one Kingdom it's the North.  Except in Romans 9-11 where there Israel means Judah and the Lost Tribes are the Gentiles.

Besides Dan I fully reject the theories of the Lost Tribes going West.  The Biblical clues all take them East,(Follow Up Post).  And many wonder where in Revelation is the return of the Lost Tribes because their bias is to look West.  I see it quite clearly in Chapter 16 after the pouring out of the Sixth Bowl, the Kings of The East (and some from all four corners because today everyone is scattered somewhat) are gathered together at the Hill of Megiddo, a Northern Kingdom territory.

I believe the temporary partial spiritual blindness Israel is under includes the Lost Tribes, it's not just Judah.

Let's compare the two Asian nations where it is currently the most Legal to be a Christian, and thus easiest to document and observe The Gospel's success there.  My studies of the history and DNA evidence lead me to conclude South Korea probably has little if any Lost Tribes ancestry, and mainly descends from Javan.  But Japan I think had a very strong case for being a Lost Tribe.

In South Korea 30% of the Population is Christian, most of them some form of "Protestant", their capital has 11 of the world's 12 largest Christian Congregations and they're second only to America in sending out missionaries.

Japan is only about 1% Christian and most of those are Catholic.  But none the less looking at the minority of the minority can be fascinating just as it is to look at the Messianic communities in Judah.  Japan has a Non-Church Movement that is like the House Church movement but goes back to the 1800s predating the current American House Church movement.  And a spin off of that is the Makuya movement, which is essentially a Japanese Hebrew Roots movement of sorts.  Japan also has 3 Mormon Temples while the more Christianity friendly South Korea has only 1.  Which I make note of simply because Mormonism also has an Israelite Identity emphasis in it's theology.

So Japan like Israel has a spiritual blindness but also a remnant.  The DNA evidence for the Japan theory overlaps with argument for Tibet and Burma, Y Chromosome Haplogroup D.

And then I also see Lost Tribes descendants in the Kurds and possibly many other populations of Iran.  The Kurds are most Sunni Muslin when Iran is mostly Shia Muslim.

The Great City, can there be only one?

In my study where I refuted Chris White's Mystery Babylon theory, I didn't go in depth on the fact that Jerusalem and Babylon are both called the "Great City".  I just repeated what Chuck Missler likes to say about "The Bible being a tale of two cities" and left it at that.

That is the main weakness of that study, that the main direct technical argument I just sort of brushed off.  So today I want to get into that more.  Then I will go back and edit that older post to include a link to this one.

In the Greek this term is "Megale Polis".  This phrase isn't used in any other books of The Bible, only Revelation.  But it's general Greek usage does not at all suggest it is a term that can apply to only one single city.  In fact in Greece there were 40 places called "Megale Polis".  The only time it's used in a sense of being unique to only one city was the city that was actually named that, (Megalopolis, founded in 371 BC) rather then it being only a title of a city.  And I don't think anyone thinks Revelation is talking about Megalopolis.

In Chapter 11 the term is used of current terrestrial Jerusalem, and in 21 is used for New Jerusalem.  In Chapters 14, 17 and 18 it is indisputably used of Babylon.

Proof that the book intends to apply that term to more then one city is in chapter 16 starting in verse 17, when the Seventh Bowl of God's Wrath is poured out.

And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.  And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.

 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.  

 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.  And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.

The middle Paragraph above is verse 19.  It makes little grammatical and no narrative sense for the Great City and Babylon to be the same city in that context.  The Great City was just judged, and now after that is done God is turning his attention to Babylon, setting the stage for the next two chapters.

People who play fast and lose with the Chronology of Revelation may try to argue that chapters 17 and 18 are merely describing in more detail what happened in 16:19.  Besides that simply not fitting the grammar of what the text says, Revelation 18 foretells Babylon ceasing to be a City at all, that land to never be inhabited again.  Not at all the same thing as being divided into three parts, but rather mutually exclusive.

I think the Great City being divided into three parts is Jerusalem, it fits Jerusalem's history perfectly.

I'd bet that there are Historicists saying this was fulfilled already by modern Jerusalem's division into "Quarters" because calling them "quarters" is silly when the Armenian quarter is so small and the Armenians are Christians.  What it was was a dividing of Jerusalem between the 3 major Religions that consider it sacred.  But that would not be a truly literal fulfillment of the prophecy, Revelation is talking about a physical division, not man made borders.

The Seventh Bowl Earthquake is ultimately a World Wide event, but it's relevance to Jerusalem I think corresponds to Zechariah 14:4.  As that Earthquake like this one follows the reference to Armageddon.

The River that will flow from Ezekiel's Temple will at some point split into two rivers, one emptying into the Mediterranean and the other into the Dead Sea.  It could be the same cracks in the Earth that divide Jerusalem in three are also what causes the River to become two rivers.

Thus Revelation 16:19 is proof that Mystery Babylon is NOT Jerusalem. More evidence against Babylon being anything but a City in Mesopotamia can be found Here and Here.

A Problem with some Preterist views of Matthew 24

This argument won't effect the standard more well known 70 AD preterism, I've dealt with that elsewhere.  At least not as obviously relevant anyway, depends on how you define "yet".

I have seen people argue that everything Jesus talked about in Matthew 24 was fulfilled only three and a half or seven years after the Crucifixion.

I can sympathize with aspects of that view, I am now convinced the 70th Week of Daniel was fulfilled from 30-37 AD.  But what Matthew 24 describes is clearly End Times and clearly has not yet already happened.

Now to the point of this post.

I want to remind people what Jesus said in verse 6, during what I and Chuck Missler like to call the non signs.

"see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."

That is why I disagree with trying to use these things as End Times signs at all.

But there was no point in Jesus saying that if the end He meant was going to happen in only a few years.

There is no point in telling people not to consider something a sign the end is near, if the end is already near when you're talking to them.

This Generation shall not pass

From Matthew 24 is one of the most debated details of Bible Prophecy.

The Preterist view is the most obviously wrong, in saying Jesus must have meant the people currently listening to him, they ignore the entire context in which that quote is made.

What I want to discus here is the disagreement among Futurists about whether or not it's valid to see this statement as being about modern Israel.

Throughout history Christians have wanted to believe they are living in the last generation.  Those of us living post 1948 feel the main thing that makes our belief the End Times will happen soon more legit is that for most of that history the lack of a nation of Israel in the Holy Land forced Bible Prophecy believers to allegorize everything to make it fit their own time.  The Temple is clearly in view in Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 11.

But none of that makes Israel's founding in 1948 a specific fulfillment of Prophecy.  And I agree with the critics of Dispensationalism and Zionisism that the major Bible Prophecies we keep trying to make sound like they're about 1948 are clearly in their Biblical Context about Israelites returning in Belief, and from a Christian POV modern Israel is still in Unbeleif.  Those Prophecies are really mainly about either stuff that happens after Armageddon and/or during the Millennium, or the descent of New Jerusalem.

As for Matthew 24, the debate is if the "This Generation" just refers to the ones who see the Signs Jesus had been describing?  That seems like the plainest reading, but the Mystery is the Parable of The Fig Tree bares investigating.  Matthew 24:32-34

"Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Why see the blossoming of this Fig Tree as about Israel?

First there was a curious incident involving a real live Fig Tree earlier in Chapter 21 after Jesus first arrived in Jerusalem for this Passover season.   In which Jesus curses a Fig Tree to never bear fruit again, and then it withers and dies.  At face value this story interprets itself as being just a demonstration of the power of Faith.  But why demonstrate it in such an odd way?  Why not demonstrate it by giving life rather then taking it?

Commentators of Mathew's Gospel like Chuck Missler like to view Matthew 13 as when Israel's leadership rejects Jesus as Messiah.  If the Fig Tree is in some way a symbol of Israel, Jesus unstated intent may have been for his disciples to realize it's up to them to use the power of their Faith to restore life the Fig Tree that Jesus just withered.

Is there a basis in the Hebrew Scriptures for using the Fig Tree symbolically in such a way?

The first reference in The Bible to a fig trees is in Deuteronomy, that passage like many others is just listing them among various trees.

Judges 9:10-11 uses the Fig Tree as a symbol of Gideon, symbols of national leaders often becomes symbols of the nation.

1 Kings 4:25 describes the nation's peace and prosperity by saying "And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon."  The Fig Tree is affiliated with Israel's prosperity.  2 Kings 18:41 repeats this imagery in the days of Hezekiah, the same situation is again repeated in Isaiah 36-39.  And it's used again in Jeremiah 5:17.  Later Jeremiah 8:13 says "I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them."

So all this together makes a re-blooming of a Fig Tree a good symbol for Israel's restoration.

Now to show this interpretation is not purely the result of Darby and other Nineteenth Century Dispensationalists.  The apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter which was probably written in the Second Century and was considered canon by many early Christians.  Clearly states the Olive Tree is Israel.  That writer's agenda in that identification may have been different from anyone today.  But the point is it existed.

You might object "Even so, it's about Spiritual restoration not nationally in unbelief".  That is true, but the two are linked.  Israel's Spiritual Blindness discussed in Romans 9-11 did not fully overtake them over night.  It was there from the Birth of The Church, but still the Early Church was mostly Jewish when it started, and in the region remained predominately Jewish until well after the Bar-Kochba revolt.

After Suileman began rebuilding the Wall of Jerusalem from 1534-1541, Zionisim was born in 1561 thanks to Joseph Nasi.  And not long after in the wake of the Reformation, especially in the English Speaking world, Christian Zionism is born thanks to men like Thomas Brightman.

Likewise since 1948 Messianic Jews have gown in number greatly.  I'm a Dispensationalsit sort of but not a strict one like Pre-Tribers are.

However I will say the fact that it's first and foremost Spiritual means it may be an error to link it to some easily definable Geo-Political calendar date like 1948, or retaking Jerusalem in 1967, or even the yet Future rebuilding of The Temple.  It may be referring to the Spiritual Blindness being significantly lifted when the Abomination of Desolation happens. In which case a maximum number for a Generation is not needed.

But I refute the usual argument against Date-Setting here.

What number should be a Biblical Generation?

Hal Lindsay popularized 40 based on the wondering in The Wilderness.  F. Kenton Beshore has suggested 70-80 based on Psalm 90:10.  We could also use 120 based on Genesis 6, as well as that being about roughly the Maximum people can live to today, and it's how long Moses lived, and about the length of the combined reigns of Saul, David and Solomon.  But both Moses siblings were older then him and died earlier the same year.  And Jehoiada lived to 130.

There are also dates older then 1948 one could choose if they wanted to.  1897 is considered the Birth of the modern Zionist movement.  120 years from that is 2017, 2017 is popular in some currently trendy Speculation based on a flawed understanding of Revelation 12 which I've addressed before and am highly skeptical of.

1904 was an important year for reasons having to do with William Hechler's efforts and that being the beginning of a major wave of Jewish immigration to the region.  120 years from that is 2024.

In 1909 the city of Tel-Aviv the secular Capital of Modern Israel (or at-least the city the international community recognizes as it's capital) was founded by the ruins of Jaffa the ancient port city of Dan.  120 years from that is 2029.

The Balfour Declaration was in 1917, 120 years from then would be 2037.

1933 was the controversial transfer agreement, 120 years from that would be 2053.

1948+40 was 1988 which notoriously didn't happen. The 70-80 theory gives about 2018-2028 which lines up interestingly with some earlier numbers.  120 years from 1948 would be 2068.

1967 Israel recaptures Jerusalem, the Jewish construction in the Old City was officially allowed around Passover of 1969.  Adding 40 years was 2007-2009 which was nothing.  Adding 70-80 gets 2037/9-2047/9.  Adding 120 years gets 2087-2089.

So it'll be interesting to see how those possible dates line up with other speculative calculations.

I think Jesus was born about December 25 and conceived about March 25

Or very near there at least.  The possibly that Jesus Circumcision was on the 25th is something I've been considering.

I held to the September 11th 3 BC theory for a long time, including in my last Christmas related post on this blog I made fairly recently.  My basic point of that post I still stand by, that there is nothing wrong with celebrating Jesus Birth on the wrong day.  And I'll say the same for those who even after reading my argument still here feel compelled to celebrate it during the Fall Feasts.

I still support the 3-2 BC range for the year of his Birth.  Africanus specifies the date in terms that can be understood as 3/2 BC. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian assign Jesus' birth to the forty-first year of Augustus. If this date presumes that the reign of Augustus began when he was elevated to consulship in August 43 BC, the year intended is 2 BC. Tertullian conveniently confirms this conclusion by adding that Christ's birth was 28 years after the death of Cleopatra and fifteen years before the death of Augustus. Cleopatra died in August 30 BC, and Augustus died in August AD 14. Konradin Ferrari d'Occhieppo has demonstrated that the date which Clement of Alexandria furnishes for the birth of Jesus is equivalent to 6 January 2 BC.

Nothing in Matthew 2 actually says the Star was seen by the Magi the day he was born.  Which means I can still support the same basic view I have before on the Star of Bethlehem, as well as viewing the visit of the Magi as being in December of of 2 BC.  There were three Jupiter-Regulus Conjunctions, I don't think they'd have fully understood their significance till all three happened.  Herod rounded up to two years because he wanted to make absolutely sure.

Likewise I still stand by my prior posts on the Census of Luke 2.  Josephus' reference we commonly cite and that I did there (Antiquities, XVII, 41-45 ),  however is probably not a specific Oath but to this sect in general rejecting Rome.

First I want to express my objection to him being born on either Passover or Tabernacles.  There is no way Rome would have enforced a Census requiring presence in their hometown in Judea on a day their religion demanded most people to pilgrimage to Jerusalem.  I feel this makes Trumpets and Tom Kippur unlikely too, that's still to close to the pilgrimage day.

Shepherds in Winter

The Biblical Argument against a winter birth for Jesus is a claim that Shepherds would not have had their flocks outdoors in winter.  These people are forgetting that Israel does not have the climate of Northern Europe or America.  The Weather can indeed be very bad in Winter there sometimes but not always, plenty of areas around the same latitude like the Southern US often have nice weather at this time.  I live in one of the Coldest part of the US, Wisconsin, and sometimes we don't get Snow till after Christmas has passed.

Genesis 31:38-40: "This twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock have I not eaten.  That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night.  That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night. Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes. "

Jacob was at this time much further north then Bethlehem, yet he was engaged in Shepherding during the winter.  So using the no shepherds in winter argument calls Scripture a liar.  Research into Migdal Eder mentioned in Genesis 35:21 is what is more directly relevant to Bethlehem.

James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:

The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.

Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months (James Kelso, An Archaeologist Looks At The Gospels, p. 23-24).

 Also there is Canon H.B Tristram

“A little knoll of olive trees surrounding a group of ruins marks the traditional site of the angels’ appearance to the shepherds, Migdol Eder, ‘the tower of the flock’. But the place where the first ‘Gloria in excelsis’ was sung was probably further east, where the bare hills of the wilderness begin, and a large tract is claimed by the Bethlehemites as a common pasturage. Here the sheep would be too far off to be led into the town at night; and exposed to the attacks of wild beasts from the eastern ravines, where the wolf and the jackal still prowl, and where of old the yet more formidable lion and bear had their covert, they needed the shepherds’ watchful care during the winter and spring months, when alone pasturage is to be found on these bleak uplands“. Picturesque Palestine Vol 1 page 124 

 Also note this excerpt from Messianic Jewish Scholars Alfred Edersheim:

“That the Messiah was born in Bethlehem was a settled conviction. Equally so, was the belief that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder , the tower of the flock.

This Migdal Eder, was not the watch tower for ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah leads to the conclusion that the flocks which pastured there were destined for Temple Sacrifices, and accordingly that the Shepherds who watched over them were, no ordinary Shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism on the account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life, which rendered strict legal observances unlikely, if not absolutely impossible.

The same Mishnic also leads us to infer, that these flocks lay out all year round , since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days before Passover- that is, in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest. Thus Jewish traditions in some dim manner apprehended the first revelation of the Messiah from Migdal Eder, where Shepherds watched the Temple flocks all year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a coincidence, it is needless to speak -The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah By Alfred Edersheim

I've also seen it claimed by Chuck Missler and others that Israel is "impassable" during winter, and Mary and Joseph couldn't have traveled south at this time.  But John 10:21-22 tells us Jesus traveled to Jerusalem to keep the feast of the Dedication/Hannukah.  Indeed I take from this passage that Hanukkah while not one of the required pilgrimage days became an unofficial additional one, since it was intimately about Jerusalem and The Temple.

The course of Abijah

Those arguing for Jesus being born in Tishri will claim the documentation places the course of Abijah operating in the Summer, around June/July.  However the agreement on this is far from universal.

Josef Heinrich Friedlieb’s Leben J. Christi des Erlösers. Münster, 1887, p. 312.  Strongly argues that Joarib was the course operating when the Temple was destroyed on the 9th of Av.  This would place the course of Abijah about the second week of Tishri, which happens to be when Yom Kippur happens.  The Dead Sea Scrolls seem to back up this chronology.

The apocryphal Infancy Gospel of James, is clearly not inspired, but it's an early witness being from the first half of the second century.  It promotes Zacharias to being The High Priest which is clearly wrong.  But the key thing is it says Yom Kippur is when Gabriel appeared to him.  John Crysostom also refers to Zachariahs being in The Temple during Tishri.

John The Baptist was conceived pretty much immediately after the course ended, which would place it possibly during Tabernacles or just before it, (in 3 BC the 15th of Tishri tell on September 25th, since it is well known September 11th that year was the First of Tishri).  Six months latter is when Jesus was conceived, which would be during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Nine months after that would be December or January.

John being convinced on Tabernacles or the Eve of it, and the Visitation happening during Passover/Unleavened Bread, could likely place John's birth on the 17th of Tammuz, which is an interesting date.  That agrees with the traditional date for his birth on our calendar being June 24th or 25th.

Early Church References

It is frequently claimed that it was a long time before Christians starting celebrating the Birth of Christ at all.  The very Early Christians indeed didn't have the time (dealing with persecution) to create new celebrations.  But there is evidence of a winter date for Christ's birth showing up fairly early.

Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 AD), who was a student of Ireaneus, who was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John, to whom Jesus entrusted the care of his Mother.  Placed the Birth of Jesus on December 25th, and the Crucifixion on March 25th.  He was off by one on the year on the Crucifixion placing it in 29 AD.

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [December 25th], the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Augustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty third year, 8 days before the kalends of April [March 25th], the Day of Preparation, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar [29 or 30 AD], while Rufus and Roubellion and Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus were Consuls.

From his Daniel commentary, he also spoke elsewhere on believing Jesus Conception and Death were the same day.  Clement of Alexandria, Jullius Africanus and Theophilus of Caesarea are also cited as early sources for these dates.  The Constitutions of the Apostles dated to 250 AD also refers to December 25th.

Irenaeus (130-202 AD) and Julius Sextus Africanus (160-240 AD) in his work Adversus Haereses, both gave March 25th as the day of Jesus Conception.

The Early Church belief in a winter birth seems to be related to a belief that Jesus was conceived about the same day of the Hebrew year as his Death or Resurrection.  The Western/Latin Church favored December 25th for Christmas and March 25th exactly 270 days earlier for the conception.  Whether they placed the Crucifixion or Resurrection on March 25th varies.  The Eastern/Greek church favored January 6th for Christmas and April 6 for the Crucifixion/Conception.  My argument for a 30 AD Crucifixion agrees with April 6th.

First Fruits did fall on March 25th in 37 AD, it seems some early Christians in Egypt got confused and gave 37 AD as the Crucifixion year.  Might be because that's when the 70 Weeks would have ended without a gap.

You may be thinking, "Wouldn't Mary have been in Jerusalem rather then Nazareth if the annunciation was during Passover/Unleavened bread?"  It's actually only males at least 12 years old the Law required to be in Jerusalem for the three pilgrimage Holy Days.  Now often husbands brought their wives and children with but that wasn't obligated,  Elizabeth may have stayed behind due to being six months pregnant.  Mary wasn't married yet, only betrothed.  The Bride is traditionally supposed to be separated from the groom during betrothal.  And I have reasons to think Mary was perhaps older then we assume and was at this time a single woman not in her father's house.  The men of the story are all absent during the Annunciation and Visitation narrative.

Cyril of Jerusalem in the late 4th century requested the date of Jesus birth be determined from the Census documents which apparently still existed in Rome.  He said they verified it to be December 25th.  Now that's late enough we should take it with a grain of salt, but it's there.

One of the first Protestants to oppose the 25th of December Christmas was Isaac Newton, who was a good scientist but also a Neo-Pagan and Alchemist.. Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Volume 1 (London: J. Darby, T. Browne & All, 1733), 144-65.

As far as the death and conception correlation goes.  Genesis 4 seems to hint at Seth being conceived very shortly after Abel died.  Abel is considered a type of Christ.

Leviticus 23

Lots of people in the Hebrew Roots movement and other Messianic fellowships that don't deny Grace, have an insistence that Jesus must have been born on one of the Appointed Times of Leviticus 23.

If Jesus birth was meant to be a fulfillment of one of those like his Death was Luke or Matthew would have made that clear, we wouldn't have to deduce it from elsewhere.  The fulfillment of the Fall Feast days lies in the middle of the 70th Week of Daniel.

As far as Revelation 12 goes.  There is a symbolic summery of history there but those signs being seen in Heaven is part of the events of the Seventh Trumpet, the chapter divisions weren't in the original text.  I deal with that here.

My main argument against Jesus being born on any of the Leviticus 23 Holy Days is it's absurd to think Rome would not have enforced a Census in Judea requiring people to be in different scattered towns close to any of the days where there local religion required people to be in Jerusalem.

Mary and Joseph happened to have been headed closer to Jerusalem then they were before so we don't think of that implication a lot.  But other people would have been just the opposite (there could hypothetically have been people living in Bethlehem who were required by this to go to Galilee). Jerusalem itself had lots of citizens who's family origin wasn't in it.  So you'd have people who usually didn't have to worry about the Pilgrimage requirement at all suddenly having that matter over complicated.

Now you can argue that Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are not pilgrimage days themselves.  In fact I've seen Rob Skiba use Sukkot's pilgrimage day status against it arguing in favor of Yom Teruah.  But those two days are still way to close.  One is 5 days before and the other is 14 days before.  And Sukkot required being in Jerusalem an entire week.  My family has even with modern conveniences making travel a lot easier never gone on a week long trip without beginning the preparations more then three weeks in advance.

The time around the Winter Solstice was about as far away from the pilgrimage days as you can get.  And the date I've come to favor puts it like a month after Hanukkah and over a month away from Purim, so the Census would need not disrupt those less important Holy Days either.

Attempting to determine which year

Using Stellarium, it seems the 14th of Nisan of 3 BC could likely have fallen on April 1st.

However in 2 BC Passover and March lined up almost exactly the same as they did in 37 AD, with a discrepancy of less then 24 hours.  Maybe that is also a factor in the confusion.

And it was December 25th of 2 BC that Jupiter stopped in the night sky in exactly the right conditions to match Matthew 2.  I've seen an argument against the usual view that the Magi must have arrived a significant amount of time latter.

They have decent responses to most of the usual arguments, about the Greek word translated  "young Child" (Luke 2:17 uses the same term for a an infant Jesus) and moving to a house (Joseph could very well have done that the next day).  And insist the tone of Matthew 2:1 is clearly that they arrived in Jerusalem when Jesus was born.

We should consider the possibility that both the flight into Egypt and return (and in-between Herod's Death) happened before the presentation in The Temple.  May was supposed to be set aside for her Purification, Joseph could have found a way to do this even with them doing some traveling.  And it could explain why Mary is not a very active part of the story in Matthew 2, as she is in Matthew 1 and everything in Luke that's largely her POV.  Some have suggested January 28th 1 BC as the Day Herod died.  The presentation in The Temple would be about February 2.

Matthew 2:1 "now when Jesus was born", implies that the one event speedily followed the other. Directly after the presentation, Jesus went with His parents to Nazareth (Luke 2), therefore the presentation must have been preceded by their visit.  At the coming of the Magi, Herod first heard of the birth of Jesus, but if the presentation at the Temple had previously taken place, he must have heard of it, as it had been made public by Anna (Luke 2:38).

I feel placing the specific Oath of Allegiance 15-12 months before Herod's death may be flawed.  When Moses of Khorone refers to the same Oath, we learn it came with Imperial Idols.  Josephus in Antiquities 17.6 refers to a Golden Eagle Herod had erected that was torn down by upset Jews possibly very close to his death, when he was already ill.  If the tearing down of the Eagle happened immediately after it was set up (which I find highly likely), then it's interesting that this seems to have been fairly close to when Herod died..

The major problem for a 2 BC date is the length of Jesus ministry, which begins after he turns 30.  The notion that it's 3 or 3.5 years I refute in my 30 AD study, it's confusion based on not realizing John isn't chronological.  But it does seem to be nearly a whole year.  And we know from John 7-10 that a Tabernacles and Hanukkah happened during it.  And Jesus being born December 25th of 2 BC had Jesus turn 30 around December of 29/30 BC.

However maybe Luke 3 isn't saying what we assume.  I've often been curious about how it seems exact (saying began) and vague (saying about) at the same time.  Given the way Ancient Hebrews didn't even do Birthdays how we do, what if it really means the beginning of the year in which he turned 30?  Which would be Nisan of 29 AD if he was born around December 25th of 2 BC.  That could work quite well.

It was at Jesus Baptism that John proclaimed him "The Lamb of God who takes away the Sins of the World".  So it'd be fitting if this was around the Passover season the year before the ultimate Passover.  And maybe Jesus 40 days in the wilderness correlates a year in advance to the 40 days from the Resurrection to the Ascension.

Or another alternative is it could have meant the beginning of his 30th year.  Which would be when he turned 29.

If Jesus was 30 when he died in 30 AD, then He was Crowned with the Crown of Thrones the same age David was crowned in Hebron.  David had a second coronation 7 years latter, Jesus will have a second one too. Possibly 2007 years latter, but I'm not certain on that.

(Update: I've come to think it maybe more likely December 25th or after is when the Magi vistied Jesus, but they arrived in Jerusalem before.  The 25th of Tevet would have been the 23rd of 24th of December that year.)

Passover Conception 

What makes this model fascinating to me is the possibly of Jesus being Conceived on Passover or First Fruits, why?  Because of an insight made by Zola Levitt, about a possible correlation between the Gestation process and the High Holy Days of Leviticus 23.  One of the briefer websites describing it.

After the end of woman’s monthly cycle, the new cycle begins. On the fourteenth day of that first month, the egg appears. This matches Passover, which is the fourteenth day of the first month of God’s calendar. (Leviticus 23:5)

The egg must be fertilized within twenty-four hours, or it cannot be fertilized at all and will pass through her body. Twenty-four hours after Passover is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which falls on the fifteenth day of the first month. (Leviticus 23:6)

If the egg does become fertilized, it attaches to the mother’s uterus within 2 – 6 days. This corresponds to the Feast of Firstfruits, which falls anywhere from 2 – 6 days after Passover. Passover and Unleavened Bread can fall on any day of the week, and then Firstfruits is the Sunday after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is why the timing is a flexible date. (Leviticus 23:11)

After another fifty days, the embryo begins to look like a human. You can clearly see the head with eyes, the arms with hands and fingers, and the legs with feet and toes. The fiftieth day after Firstfruits is Pentecost (which is the Greek word for fifty). (Leviticus 23:15-16) 

By the beginning of the seventh month, the baby’s hearing is developed. The first day of the seventh month of God’s calendar is the Feast of Trumpets, sometimes called the Day of Shouting. (Leviticus 23:24) It is the day in God’s calendar that includes a sound to alert his people of the last call to come out of false worship and sin, referred to as Babylon.

By the tenth day of the seventh month, the baby’s bone marrow is starting to produce red blood cells. The tenth day of the seventh month of God’s calendar is the Day of Atonement, the most holy day on the calendar. (Leviticus 23:27) This was the only day that the priest would take the blood sacrifice into the Holy Place of the Sanctuary, to place the blood on the mercy seat to obtain forgiveness of all confessed sins. We are told in Hebrews 9:22, that “Without shedding of blood, there is no remission.”

By the middle of the seventh month, the baby’s lungs have fully developed. This corresponds to the Feast of Tabernacles on the fifteenth of the seventh month (Leviticus 23:34), which is a day of celebrating our reunion with our spiritual Father and his Son. The Greek word for “spirit” is “pneuma” which relates to the lungs (as in the English word pneumonia).

The human gestation cycle is 280 days. Nine months of 30 days each is 270 days, so on the tenth day after the ninth month, the baby is born. Nine months and ten days after the Feast of Unleavened Bread is the Feast of Hanukkah, also called the Feast of Dedication in John 10:22. This festival lasts for eight days. The eighth day after birth is the day God commanded circumcision (Genesis 17:12).

The one thing wrong here is the Hanukkah tie in fudged the numbers a bit. Though maybe not as much as I at first thought.  This makes all the Leviticus 23 Holy Days potentially significant to the Nativity of Jesus.

The Birth of someone conceived around Passover is likely to be in Tevet (The Tenth Month), and December 25th can fall in Tevet almost as often as it can in Kislev.  If Jesus was born on the Fast of the Tenth Month, that'd be pretty interesting considering Zachariah 8:19.  Messianic Scholar Alfred Edersheim has suggested a theory that the 9th of Tevet was affiliated with Christmas by early Medieval Jewish tradition.

for this section: There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date. The objections generally made rest on grounds which seem to me historically untenable. …but a curious piece of evidence comes to us from a Jewish source. In the addition to the Megilloth Taanith, the 9th Tebbeth is marked as a fast day, and it is added that the reason for this is not stated. Now, Jewish chronologist have fixed on that day as that of Christ’s birth and it is remarkable that, between the years 500 and 816 A.D. the 25th of December fell no less than twelve times on the 9th of Tebbeth. If the 9th Tebbeth, or 25th December, was regarded as the birthday of Christ, we can understand the concealment about it. — The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah By Alfred Edersheim

Here is a Jewish website on Tevet (Update: that Link isn't working now and I don't know how to find the same information again), which may give insight into significance to The Messiah being around the 24th or 25th of Tevet.  But of course I don't want to build doctrine on Rabbinic sources.

According to Esther 2:16 the Tenth month is when Esther was made Queen.  But we're not told when in the month exactly.  Since the same books gives further significance to the time I place the Resurrection and thus now possibly Conception of Jesus (the 17th of Nisan) it is interesting.

It seems the 25th of Tevet was the day Alexander The Great met with the High Priest in Talmudic sources.  But Josephus disagrees with the Talmud on many details here, and he doesn't imply a date directly.  However he places Alexander coming to Jerusalem after he takes Tyre and and Gaza but before he went went to Egypt.  That wouldn't fit well with placing this event in Tevet(December-January) since Alexander was Crowned Pharaoh of Egypt November 14th.

Other inaccuracies in the Talmud account include who was High Priest at that time, and a claim Alexander let the Jews punish the Samaritans, the Samaritan got the same positive treatment from Alexander the Jews did.

Could be a reason for the confusion is the Rabbis wanted a reason for a holiday they'd forgotten the origin for.  Or perhaps confusing the history of Alexander with something else Simon the Just did.

Many people discussing the Magi arriving in Jerusalem or Bethlehem on the 25th of December 2 BC think that was at the end of Kislev (during Hanukkah).  But since I've decided Passover must have been around the 22nd of March 2 BC the 25th of December that year must have been near the end of Tevet.  1 BC probably had a second Adar.  Remember Judaism hadn't entirely settled on it's current leap year system yet so that could explain by some scholars are confused.

It should be noted that around the 22nd of Tevet is generally when the Moon is under Virgo's feet during it's Tevet cycle.  In 2 BC it was under the feet of Virgo on the 19th of December, 7 days before a Solar Eclipse on the 26th of December and 29th of Tevet.  The day after that was a New Moon (beginning of a Hebrew Month) and the 14 days later was the Full Moon/Lunar Eclipse described by Josephus as proceeding the death of Herod.  It could be Jesus was born on the 22nd and Circumcised on the 29th.

If Jesus was born around the 22-25th of Tevet he could have been presented in The Temple on the 2nd of Adar, the same day the Second Temple was originally completed.

Some out there like to believe Jesus was born on the 25th of Kislev and Circumscribed on last day of Hanukkah.  That model doesn't fit well with a Passover Conception unless he was slightly premature.  But if someone wants to try arguing for Jesus being convinced on Purim, that could be interesting.

It could be the Rabbis were observing them a month off from the accurate dates the year in question.  And that the Jews were observing Hanukkah during what was Biblically Tevet.  I should note that the theory Herod died on the 2nd of Shevat of 1 BC based on conjectures of the Scholion of Megillat Ta'anit, place the 25th of December 2 BC during Hanukkah rather then Tevet.  The January 10th Lunar Eclipse would have been the 14th of Shevat in my preferred model.

I will do a separate post on the Paganism of Secular Christmas, which I'm not at all trying to justify.

I will say here as one key thing

The Sun, Moon and stars move the way they do because God designed them to.  The Bible says the Sun, Moon and stars are for discerning times and seasons.

Malachi 4:2 calls Jesus "the Sun of righteousness".

So maybe when the Sun appears to move in a way that could be interpreted as it being "reborn", is exactly the time God intended The Sun of Righteousness to be born.  Likewise when Jess was crucified on April 6th 30 AD the Sun was in Aries The Ram (see Genesis 22).

That Pagans saw significance in those same movements doesn't mean they weren't part of God's design.