Soul Sleep and Premillennialism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revelation isn't Gnostic

The YouTuber TIK has recently done a video on Gnosticism.  TIK is a frustrating YouTuber, he says some things I agree with and has provided me with lots of useful information, I like that he acknowledges the differences between Fascism and Nazism.  But he is also clearly a weird type of Classical Liberal and that renders incomprehensible his understanding of what Socialism is.  

In this case he's correct that certain Nazis had ideas related to Ancient Gnosticism, but Hitler himself didn't take that stuff seriously and even found Himmler's obsessions kind of annoying.  And I agree that Gnostic or at least Platonist ideas have become a part of Mainstream Christianity, but I wouldn't frame how that happened in such Conspiratorial terms.

The idea that Revelation specifically is a Gnostic text, especially the way TIK is defining Gnosticism, is absurd.  There is no conventional conception of the Afterlife in Revelation, the Utopia we are looking forward to is this world perfected, and it anticipates a literal Bodily Resurrection of The Dead.

The truth is many Gnostics, especially Marcionites, eventually become hostile to Revelation.  You see once you fall for a Marcionite rejection of the Old Testament you will eventually realize that, in terms how we often use the term colloquially, Revelation is more Old Testament then the Old Testament.  For a contemporary example of that see the Good God YouTube channel.

It is true that some rejectors of Revelation propose that it was written by Cerinthus or someone with similar ideas and that Cerinthus is sometimes labeled a Gnostic by websites like Wikipedia  However the main Gnostic like belief associated with Cerinthus is believing the material world was created by a lesser Angel not the Supreme God and that that lesser Angel was the YWHW who gave The Torah.  But he didn't believe that Creator was Evil and thus didn't view the physical world as evil and was in fact the exact opposite of Marcion in his view of the Old Testament, he actually felt Christians should continue keeping The Torah.  Now I don't believe Revelation agrees with Cerinthian theology either, but the point is most Anti-Revelation people see it as having the opposite problem to Gnosticism.

There is a Podcast on YouTube of some modern Gnostics talking about Revelation with a title that may imply they're going to argue it is Gnostic, but in fact they agree on everything I just explained about how materialist and Anti-Gnostic it is, though will try to from their POV find positive traits within it.

TIK uses Augustine as one of his sources talking about Augustine as a former Gnostic.  But the thing is Augustine was a former Gnostic who brought Gnostic baggage with him, He was a Gnostic first because he was uncomfortable with the Old Testament's depiction of an Emotional Changeable God, he didn't leave Gnosticism for the mainstream Church because he rejected that hostility but because Ambrose convinced him all that stuff could be allegorized away.  Augustine's hostility towards Revelation, or at least to interpreting Revelation literally/Premillennially was a product of how still Gnostic he was.  Augustine openly defended taking ideas from Plato, Gnosticism is really just Hyper Platonism.

TIK goes on to claim that the "Dialectical Materialism" of Marxists and other Leftists isn't real Materialism because they use terms that sound weird to him.  I also feel that Leftist Dialectal Materialism should separate itself from Hegelian terms, but everything that sounds Mystical or whatever in Hegel is an allegory, it's still meant to be Materialist.

Another part of the problem is how Immanuel Kant kind of changed what it means to be an "Idealist" because for him the Ideas came from the Mind.  Kantian Idealism would have been considered at least Semi-Materialist in the Ancient Greek world because they considered part of the material world even Supernatural things like Spirits and lower case g gods.  And that goes even more so for how Kantianism evolved in different directions under Schopenhauer and Hegel.

But also Marx is someone who changed over the source of his life, some of his very early stuff was Hegelian before Marxism was actually a thing, but many have argued he was effectively Anti-Hegelian by the end.

No Premillennialists do not believe the Great Commission will fail.

As InspiringPhilosophy claimed in his latest End Times Video.

His understanding of the Great Commission is based on the bad "Make disciples of all nations" reading of the last two verses of Matthew 28, but that is not supported by the KJV or the Young's Literal Translation where it says to teach all nations (the Peshitta also supports this reading).

I believe The Great Commission has already succeeded because I don't view it as requiring the entire earth to become Christian, there are Christians in every country now, The Bible can be read in pretty much every Language.  The Gospel has indeed been published in all the world.

While IP is different from Victorious Eschatology, once again he repeats the trope that Partial Preterism is a more "Positive" view then Futurism.  And again I believe in Universal Salvation, if you do not then you can't claim your eschatology is more optimistic then mine.

"The Night is Darkest just before The Dawn" that's a quote from the last episode of the Canadian English Dub of Futari wa Pretty Cure season 1.  Bad things happening before the end does not make our view inherently nihilistic.  

That said I'm far from a standard Pre-Mil Futurist and have not made up my mind actually how much of the traditional view of The Beast I still hold to, there is plenty of room within Pre-Mil and Futurism to debate just how bad things will get.

Thing is we've reached the point where it's pretty secularly undeniable that things are gonna get pretty Bad if Jesus doesn't return soon.  We have little hope right now of solving Climate Change before it become irreversible.  "Lest those days be shortened there will be no flesh left".

I have already made a point on this blog out of how what actually is defined as being exactly a Thousand years is Satan being bound in The Abyss.  The Kingdom doesn't end when the Thousand Years ends, and I place the Parousia some amount of time before it begins as well (at the 7th Trumpet and thus before the Bowls).  The sense in which The Kingdom began at Pentecost and/or with Jesus's Ministry is not in conflict with Premilenialism, not how I understand it anyway.

Revelation isn't the only Book to mention a time period between the Parousia when Believes are Resurrected and the final General Resurrection, it is in fact also in 1 Corinthians 15:23-26.  Revelation 20 is simply the only place this time period is given a specific number of years.

The difference between Revelation and other Prophecies isn't a matter of how "clear" or "cryptic" they are, even the Olivet Discourse uses figures of speech you can't take hyper literally, before it even gets to the Parables.  

Revelation needs to be interpreted Chronologically because it's opening defines itself as Jesus revealing to us what God has revealed to Him that previously even He didn't know.  In Matthew 24 that is explicitly the timing of everything.  The book clearly presents itself as a sequence of evens being revealed to John as a sequence of causes and effects, the only reason the book has ever been confusing is because even most Futurists now insist on garbling the Chronology to suit their pet theories.

Eventually the video delves into the usual Preterist memes I've already talked about on this blog like making everything about 70 AD (most Prophecies I do interpret preteristically I see as about the reign of Hadrian) or the 666=Nero lunacy.

Eschatology views Tier Ranking

I'm going to rank various positions on Eschatology in terms of how I personally feel about them at the time of my writing this post on Saturday November 13th of 2021.

S Tier: The Position(s) I currently favor.

I'm currently a Pre-Millennial Futurist with a Rapture Position that can be called "Mid-Trib", but not what many assume Mid-Trib means in that what The Rapture is I view mostly the same as Post-Tribbers, it is the Second Coming, and from my position's own POV the Tribulation by definition ends at The Rapture.  And The Last Trump is the Seventh Trumpet.

I also consider some Idealist readings of Revelation also true, it is also a symbolic summery of The Entire Biblical Meta narrative, but that doesn't conflict with it also being future events, because that's what every good final episode of a saga should be.

A Tier: Positions I'm currently very open to being converted to.

Historicism in it's Pre-Millennial form, Partial-Preterism and Revivalist post-Millennialism, or something that combines elements of those. 

I kind of want to be convinced of something like that now given other things I believe.  But it wouldn't be likely to be any in their current most well known forms, since my hypothetical Preterism wouldn't be 70 AD focused (not for Matthew, Mark or Revelation anyway) and my Historicism would be less fixated on The Vatican viewing Christian Monarchy in general as the Abomination of Desolation.

If I did abandon Futurism I would probably retire this blog and start a new one.

B Tier: Views I consider firmly wrong but not in any way heretical.

Middleism, only in that separating Matthew's Olivette Discourse from Revelation I view as untenable, whichever time period one is about so is the other.

Also any views where my only or main objections come down to not interpreting Revelation as Chronologically as I do.  But thus far everyone I've seen doing that is also guilty of something down below, (It's mainly associated with Post-Trib, Chris White's Pre-Wrath and Preterism).

C Tier: Views I consider tied to Heresy but merely minor ones

Dispensationalism (Pre-Trib, some forms of Mid-Trib, the Pre-Wrath view of Chris White), Supersecessionism (Most forms of Post-Trib, probably some hypothetical forms of Mid-Trib, and also today most Non Futurists).

And also Domminionism which mainly manifests as Reconstructionist Post-Millennialism but can be made compatible with other views.

D Tier: Views heretical in their rejections of core doctrines of the Faith.

Any view that denies a literal bodily Resurrection of The Dead.  Which is firmly required for Full Preterism and Amillenialism.

F Tier: Basically not even really Christian at all anymore.

Any view that identifies the Satan of The New Testament with YHWH The God of The Hebrew Bible.  Like Marcionism and the most well known forms of Gnosticism.

Often goes hand in hand with throwing out Revelation altogether as a False Prophecy.  But they may also selectively use stuff from Revelation.  Also these people are generally also doing the D Tier Heresy.

A lot of passages are applied to The Millennium when they're actually about New Jerusalem

I know I did this post once already very early in this blog's history, but that post is strongly tied into things I've changed my mind on since.

Let's start with how Jesus promised The Twelve Disciples they would sit on Twelve Thrones ruling the Twelve Tribes of Israel at the Last Supper.  I've seen that applied to The Millennium multiple times, but The Twelve don't come up in Revelation 20.

Revelation 21:12-16 refers to Twelve Gates for the Tribes of Israel on which are named the Twelve Tribes and by them are Twelve "angels" and also Twelve Foundations in the Walls with the names of The Twelve Apostles.  I've already explained how "Angels" can refer to human believers but even without that detail I'd still conclude that this is where the promise of the Twelves' Thrones is fulfilled.  In the ancient Near East leaders of a city were often seated by the gate, this custom is alluded to in Ruth 4.

Outside Revelation allusions to The Millennium are much more rare.  But I definitely see it in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 and probably also in Daniel 7:12.  When it comes to things like where Zechariah 14 ends or Isaiah 19 I'm far from decided.  But at least one other probable TNAK reference to the Millennium will come up later.

However the big passage I want to discus is Isaiah 65-66, chapter 65 verses 17 and 22 are what Revelation 21 verse 1 is practically directly quoting.  And verses 18-19 refer to New Jerusalem though without using the word "new" as explicitly, and Isaiah 66:1(as interpreted by Stephen in Acts 7:44-50) is possibly the reason New Jerusalem is said not to have a Temple.

But verse 20 is thrown around as proof this can't be The New Creation because people still die.  Isaiah is very poetic in style, and considering what I explained on my other blog about how to interpret Scripture Impressionistically rather then Lexically,  It feels to me like it should be blindingly obvious Isaiah 65:20 is actually saying the opposite, that this is his poetic way of saying people will not die and there will be no sin.

People abuse what Jesus said about people neither "Marrying or giving in marriage" in The Resurrection "Like the Angels in Heaven", to prove that there is no Biological Reproduction going on in the New Heaven and New Earth.  Jesus said that in the context of refuting the Sadducees trying to discredit The Resurrection by implying the Levirate marriages will create Polyandrous situations.  It's marriage as defined in Genesis 3 that will end, marriage as a hierarchy, not the Marriage of Genesis 2.  In New Jerusalem we will ALL be Married to Jesus and each other.  

But on the other hand the verse in Isaiah 65 taken to imply new people being born is the very same poetic passage taken to imply some people will die.  Still I believe The Resurrection is the restoration of The Pre-Fall conditions, and so I lean towards suspecting painless childbirth will be an option.

The Patristics often didn't distinguish between The Millennium and New Jerusalem at all.  And while today they are distinguished by all Pre-Millennialists, there is still a desire to make The Millennium far more Utopic then it actually is.  The New Heaven and New Earth will be a Communist Utopia, The Millennium is more complicated, in proper Marxist terminology it's perhaps more like the Dictatorship of the Proliteriate.

For one thing The Saints are NOT ruling the entire world, we have a Camp which is also called the Beloved City.  And based on Revelation 20 alone there is no proof that Camp is Jerusalem. 

You might express concern that this "downgrading" I appear to be doing of The Millennium could serve the interests of Post-Millenialists who argue it fits the current world just fine.  Well indeed I don't consider Post-Mills or Partial Preterists to be Heretics in the way I do Resurrection denying Full Preterists and Amillenials, but I do still disagree with them.

Number 1, my main reason for viewing The Millennium as still yet future is less anything about The Millennium itself but more what must happen before it starts and the absurdity of claiming those things have already happened.  Which is the Parousia and the literal physical Bodily Resurrection of at least all Church Age believers.

Number 2 is the post I made on Zion recently.

The Thousand years strictly speaking refers to the time Satan is bound not the Kingdom itself which will have no end.  The Kingdom begins on Mount Zion in Revelation 14 and then it conquers The beast after The beast destroys Babylon.  Since I do believe the Gog and Magog invasion of Revelation 20 is the same as Ezekiel 38, that gives me confirmation that Israel is the location of this Camp.

Since I don't view The Millennium as a pure perfect Utopia, but it is distinct from the world we know now, what will it be like?  Well if I had to pick an inevitably very flawed literary analogy I would say the Second Age of Middle Earth aka Arda.  At the end of the First Age Morgoth (the Satan analogue) is sealed away and it's not till a Thousand years into the Second Age that the Enemy begins taking direct action again via Sauron's founding of Barad-Dur.  But instead of an Atlantis analogue it's a land at the crossroads of the major continents being ruled by Resurrected Saints that the Enemy is planning war with.

[There is also a part of my Weeb Brain that sees traits of the Millennium in Crystal Tokyo from Sailor Moon lore, particularly in the Manga/Crystal continuity.]

I know I sometimes criticize views opposed to mine for treating The Bible like a fantasy novel, that's why I stressed it's not a perfect analogy.  First and foremost I reject the opinions of some that any future Messianic Kingdom will involve a rejecting of modern technology, in fact I believe we will be colonizing the Stars.

Now I have saved Ezekiel 40-48 for last because my thoughts on that are uniquely complicated.  In fact I'm saving it for after the jump break.

How much Patristic support is there for Preterism?

I ultimately don't actually care what the "Early Church Fathers" thought on anything.  I'm true Sola Sciprtura, and my exact views on Bible Prophecy are not 100% in agreement with any interpretation known to have been expressed in antiquity.  If aspects of what I believe genuinely didn't exist before a guy named Darby in the 1800s then so be it, all I care about is what conclusions the Scriptures lead me to.

But preterists both full and partial, amillenials and post-millennialism in all it's forms don't have that option even when they are nominally protestant.  If the history of The Church is the fulfillment of the Thousand Years refereed to in Revelation 20 and/or New Jerusalem, then we should have known that from the start.

I don't necessarily expect the reverse to be true though, the whole point of Pre-Millennialism is that we consider the age of Grace to be one where the follows of the true God are just as capable of getting things wrong as we were before, even at the earliest stage, The Apostles themselves kept misunderstanding Jesus while He was right there correcting them.

So I'm not even making this investigation because I think it could be the ultimate death nail to other views.  It's because I care about history being represented properly, and because I do respect the early Christians, even the ones I most disagree with, and so don't want to see their views misrepresented for the sake of an ideological argument by anyone on my side or agaisnt it.

First let's talk about what does not inherently make someone a Preterist in their view of Revelation.

1. Referring to what happened in 70 AD as being foretold by Jesus.

There seems to be some straw-manning of Futurism going around where some think any acknowledgment that Jesus "not one stone" comment refers to 70 AD is incompatible with Futurism.  When the truth is I've rarely seen that connection denied by even the most extreme futurists.

First of all I don't think we even need the three "Olivte Discourse" chapters to find Jesus foretelling it, in Luke especially he refers to it a lot.  I personally see 70 AD in more prophecies then most of my fellow Futurists.  Of the the three chapters in question I only have a definitively futurist stance on Matthew 24.  However there is also a position called Middleism which takes a Preterist view of Matthew 24 but a Futurist view of Revelation, these terms didn't exist in antiquity but it looks to me like that position was a common one in the Early Church.

2, Viewing the 70th Week of Daniel as already fulfilled.

Lots of Post-Trib Futurists and Historicists (who are generally Pre-Mill and so more akin to Futurism on what I think matters most then Preterism) also view the 70th Week as already fulfilled.  My own view is that the 70th week was 30-37 AD, so on that issue I'm more preterist then the people who obsess over 70 AD.

Basically those are the two most prominent examples of a more general fact that what someone says about other prophecies proves nothing about their view of Revelation.

Yes your view of Revelation will effect how you view other things because it's referencing older Prophets all the time.  But there is no consistency even within a basic view to what conclusions believers will make from those connections.  In my own view sometimes Revelation is claiming to be what that older Prophecy was actually about all along, but sometimes it's more like history repeating itself and/or making an analogy to help us understand what it's talking about.

3. Identifying The Church as now the true Israel in some capacity.

Like the 70th Week example it seems a lot of people opposing Futurism treat it as if Pre-Trib Dispensationalism is the only form Futurism comes in.  Post-Tribbers pretty much all take this view in some way, and I as a form of Mid-Trib hold a position between the extreme Dispensationalism of Chuck Missler and the extreme conflation of Post-Tribers.

There are multiple non Dispensational views on how The Church and Israel relate.  Two-House theology is predicated on specifically equating The Church or at least the "Gentile" Church with Ephraim.  Mormonism is actually based on a form of that view but it's also popular in the Hebrew Roots/Torah Observant movements.

Rob Skiba likes to call "Replacement Theology" a straw man, he says the Dispensationalists are the true Replacement theologists.  He stresses how even in The Torah citizenship in the Nation of Israel was not predicated solely on bloodlines, people not biologically descended from Jacob or even Abraham could be counted in as long as they got Circumcised and kept the Torah.  To him it's about us being the continuation of Israel.

But that's not a Strawman when applied to 70 AD Preterism.  I was recently watching a Partial Preterist's video on Revelation 11 and the Two Witnesses and he made it explicitly clear, God divorced one wife to replace her with another, there will be no redemption for the divorced wife.  This view is known as Supersessionism.  And make no mistake there are Post-Trib Futurists who also see it that way not Rob Skiba's way.  And the sad thing is that seems to be the way the "Early Church" talked about this issue and is the main reason I have no real desire to agree with them, Anti-Semitism creeped into the Greek Speaking Church very early on.

Even when someone is talking specifically about Revelation some things are simply not as inherently Preterist as Preterists looking for support will assume.

4. Identifying Mystery Babylon with Jerusalem isn't inherently Preterist either.

Chris White is a "Pre-Wrath" Futurist who wrote a book on Babylon being Jerusalem, and he was willing to do that even though he's just as much of a Dispensational Zionist as the Pre-Tribbers.  When he says he intends nothing Anti-Semitic by it I believe him, he's simply misguided.  Among the openly Anti-Semitic Conspiracy theorists there are people like Texe Marrs who was Post-Trib from what I've read.

This 4th example I kinda didn't need to include because I'm currently aware of no early Patristic support for it, though I certainly could have missed something.  In fact from what I've seen so far Babylon as Rome is the only Mystery Babylon view I've seen among them.  Instead the Anti-Semitism of the Early Church manifested in viewing the "Antichrist" as a Jewish Messiah claimant The Jews will accept.  So literally the polar opposite of the standard modern Preterist view on the bad guys of Revelation.

Now onto specific claims.

A website called Preteristarchive has pages devoted to a number of early fathers where they concede the Futurist stances of some but spend a lot of time engaging in the above distractions and other tactics to mislead people.  It does not have pages for Tertullian or Methodius and wrongly classified Ambrose of Milan and Eusebius as Ante-Nicene.

Froom is the name of a Historicist who wrote a book called The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers that you can find online.  He generally avoids trying to make anyone sound more in agreement with his views then they actually were, instead trying to speculate on why they were sometimes wrong in his view.  His one mistake in that area was claiming Tertullian made a connection he didn't actually make regarding The Temple of God as The Church and the Temple in II Thessalonians 2.  While I don't always agree with him his book was a key source in the research I did for this post.

An interesting thing about the most popular forms of Historicism is during the Pre-Nicene and even early post Nicene era their view on at least The Antichrist would have still been a pretty Futurist one.  None the less there were still things you could believe back then pretty incompatible with proper Historicism.

His book documents pretty well how Pre-Nicaea it was pretty much only the Alexandrians and maybe Victorinus of Potiou who entertained any position other then Pre-Mill on Revelation 20.

Justin Martyr is the oldest definitely known example of anyone referencing The Revelation at all.  Maybe The Didichae had Revelation 12's description of The Dragon in mind when it says "the world deceiver", if so that was a futurist application inserted into what seems like a futurist application of Matthew 24 (it's very possible Matthew was in fact the only NT writing the Didichae used at all).

The Preteristarchive has a page on Justin Martyr, and it takes a lot of things he said out of context to make it seem like he's explicitly rejecting Pre-Mill, but they exist in the context of him debating with a Jew about the Rabbinic Jewish Sabbath Millennium concept.  Today many Dispensationalists and Hebrew Roots types like identifying the Revelation 20 Millennium with that Rabbinic concept, but Justin clearly didn't.  I myself have come to not like defining the Millennium as a "Sabbath" Millennium because 1 Corinthians 15 defined it as a period that isn't a "rest" at all.

They failed however to quote the one and only time Justin explicitly refers to The Revelation.  I shall provide it here.

Dialogue with Trypho 81.4 "And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place."

Pretty clearly and unambiguously a Pre-Mill interpretation.

More then one website and blog trying to paint the Early Church as non Pre-Mil as possible will inevitably concede the Pre-Mill Futurism of Hippolytus of Rome and to some extent also his "mentor" Irenaeus.

The problem with conceding him and trying to paint him as the ONLY one is NOT their alleged connection to John which I feel is overstated and don't care about.  It's that only he actually wrote in depth on Bible Prophecy at all, it was really not a major priority of the surviving writings we have from the Early Church especially Pre-Nicaea.  It mostly comes up when refuting Gnostics and Origen on The Resurrection, in which context it frequently comes across that the "Proto-Orthodox" clearly seem Pre-Mil when stressing a literal Bodily Resurrection.  Only Hippolytus wrote an entire book on specifically the subject of The Antichrist.  And in so doing expressed many views on the matter I no longer and/or never did agree with, but his view on the matter was definitely a Futurist one.  And he was not speaking as if he was massively breaking with the norm, he spoke as if some of his specific details may be new but the gist was basically what everyone already agreed on..

And when the only unambiguous counter example(s) to pre-mill are Origen and some other Alexandrians linked to Origen, then your side is on the shakier ground since he was condemned as  a Heretic at a Synod in the 540s.  He's connected to a lot of Heresy, but none of his earliest critics like Methodius of Olympus ever objected to his Soterology, it was his Pre-Existence of Souls doctrine and how that effected his view of The Resurrection that was the core issue.

I'm not an Origen apologist the way most of my modern fellow Universal Salvation proponents often are, because I know that Soteorlogy was also supported by many others who shared none of Origen's issues, and a few condemned for going in the opposite direction on the literal/allegorical dichotomy.

I actually feel like 70 AD Preterism is far more incompatible with a God of Love who Saves ALL then Futurism, because as I stressed above they are adamant on YHWH's refusal to forgive Israel, they make YHWH's promises to never permanently cast Israel aside into bold faced LIES.

Origen's view of Revelation was probably more Idealist then 70 AD focused Preterism given his approach to Scripture in general.

On both Tertullian and Hippolytus one Amill blog admits they were Pre-Mill but says "not like modern Premillenialism", by which they mainly must mean not being Pre-Trib Dispensationalists.  Hippolytus was clearly Post-Trib on his timing of the Parusia, though he did support the gaps in Daniel 9 and 11 that are today usually typical of Dispensationalism.  I myself even in how I view The Millennium's nature am not like most modern pre-Millers, but my disagreement puts the Patristics I've looked at as closer to them then to me.

Tertullian was influenced by the Montanists and so occasionally viewed with suspicion by later generations of The Church, but still not as much suspicion as Origen.  Again Froom tried to paint him as the one Pre-Nicene father who seemed compatible with his Historicism, and indeed Tertulian is the earliest example I've seen of explicitly identifying Babylon with Rome.  But he also clearly identified The Two Witnesses with Enoch and Elijah.

Eusebius of Caesarea was agaisnt the Millennium but because of that questioned the Canonocity of Revelation altogether. Thing is a lot of writers at this time saw the Diocletian Persecution and it's relief under Constantine as the fulfillment of the future Kingdom happening then not back when The Church was founded.  Constantinople was in turn viewed as the New Jerusalem as much as it was a New Rome.

 Athanasius, Ambrose, Hilary and Jerome all spoke about things like The Antichrist in ways that show a futurist understanding of that issue, even Gregory of Nysaa the one time he mentioned The Antichrist clearly viewed him as yet future.  Both versions of the Nicene Creed rule out at least Full Preterism by clearly defining the Parusia as having not happened yet..  

Aphrahat one of the oldest Syrian Fathers also definitely taught Premillenialism and a Literal Resurrection.  His Eschatology can be considered a from of Historicism, but does not have the Antichrist view typical of Protestant Historicism.

In 380 Ticonius published a Revelation commentary that became the foundation of Post Millenialism as we know it today, and was in turn the basis for Augustine of Hippo's eschatology.

Over the course of the next few centuries the leadership of the Church became increasingly either Post-Mill or not Prophecy concerned at all as now Jesus overthrowing the current world system became no longer desirable to them.  However the Popular literature of this era implies Futurism was still the preferred eschatology of the masses, like the Apocalypse of Pseudo Methodius and other texts related to The Last Roman Emperor tradition.  Meanwhile The Book of The Bee shows that understanding of Prophecy continued to thrive among the "Nestorians" into the 13th Century.

Also identifying The Two Witnesses with Enoch and Elijah seemed pretty universal when they came up all.

Chilialsm vs Premillennialism.

I am definitely a Premillennialist but I'm not comfortable with being called a Chilialist.  That might confuse you since enemies of Premillennialism treat the two terms as utterly synonymous.

I'm Premillennial because I believe the visible Parusia of Jesus Christ (and Bodily Resurrection of Church Age Believers) precedes the start of the Millennium described in Revelation chapter 20, and thus since that Parusia obviously hasn't happened yet, the Millennium hasn't started yet.

However what Chiliasm seems to refer to, especially when spoken of negatively by some early Christians, qualifies as that but also seems tied to fundamental misunderstandings of what the Millennium is.  Though those misunderstandings are to varying degrees also held by a lot of my fellow contemporary Premillennialists.

What I'm referring to is also distinct from the disagreements Dispensationalists and Supersecenists and Two House Theology have about what the Millennium is.

I've already discussed on this blog how The Millennium is not a Utopia or a Paradise, the paradise we await comes after that in Revelation 21-22.  The Millennium will probably be better then the world currently is, but it is still to a large extent an era in which the battle against Sin isn't over.  The main place I point to as being an allusion to the Millennium outside Revelation is 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, what Paul places between the Parusia and the General Resurrection.

I have already expressed on this blog annoyance at how many Christian prophecy teachers will refer to various Hebrew Bible Prophecies as being about the Millennium when they are clearly about the New Heaven and New Earth and New Jerusalem, and in fact they are the very Prophecies Revelation 21-22 is quoting, like Isaiah 65-66 and Ezekiel 40-48.

I do think there are some Old Testament allusions to the Millennium, like Daniel 7:12.  My current view of Ezekiel 38-39 means we possibly see glimpses of the Millennium in those chapters, as well as possibly the chapters preceding those.  And Maybe also the end of Zechariah 14.

I've also noticed a tendency for Chilialsm to be linked to viewing the Millennium as the last era of the Physical Word, that Revelation 21-22 are just describing a purely spiritual existence in which anything that looks physical there is merely an allegory, that it's really just about our Spirits becoming one with The Force.  Of course Amillennial and Postmillennial views are often also guilty of that heresy in their own way.  Especially since any view that we're already in the Millennium is an obvious gateway drug to rejecting the Bodily Resurrection altogether.

In my view Revelation 21-22 is a physical carnal world, in fact it is our world perfected to it's Pre-Fall condition.  And any desire to reject or weaken that is Platonic, Neo-Plaotnic or Gnostic heresy.

Basically what most Chiliasts think the Millennium is like is how I view Revelation 21-22.

My last post already addressed the misconception that Premillenialists think the Kingdom has an end.

When I say there was no Amillennial or Postmillenial interpretation of Revelation 20 before Augustine and certainly not before Nicaea, I'm open to being proven wrong on that.  But you need more then just the existence of people not liking Chilialsm and it's implications.  You need to specifically prove that they interpreted the Thousand years of Revelation 20 as not a literal time period and/or having already began.

And again, many people who wanted to reject any notion of a Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, like Eusebius of Caesarea.

Update Correction: Ticonius does beat Augustine to forming a Postmillenial interpretation of Revelation, in fact he is who Augustine got it from.  Still his Commentary was published in 380 AD, same year Christianity formally became the state religion of the Empire and after over half a century of being effectively the state region.  And it went hand in hand with being a purely Spiritual interpretation of Revelation.  And he was a Donatist, so officially a Heretic according to the Council of Nicaea.

His Kingdom Shall Have no End.

In Luke chapter 1 verse 33 the Angle Gabriel tells Mary about her Son.

"And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

This verse is the basis for one of the additions to the Nicene Creed.

whose kingdom shall have no end.

I have recently learned that many Amillenial scholars want to use this line as evidence that the Second Ecumenical Council condemned Premillenialism.  This PDF I found refuted the notion that Premillenialism was the reason for adding that line.
http://francisgumerlock.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Millennialism%20and%20the%20Early%20Church%20Councils.%20Gumerlock.pdf

However more important then if that was the reason for the line being added, is the matter of if this line even is in conflict with Premillenialism, because in my view it's not.

Every Premillenial agrees that Christ's Kingdom is without end.  Some may start by saying this declaration is more about the Kingdom of New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22 then what Revelation 20 is about.

But I prefer to stress that in Revelation 20 the Kingdom doesn't end when the Thousand Years ends, the only thing that happens exactly when the Thousand years are over is Satan being let out of the Abyss.  He then deceives Gog and Magog, the nations in the four corners of the Earth, to wage war on the Camp of the Saints, but then they are defeated.  The whole point of the Narrative is that the Kingdom doesn't end.

I would argue it's interpretations of the book that make the Millennium and New Jerusalem basically the same thing that are more likely to be hindered by this deceleration.

If anything this statement of Luke 1:33 is more of a problem for a face value reading of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 then it is Revelation 20, but even then it's just a matter of exactly what Paul means.  I think Christ is still Reigning after He gives all Authority to The Father, there's merely a nuanced difference in how exactly it looks one the Material and Spiritual are no longer separated.

As I've said before, Amillennial or Post-Millennial interpretation of Revelation were very rare before Augustine, those who didn't like the Millennium as a doctrine instead rejected Revelation altogether.

The Origenist attitude condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council is ironically to me exactly the same attitude that leads to Amillenialism.

Amillennial and Post Millennialism

If you have trouble telling the difference between these two eschatological models, it's not just cause they seem effectively the same to us Pre-Millenialists, even unbiased scholars are unsure which of these best describes the Eschatology of Augustine of Hippo.

The gist is, Amillenials believe there is no Millennium, while Post-Millenial means you believe the Parusia(Second Coming) happens after the Millennium.  Both however have a tendency to involve believing the Thousand Years of Revelation 20 are not literally that exact period of time.  And both tend to involve not taking the Chronology of Revelation at face value thus putting them in direct conflict with the premise of this Blog. 

My belief that the Resurrection is a literal physical bodily resurrection of the Flesh is core to my understanding of The Gospel itself.  And that is why I have long been opposed to any model saying the first 6 verses of Revelation 20 are already fulfilled.

But, I have recently become aware that some people feel you can believe in both.

Some believe the General Resurrection at the White Throne Judgment at the end of Revelation 20 is bodily, but Revelation 20:4 can be read as defining itself as of Souls not Bodies sitting on those thrones.  And I have been giving this view a very open-minded assessment.

That argument involves citing passages where Paul says we die in Christ and then are Risen in Christ when we become Believers, symbolically pictured in Baptism.  So believers have a spiritual Resurrection before we even die.  Which is why Revelation 20:4 isn't really describing the Resurrection event itself.  Basically Unbeleivers Spirits/Souls aren't resurrected before their bodies but Believers are.

This overlaps with a view on the Second Death that exists among Evangelical Universalists.  In the past I've taken the tactic of saying the Second Death is the death of death, but I've come to realize that only really fits one of the three verses to use the term.  I've now seen it argued by supporters of Universal Reconciliation that the Second Death is when unbelievers become Dead to Sin, which for Believers happened during our mortal life so that's why the Second Death has no power over us.

The first issue is that I'm only open to an argument for Post-Millenialism that doesn't play games with the chronology of Revelation.  You're not going to convince me that Apollyon and Satan are the same entity.  The Book Revelation defined itself as a clear chronology.

Secondly even if I could accept that interpretation of Revelation 20:4.  Revelation 11 is still clearly depicting the Resurrection of the Two Witnesses as bodily, you're not going to convince me that is merely symbolic.  The various Preterist views on the Two Witnesses account for their Deaths but not their Resurrection.

And then there is the mater of the Rapture of The Man-Child which I've shown isn't Jesus but The Church, and the 144,000 being described as already Redeemed from the Earth and as Firstfruits in Revelation 14.  And the Armies following the Rider on the White Horse in Revelation 19.

And the fact remains that it isn't the White Throne Judgment but various events between the 7th Trumpet and first Bowl that resemble how The Olivte Discourse and the Thessalonian Epistles describe The Paursia.

Revelation 20:4 also defines itself as being specifically those Martyred for not taking The Mark.  So it could be they are not Physically Resurrected yet because they were Post-Rapture Believers.

On the subject of rejecting The Millennium altogether.  I've read some anti Premilennial articles expressing how the face value chronology of Revelation 20 conflicts in their view with the plain reading of other passages on the Resurrection and the Parusia like 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter 3.

The whole Premise of my Blog is how Revelation right from the first Chapter defines itself as explaining what was unclear before.  The very first verse says that what even The Son didn't know before is being Revealed to us now, from Matthew 24 we know the timing of events is specifically what that was.  So whenever there is an apparent conflict between other passages and Revelation on Chronology, Revelation is the one to be taken at face value.

What's interesting is that Pre-Augustine those uncomfortable with the very idea of the Millennium simply rejected Revelation altogether, wanting to say Revelation was really the work of Cerethius or John the Presbyter.  Pre-Nicea that was mostly a fringe minority, as the Muratorian canon shows Revelation's canonocity was not in question.  And from Tertulian to Ireaneus to Hippolytus to Methodius of Olympus, everyone to speak on Eschatology in the Pre-Nicene Church was clearly Pre-Millennial.  They had other areas of disagreement, but they were all Pre-Millennial.

But post Nicea this Anti-Revelation camp got a prominent supporter in Eusebius of Caesarea.  In his discussions of what books to consider Canon what he says on Revelation is schizophrenic because of how his personal bias infests it.  He acknowledges it as being universally accepted as Canon by all Churches, not even disputed the way Jude, 2 Peter or Hebrews were.  But he also talks about it under spurious books because that's how he viewed it for no good reason.

It was Augustine of Hippo who introduced the idea that you can simply allegorize The Millennium away, along with a lot of other bad doctrines.

Before him everyone who considered Revelation Scripture, (which was the vast majority of Christians, especially who weren't part of some alternative Gnostic or Ebonite cult) believed in a Millennium.  They of course were wrong when they predicted it to begin in the 500s AD, but that date setting mistake was the product of other bad assumptions and shouldn't be blamed on the Millennium doctrine itself.

Playing Devil's Advocate on the Seventieth Week

This is a follow up to my earlier post proving 7 years from Revelation.

In terms of those Futurists who view the 70th Week as past, I decided I want to give a fair open minded look at their view.  Problem is, they don't even view the first 69 Weeks the same as I do (from the ones I've encountered).  Now I am open minded to being proven wrong on that too, if you feel you have a sufficient fatal flaw to my argument feel free to leave one as a comment.

But for now, if you want to convince me of a Preterist view of the 70th Week, it's gonna need to be a view that has the 70th Week being from Nisan of 30 AD to Nisan of 37 AD.  And the Crucifixion in that Nisan of 30 AD.  Moving The Cross to the middle of The Week simply doesn't work.

I decided to look for myself at this Seven year period, to see if playing Devil's Advocate I could make that argument myself.  But also with the thought as someone who believers in types and near fulfillments, that the 7 years following the end of the 69th Week could be a minor prefiguring of the true final 70th Week.

My view on The Sixth Seal actually lends itself to that.  Based on the Sixth Seal parallels to Joel 2:28-32 and how Peter uses that same Joel passage in Acts 2.  I argue that the Earthquake and Darkening of The Sun that happened as Jesus was on The Cross was a prefiguring of the Terrestrial and Cosmic Signs of the Sixth Seal.  And with that I think the Sixth Seal will be opened on the 14th day of the Nisan that starts the 70th Week.  And that the Sealing of the 144,000 will be on the following Pentecost, it'll be another great outpouring of The Holy Spirit.

So in a sense it may be as if the initiation of the 70th Week is also God sort of resetting his Clock back to 30 AD.  But I would not build doctrine or date setting on anything I'm gonna suggest below.  This is just fun conjecture.

With a connection made to the beginning, I decided to look at the end.  It's not agreed universally which spring full moon correlated to Passover in 37 AD, it could've been March or April.  But the one in March was around the 21st-23rd and the Seventeenth fell on a Sunday again like it did in 30, this time it was March 25th.

The 16th of March that year was the day Tiberius died, awfully close.  And that Passover season close to Tiberius's death plays a key role in Josephus's account (Book 18 Chapter 4) of when Pilate was removed from his governorship.

Pilate is usually assumed to have been removed way back in the late summer or fall of 36.  But I can't help but feel reading Josephus like it was closer to when Tiberius actually died.  And others have as well, but the main such source I read does so arguing for a 37 AD Crucifixion, and then tying that into all kinds of other heresies.

It's not just Pilate and Tiberius.  It seems 36 and 37 AD saw the either deaths or removal from power of all the figures Luke 3:1-2 states were in power at that time.  Perhaps it prefigures how when the 70th Week begins, only one week is left for the current World Order.

But on the subject of Pilate's Removal.  The Josephus account includes a sort of False Messiah or False Prophet figure of the Samaritans who helped get them riled up, and who remains unnamed. 

"The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there"

Acts 8:9-11 says of Simon Magus.  " But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.  And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries."

 The Samaritan chronicler Abul Fath mentions a sect headed by a R. Zadok which was tied to the heretic who claimed to be the “booth” or “booths” of the new Tabernacle. He speaks of “five brothers who from [the Samaritan holy mountain Gerizim] who were called [the Sons of Zadoq] and also another man called Zadoq the Elder from Bayt Far who deviated from “booths” and his companions, saying that Mount Gerizim is as holy as if the Samaritan temple were [still] standing upon it and that while one was obligated to do what was written [in the Law of Moses] he need not do what was not possible for him.” His community apparently “invoked him by the name mentioned [in the report of Booths] above, i.e. the Mediator, and agreed with [Booths] about abolishing … the rule of “Moses commanded for us a Law” [Deut 33:4]

I think, maybe these were the same individuals.  There are other reasons to view Acts 6-11 as being about 37 AD.  Wikipedia speculates that the martyrdom of Stephen must've been during the brief administration of Marcellus.  And Paul synchronizes the time of his Conversion to when Aretas controlled Damascus (2 Corinthians 11:32).  Which he didn't before Caligula became Emperor.

So that's the end of The Week, what about it's middle?  Tishri of 33 AD?

33 AD is a complicated year to study, web searches for it will have to shift through those referencing it thinking the Crucifixion was that year.  Nothing is known to be exactly dated to that year that resembles The Abomination of Desolation.  But the main thing that causes people to argue for the Crucifixion being that year, is itself interesting to look at.

That being a desire starting from some Early Church Fathers to identify an Eclipse and Earthquake mentioned by Thallus placed as occurring in Bythia and Asia Minor in 33 AD as the one that happen when Jesus was on the Cross.  He's quoted by Julius Africanus without much context.  Apologetic circles want to think Thallus himself was connecting this to Jesus, and Africanus accusing him of trying to naturalize the darkness as an eclipse.  But it seems more likely to me that Africanus simply assumed based on this being during the reign of Tiberius it was the same Darkness and Earthquake.  Problem is, it occurred in parts of Asia Minor, effecting some of the same cities that had the Churches of Revelation 2-3, not in Judea.

Revelation does also link Earthquakes to the Middle of the Seventieth Week, both the Rapture of The Witnesses and the Seventh Trumpet.

The Annals of Tacitus was year by year, so it's interesting to look at, but he was recording Roman History not Jewish.  Sadly nothing in Josephus seems to be linked to this year.  The events our copies of Jospehus place between the Testemonim Flavinium and the drama that removed Pilate, are events Tacitus places before Pilate became Prefect of Judea.

33 AD is the year of the consulship of Servius Galba and Lucius Sulla (the whole year is named for them even though they didn't serve the entire year.  Their consulship began at it's start).  This Galba it may interest you to know is the same one who latter overthrew Nero and began the year of the Four Caesars.  Tacitus recounts a probably urban legend that Tiberius said something which foretold him being Emperor some day during this Consulship.  Which Tiberius supposedly knew because of Thrasyllus.

I find it interesting that the first thing we're told of this year by Tacitus is that the same two men who were the Consuls for 30 AD, Tiberius decided that year to marry to the two still unmarried daughters of Germanicus, Julia Livilla and Drusilla.  Later these same two men are who Tiberius sent to help Asia Minor after the Earthquake mentioned above.  Vinicius married Livilla and Longinus married Drusilla.  A cousin of Longinus who was Consul later in 30 AD also married a descendant of Julia the Younger about this time.

A Financial Crisis happened in Rome this year, perhaps not unlike the one that will ravage the world when the Black Horseman rides.  Agrippina the Elder and her son Drusus died this year as well.  Also Nerva, a close friend of Tiberius.

I'm afraid Tacitus doesn't say much helping determine when in the year each event happened.

Another thing that makes people support a 32 or 33 AD Passover for the Death of Jesus is the Blood Moon Theory.  A Tetrad of Lunar Eclipses happened on the 15ths of Nisan and Tishri of both 32 and 33 A.D.

Problems with this are many.  The Blood Moon theory is bunk, I recommend Chris White's debunking of it.  And the one on Passover of 33 AD wasn't total or very visible in Jerusalem.  And at any-rate most of the events Blitz links to his Blood Moons happened a year or two before each Tetrad started, so even then they fit a 30 AD Crucifixion better.  Joel and Revelation's Blood Moons are simultaneous with Darkened Suns, they're not Eclipses.  They're either totally supernatural, or caused by volcanic eruptions.

What I will note just for the sake of reference is, this Tetrad ended with one on Tabernacles of 33 AD, which is estimated to have fallen on September 27th.  In light of my feeling that Revelation 12 could be describing when the Moon is under Virgo's feet on or soon after Rosh Hoshanah as the middle of The 70th Week roughly.  I decided to look at when this occurred about half a month before that Lunar Eclipse.  And Saturn was very close to Regulus in Leo, not quite a full conjunction, but very close.  I think that is interesting.

Now if I'm going to be serious about this, let's break down the last two verses of Daniel 9.

Daniel 9:26-27.  From the KJV

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:"
This is where we all agree, Jesus died in Nisan 30 AD.

"And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary".
This is why we tend to see 70 AD as during the Gap, or many Preterist models as when the 70 Weeks ends.  But the Hebrew word translated "destroy" here also means corrupt, ruin or decay.  It is used and translated corrupt in Daniel 11:17 "and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him."  It's Aramaic form is in Daniel 2:9 "ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me".  If the "Prince that shall Come" is in fact the same Prince from earlier in Daniel 9, then the People of the Prince refers to the Jewish people.

So Maybe the reason for the Cleansing of The Temple is what's in mind here.

"And the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
There were Wars going on at this time.  Directly relevant to Israel were a few revolts Pilate had to deal with.  And Herod Antipas had war with Aretas of Petra.

It could also be consistent with seeing the 70th week as 30-37 AD to also see here a somewhat preemptive statement about the wars that went on past then to 70 AD.

"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".
The common Preterist view is this refers not to the literal taking away of Sacrifice, but them being rendered null and void after The Crucifixion.  And the Covenant here the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31.

This Preterist view is why people often want to make the Crucifixion the middle of The Week, not it's end.  But the word translated "Midst" is also translated "Half" sometimes.  Maybe it could be meant to read "for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease".

What remains is simply what's taken as an allusion to The Abomination of Desolation, but it's not the exact phrase.

"and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."
Note, the occurrence of "he" after Abomination isn't in the Hebrew text, so there is no guarantee the same person is behind it..

The Preterist view of 70 AD can't work with what Jesus specifically said (probably in reference to the Daniel 12 use of the term) of it being In The Holy Place.

But the Terminology in Daniel 9:27 is much less specific about where, and it does seem to imply more then one Idol being set up.  And the word that is in some translations rendered "wing" can mean Wing, Corner, edge extremity, ect.  So Preterists make a strong argument that this can refer to Titus setting the "Imago" of his Father and other Roman Idols like the standards with the Imperial Eagle on them, or the Fasces, by the Gate of The Temple in 70 AD.

Same with the Last verse of Daniel 11, the word for "tabernacles" simply means tent, and so they argue it refers to the Tents the Roman legions Camped in.  Also as a supporter of the Southern Conjecture, I think the "Appeden" (Translated Palace) could be the Antonia Fortress which was where the Dome of The Rock currently is.

However, what most people haven't noticed is all those factors that could make those two things apply to Titus, can also apply to Pontius Pilate.  Go back and read when Josephus first introduces his readers to Pilate in Antiquities of The Jews Book 18 Chapter 3.

"BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea."

All the same factors are there.  The Roman garrisons, the plural Idols to Caesar.  And Josephus specifies Pilate was the First Roman to do this.   And his "Judgment Seat" probably the same seat he Tried Jesus from, was part of the Antonia Fortress.

So, a good argument can be made for a Preterist view of the 70 Weeks.  The problem is, if the Covenant is the real New Covenant, how is it confirmed for only one week and not forever?  Maybe the entire Church Age should be viewed as the 70th Week repeatably playing out in cycles until the true final fulfillment comes and we're Raptured in the Middle?

Or it could be notable that the parts of Acts I estimate to be seven years after The Cross corresponds to when The Gospel began to spread beyond just Jews and Judea.  So likewise with my view on the 144,000 and the Sixth Seal when the true 70th Week begins The Gospel is again focused on Israel and Israelites.

Also, it could be interesting to read Acts 3 and 4 under a premise that Peter and John there are serving as types of The Two Witnesses.

Psalm 83 War in 1983, Elam in The Millennium, and Chris White vs Bill Saulus

http://bibleprophecytalk.com/the-psalm-83-war-debunked/
http://bibleprophecytalk.com/bpt-the-psalm-83-war-debunked/
I ultimately agree with Chris White's debunking of the Psalm 83 War.  But I want to add some thoughts.

It's funny how Prophecy In The News has become one of the biggest supporters of Bill Saulus' Psalm 83 War idea.  Because J.R. Church in his very old book Hidden Prophecies in The Psalms had also discussed Psalm 83, way before Saulus.  It foreshadows Saulus' theory in reading the modern Israel vs Isalmic world conflict into the text.  But like Chris White he saw the Psalm not as describing a specific major War per se, but more of a behind the scenes political conspiracy.  The enemies of Israel colluding together, but the outright military conflict part of it being small, and mostly by proxy.

I like the theory of that book.  I wouldn't build doctrine on it, but the foundational aspect of seeing Psalm 48 as predicting Israel's reestablishment as a nation in 1948 is interesting (even though it's equally clear it's ultimate fulfillment is in New Jerusalem).  Also psalm 48 is the first of three Psalms to use the Hebrew phrase that should be translated "The Last Generation", and 1948 is in the middle of the period in which the Baby Boomers were being born.

And the Period between the Camp David treaty being signed and the treaty with Jordan being made in the 90s is in fact the period in modern history when those aligned against Israel most directly matched Psalm 83's list of enemies.  Because that's after Egypt ceased to be an Enemy but while Jordan still was.

People like to read Egypt into Psalm 83 via the Hagarenes, since Hagar was the mother of Ishmael who was an Egyptian so they feel it makes sense to see Hagarenes as a poetic code for Islamic-Arab Egypt.  But the Hagarenes in the Hebrew text are the same people refereed to elsewhere in the KJV as the Hagarites, Hagerite or Haggeri in 1 Chronicles 5:10-20, 11:38, and 27:31.  Where they are clearly a Trans-Jordan tribe, and thus further reason to look to modern Jordan or the Golan Heights if you want a Modern context.

The Hagarites probably are an Ishmaelite tribe, in 1 Chronicles 5 they're linked to 3 other tribes, two of which are known sons of Ishmael and the third has no discernible origin in Genesis.  One of those tribes is Jetur, who are the tribe known in NT times as the Iturians.

So the Lebanon civil war of 1982-83 and it's ties into Israel's other foreign policy and terrorism concerns of the time does happen to fit Psalm 83 pretty well.  But I agree with Chris White that the immediate context was of Asaph's own time.

The more recent theory Bill Saulus has been promoting about Elam and Jeremiah 49:34-39 I find pretty valid.  However I disagree with how he ties Psalm 83 and Gog and Magog and the Pre-Trib Rapture theory into his timing of it.

I want to copy/paste Jeremiah's prophecy here.  With a minor translation adjustment from the KJV.

The word of Yahweh that came to Jeremiah the prophet against Elam in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, saying, Thus saith Yahweh of hosts; Behold, I will break the bow of Elam, the chief of their might.  And upon Elam will I bring the four winds from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter them toward all those winds; and there shall be no nation whither the outcasts of Elam shall not come.

 For I will cause Elam to be dismayed before their enemies, and before them that seek their life: and I will bring evil upon them, even my fierce anger, saith Yahweh; and I will send the sword after them, till I have consumed them: And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith Yahweh.  But it shall come to pass in the latter days, that I will bring again the captivity of Elam, saith Yahweh.

I think this disaster could be part of the tidings out of the East that troubles The Antichrist in Daniel 11:44.  And that The Holy Spirit is leading Evangelical Christians in Iran to look to this Prophecy I feel is important.  Because I do believe the Gifts of the Spirit are still here.

I'm thinking based on Daniel 11:44 it may be the result of The Antichrist posing as an ally of Israel (or maybe an Israeli leader himself) doing preemptive strikes against Russia and Iran as they're planning an attack on Israel.  And then passing that off as fulfilling Ezekiel 38&39.

I think this could tie into the Kurds fulfilling ancient prophecies of The Medes.  If Modern Iran collapses then the Kurdish state forming in northern Iraq could expand into the Kurdish regions of Iran.  And thus will look a lot like Ancient Media.

What is most fascinating and unusual is that this is the only place where Scripture describes Yahweh placing his Throne somewhere on Earth other then Israel.  It surprised me to realize that there was such an occasion.

I've explained elsewhere why I feel many Old Testament prophecies we assume to be about The Millennium may really be the New Heaven and New Earth.  Including Ezekiel 40-48, and other key passages of Isaiah.  With those insights in mind, looking at Revelation 20-22 it is arguable that Jerusalem doesn't become God's Earthly Throne until New Jerusalem descends.  Revelation 20 does clearly show that Jerusalem exists in The Millennium, but the only direct reference to it there is at the end, for the Gog and Magog invasion which I do view as the same as Ezekiel 38-39 even though that's unpopular.

Some people do argue that Israel's regathering isn't really complete until sometime during The Millennium.  I think those arguments are valid, but I am firmly Pre-Millenial unlike some who might make such arguments.

With all that in mind.  I'm thinking it could be Elam is where The Millennial Throne of Jesus is located.

Or if it's not there the Entire Millennium then maybe just during a part of it.

Distinguishing between The Millennium and The New Heaven and New Earth.

Distinguishing between The Millennium, and The New Heaven and New Earth in the Hebrew Scriptures can be difficult. One can argue that without the help of the New Testament we wouldn't know for certain there are two distinct future Messiah reigning on Earth time periods to look forward to. But I do think it's possible to draw that conclusion from the Hebrew Bible alone. But we certainly don't get any doctrinally absolute reason to give either a time frame of exactly 1,000 years without the Book of Revelation.

Chuck Missler likes to say that most of what we know about the Millennium comes from the Old Testament, not Revelation 20. Thing is I don't think he's ever cited any OT passage as being about the New Heaven and New Earth, or New Jerusalem.

Futurists are good at understanding everything that happens during the Eschatological Week in Revelation based on it's OT references. But it seems to be we're not so great at doing the same for Chapters 20-22.

Chuck Missler also likes to define the Millennium as the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. But the Davidic Promise in II Samuel 7 and elsewhere is never defined as a Thousand years, it's defined as Forever.

Let's take Isaiah 65 for example. Chuck Missler and others are convinced this can't be the Eternal state yet where there is absolutely no Curse because Death does seem to happen during this time in verse 20.

"There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed."

First off the assumption that there is absolutely no Death in the Eternal state simply because The Curse of Genesis 3 is gone I think is based on an assumption that no one new will be Born during this period, and thus no one new will need their Eternal fate to be decided. But the Eternal state is also a return to how things where supposed to be before Adam fell, and before Adam fell he was already told to be fruitful and multiply. Adam's Sin is the origin of Death, I'm not a Gap or Extended Day theorist. But in the future there could still be new people who need to make Adam's choice. I also feel like Saved Women should get the opportunity to experience painless childbirth if they choose to.

Yes I know how people think Jesus statement about there being no Marriage in the Resurrection equals no reproduction. But they're misusing that the same way that same passage is misused to support the Sethite view of Genesis 6.

But besides all that, this verse is expressed in a poetic style, and it's possible to interpret the real message of the verse as being that there is no Death. Certainly not the Death Curse we've been bound to, where it is appointed unto each Man once to die. And which I think to an extent could still exist in the Thousand years, nearly a Thousand Years was the normal lifespan between the Fall and the Flood.

The thing is verses 17-19 just before this says.

"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

Now if you read that without any preconceived notion put in your head by your favorite commentator about where this fits into Biblical Chronology. I'm pretty sure you'd have to conclude it resembles Revelation 21 far more then Revelation 20.

Ezekiel 40-48 is another important passage where Chuck Missler and Chris White and almost every major commentator simply states unambiguously that this is the Millennial Temple/Kingdom. But the thing is New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22 is drawing on imagery of Ezekiel 40-48 constantly, not just the 12 gates named for the 12 tribes, and there are no Ezekiel 40-48 references in Revelation 20.

Ezekiel 43:7-9 tells us how long this condition God's revealing to Ezekiel will last.  It does not say 1000 years, it says FOR EVER.

The differences people use to refute seeing these as the same, are no more significant to me then the inconsistencies between Revelation 4, Ezekiel 1 and Isaiah's visions of the Heavenly Throne Room of God. They're clearly describing basically the same thing, but because they're mortal four dimensional humans seeing something that is in fact beyond their compression because they've left Space-Time, the details of what they see, or how they choose to describe what they see, have some pretty seemingly incompatible differences.

The first and most obvious difference that comes to mind is that Revelation 21:22 says "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." And Ezekiel's vision revolves around The Temple. But a few things to consider. 

First, The Temple in Ezekiel is very different in both how it looks and how worship there functions, it could very well be that John seeing the same thing simply saw it as a Royal Palace or Throne Room rather then as a Temple.

Second, Technically John just says there was no Temple in the City, and Ezekiel's Temple is technically outside the City.

Third, Revelation 21:3 does say "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men". And sometimes the future Messianic Temple is described as the "Tabernacle of David" (Psalm 15:1, Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11).  The name of Ezekiel's Jerusalem is Yahweh Shammah, meaning "The LORD (YHWH) is there" Ezekiel 48:35, clearly parallels that verse from Revelation 21.

And Ezekiel's description of the "Temple" he saw never tells us the material the walls are made out of.  For all we know it could be a Tabernacle rather then a Stone Temple.

Chis White when he mentions this debate briefly acknowledges the similarities but says the differences are far greater. But it's only the Size he singles out, (and the size is the only difference I even remotely consider a problem).  Observing that the size of Revelation's New Jerusalem dwarfs the entirety of the Promised land laid out in Ezekiel, being about half the size of the Continental United States.

But again, in the Eternal state physical reality itself has changed, and even size could be a matter of Ezekiel and John's perception.

Some have argued you can calculate the circumference of the Earth by combing the measurements in Ezekiel 40-48 and Revelation 21-22.

http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/ezekiels-city-circumference-of-the-earth.htmModern science tells us that the circumference of the earth about the equator is 24,902.4 mi. (40,076.5 km), and that the circumference about the poles is 24,860.2 mi. (40,008.6 km). Using data from the biblical books of Ezekiel and Revelation, we can easily arrive at a number between these two figures.

There are reasons I'm not inclined to agree with the entity of that site's premise, but it's an interesting mathematical theorem.

The main point is that regardless of size Yahweh-Shammah and New Jerusalem have the exact same shape, a perfect Cube.

Perspective is important to consider, Ezekiel ultimately spends more time on the rest of the Holy Land, while John pretty much only describes New Jerusalem.

I think maybe Ezekiel is describing the size of the city as it appears from the Outside and John how it appears on the inside.  That may be difficult to wrap your head around, but remember in The New Creation the laws of physics itself could be different.  If you're a Comic Book Nerd, think of it maybe as being like the Bottled City of Kandor, except the bottle is still larger then the entire modern city of Jerusalem.

Another objection is Ezekiel also seems to allude to people possibly dying. Ezekiel's style isn't as Poetic as Isaiah, but I still feel the same arguments can apply.

That Sacrifices are performed is an issue for Christian theology whether it's the Millennium or the New Creation.  One answer I've considered is that the Sacrifices referenced are semi-allegorical and it's all Jesus Blood that was shed on The Cross.

Revelation 22 begins by describing the same river Ezekiel describes. Now I've seen people say Ezekiel's River is also in Joel and Zechariah, in contexts that have it coming into existence around the time of Armageddon. And not connecting it to Revelation 22 at all. But I've looked at the relevant references in Joel and Zechariah, and they don't seem like they're describing this single very special River at all, certainly not as identically as Revelation 22 does. Daniel 12 also seems to see the same River and places it after the White Throne Judgment.

But still the view I'm advocating here could have the River come into existence at the start of the Millennium in some form, before the Holy City's descends and perfects it. But it's also clear to me in Daniel 12 that some Old Testament discussions of Eschatology tend to skip right from the end of the First Resurrection to the Second Resurrection, effectively skipping the Millennium the same as Chuck Missler likes to point out how The Church Age is often skipped over.

The possibility that much of what Ezekiel describes begins in The Millennium is possible.  The connection to Revelation 21-22 are pretty much all in the Description of New Jerusalem itself, which directly comes into view in the last chapter.

Paul defines The Church as The Temple of God in I Corinthians 3:16 "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" And Ephesians 2:21 "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:". In the Latter the Twelve Apostles are also defined as the Foundation, fitting Revelation 21's description where it's in parallel to the Twelve Tribes. Jesus promises the Disciples they'd rule the Twelve Tribes at The Last Supper.

And each individual believer's body is also defined as The Temple of God in I Corinthians 6:19 "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?". John 2:21 also defines the body of Jesus as The Temple. And The Church is The Body of Christ.

New Jerusalem is spoken of as being synonymous with The Bride of Christ. "Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." So all this imagery overlaps. I do not believe any of this contradicts there being a literal Temple Building or City lay out like Ezekiel saw and measured.

I still see Israel and The Church as distinct Covenants, don't think I'm confused on that. But they are linked Covenants, our salvation is still derived from Genesis 12. The promise made to the Twelve Disciples shows those in the Church that are of physical Israel are in a sense inheritors of both covenants. The 144,000 are also interesting to look at, I don't allegorize them, they are specific people from each Tribe minus Dan. But in Revelation 14 they sound an awful lot like The Church.

Now you might be worried that I'm supporting some form of Amillennialism, by pushing up some of the epic unmistakable details of the Millennium.  No, I still take Revelation 20 literally.

Even if the time-span of a Thousand Years doesn't calculate to exactly how we'd measure a Thousand Years, it's still a period of time when Christ rules on Earth with Bodily Resurrected believers. And there is still no way you could convince me the events of Revelation 6-19, or Matthew 24, already happened in 70 A.D. or any other period already in the past.

The problem with Amillennialisim is making the Millennium synonymous with the Church Age. My own reading of Revelation 19-21 gives me the impression The Church won't even be on Earth during The Millennium. Christ's Co-Rulers there are chiefly the Post-Rapture Tribulation Saints who were Martyred for not taking the Mark and worshiping the Beast or his Image. But I do feel inclined to see Pre-Church Saints, who were Resurrected soon after Jesus in 30 A.D. as Matthew 27:52 records, as being here too.

If Ezekiel is not describing the Millennial Temple as we keep assuming. Maybe it's wrong to assume the Millennial Temple will be a separate building from the coming Third Temple. The Second Temple could be rededicated after it's violated by Antiochus Epiphanes. Jesus is at least as qualified to rededicate a violated Temple as the Maccabees where. And if we believe Daniel 8's Little Horn applies to the coming Man of Sin as much as to Antiochus, verse 14 says the Sanctuary will be cleansed, not destroyed and rebuilt.

Independent Nation States do still exist in the New Heaven and New Earth, not just The Millennium. Revelation 21:24 "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." That's probably another stumbling block that makes people assume the Millennium in various Psalms and Isaiah passages where perhaps they shouldn't.

Psalm 48 I believe is about the descent of New Jerusalem.  It's linked to the "Sides of The North" a term elsewhere in Scripture is used only once, linked to God's Heavenly Throne in Isaiah 14.

So since I see the New Heaven and New Earth in so many places where most see the Millennium, where do I see the Millennium in the Hebrew Scriptures? Well some passages that are very broad in nature might simply have both in view together, like one simply saying The Messiah will reign for ever.

Daniel 7 is one key passage for getting from the Hebrew Bible that there is a distinction. The Fourth Beast (Edom-Rome) is destroyed right at the beginning of the Reign of the Son of Man in verse 11. But the other Three beasts (Assyria, Persia, Greece) in verse 12 "they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." So there is a distinction here.

I've come to support the Post-Millenial view of Ezekiel 38&39 but allowing the possibility of a lesser near fulfillment. Christ White while he does not agree with my New Jerusalem view makes a good argument on this subject. Based on that, I think it's probable that it's only really Persia which won't continue into the Eternal State, being destroyed for taking part in the Gog and Magog invasion.

It's possible to some degree changes will take place even during the Millennium. Ezekiel 29-32 seems to see a period of Egypt being desolate and it's people scattered for 40 years, and I also see the possibility of The Antichrist as contemporary with the beginning of this period. Joel also sees Egypt as Desolate at the time the Millennium starts like Edom had become. But it won't be forever like Edom because Isaiah 19 talks about Egypt and Assyria having a special relationship during some Future Messianic era. Whether that's latter in the Millennium or the Eternal State I don't know.

The Jubilee is often seen as a type of the Millennium.   That too should maybe be rethought.

If the the Thousand years are a "Sabbath Millennium" as often thought.  Then we should remember that The Jubilee isn't the Seventh of something, it's an 8th, what comes after the Seven are all complete.  Like the 8th day of Tabernacles is sometimes viewed as.

On the other hand, defining the Millennium as a Sabbath Millennium isn't directly Biblical, and arguably draws on accepting too much Rabbinic tradition.