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.

Revelation is Paulian

Both people who want to reject Paul as a false Apostle and those who want to remove Revelation from the Canon base a lot of their arguments on a perceived inherent conflict between the two, almost no one is trying to throw out both, rejecting one tends to be tied to an attachment to the other.

This perception has a lot to do with misunderstanding both of them.  Revelation has in my opinion the least to say directly about Soteriology or Justification of any New Testament book, you're supposed to have already gotten the message on that if you've even made it this far.  But if we define what it means to Overcome the same way 1 John 5:5 does, then Revelation can easily be understood as agreeing with Paul's emphasis on Faith.  And Paul does still anticipate a Judgment based on works in 1 Corinthians 3 and 2 Corinthians 5:10.

The crux of the debate is the issue of eating food sacrificed to Idols, which Paul discussed in 1 Corinthians 8 and is relevant to Revelation 2 in the messages to Pergamos and Thyatira.  The argument being that Paul's position on this issue is what Revelation is calling the Doctrine of Balaam and teaching of Jezebel.

Paul is actually taking a sort of middle ground on this issue, he's arguing that when buying food at the market Christians need not concern themselves with if it was or not, because we don't believe in it actually doing anything magical to the food.  But he is still clear to not do it publicly in a public ritual to appease the world.  In Revelation this issue first comes up talking to the church in Pergamos a center of the Imperial Cult, such Public engagements with Idolatry being demanded of Christians to prove their Loyalty to the Emperor is clearly the context.  

People will then cite Paul's statement to Timothy in II Timothy that "all of Asia" had left him to insist none of the Churches in Revelation deemed good can be Paulian.  Paul was using hyperbole, clearly there was a Remnant in Ephesus in the community Timothy himself is a leader of.  So the False Apostles the Church of Ephesus is praised for rejecting could be the very Ravenous Wolves Paul warned them about in Acts 20.  

Also the limits of what Asia meant were a bit amorphous and flexible, all Seven Churches of Revelation were in the Roman Province of Asia, but Acts 16:6 in context is arguably using Asia in a more limited sense where Ephesus might be the only city of Revelation 2-3 to qualify.

I've also seen the accusation that Revelation is contradicting Paul on Jesus being the only Mediator by having this Angel guide John through much of this vision.  Jesus speaks to John directly at the beginning and end of Revelation, but more importantly to say this Angel's role contradicts Paul in Galatians 3:19-20, Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24 and 1 Timothy 2:5 is to miss the point of what Paul means by Mediator in those passages, Paul is talking about Salvation and Atonement and who we Pray to, it's not a contradiction that Angels will still sometimes be used as messengers, messengers are literally exactly what Angels are, so Paul's acknowledging they still function at all proves they can still be used for exactly what Revelation depicts.

But I want to go further and argue that Revelation is not just compatible with Paul but dependent on Paulian innovations, that it may well be the most Paulian NT book that no one thinks Paul wrote.

It is largely Paul who built the doctrine of The Church as The Temple of God, it has some roots before in Stephen's Acts 7 Sermon, but it's Paul who fully develops it.  And it's a doctrine vital to understanding Revelation, being explicitly in both the message to Philadelphia and chapter 21, but I would argue every reference to The Temple and/or Tabernacle in the book needs to be interpreted through the lens of this doctrine, (same with chapter 14's heavenly Zion which also comes from Paul).  And it does so using specific language from Paul like The Apostles being Foundations in Ephesians 2:20., and Revelation's Pillar imagery could have it roots in things Paul said in Galatians 2:9 and 1 Timothy 3:15.

The concept of being Sealed with The Holy Spirit is another of Paul's ideas Revelation brings up, also the way chapter 14 uses the term Firstfurits I think is tied to how Paul used that term.  And Paul's idea of representing the Word of God as a Sword in Ephesian 6 also seems influential on at least some of the Sword imagery in Revelation.

There is also my theory that the Fifth Trumpet account in Revelation 9 explains the Removal of Restraint referred to II Thessalonians 2.

Luke, the most Paulian Gospel, may well be the most relevant of the Four Gospels to understanding Revelation.  Luke 21:24 specifically is I think being quoted by at least two verses in Revelation, 11:2 and 13:10 though the latter may also have in mind Matthew 26:52.  The end of the message to Laodicea in Revelation 3:20 is possibly drawing on Luke 12:36.  Luke 11:22 uses a specific form of the word Nikao (Overcome, To Conquer) that elsewhere appears only in Revelation 6:2.  Luke is also the only other NT Text to use the word translated "Lake" in Revelation, Lmne.

I added a section on one particular Anti-Revelation Hyper Paulian to my Thyatira post.  I have also written an Amazon Review of that Author's book.

I have increasingly come to hold the view that the John of Revelation is John Mark not the Son of Zebedee.  While Mark is first introduced as an associate of Peter he becomes close to Paul and Barnabas for a time in Acts 13-15 and Mark is mentioned by Paul in a few of his later Epistles.  In fact 2 Timothy 4:11 implies he was in Ephesus with Timothy for a time.

And historically the contexts of the Seven Churches supports them being Paulian Communities.  Only three are mentioned by explicitly those names elsewhere in the New Testament and all of them imply Paulina contexts. 

Ephesus is tired to Paul all over Acts 18-20 and receives a Paulina Epistle and appears to be where Paul was when he wrote 1st Corinthians, meanwhile Timothy was in Ephesus when Paul wrote his Epistles to him.  Thyatira explicitly comes up in the person of Lydia converted by Paul in Philippi, and later Paul visited unnamed cities in Lydia whish could account for Thyatira, Sardis and Philadelphia.  And the Laodiceans are mentioned in Colossians.  

Later traditions sought to make Polycarp of Smyrna a student of John but his own Epistle makes no such claim and rarely quotes books attributed to John, it's content is mostly Paulian.  What I said above make sit possible John Mark was the John the Elder who Polycarp and Papias knew.  Another figure tradition credits with starting the church in Smyrna was said to be Timothy's brother.

Translation issues in Revelation that could be important.

They involve the Subject of The Beast and comes from chapters 13 and 17.

In Revelation 13:5 the KJV says The Beast will "continue" 42 month.  That reading being my default understanding of the verse has always lead me to interpreting it as saying the end of the 42 months must be when the Beast is defeated in Revelation 19 and they begin when the Mortal Wound is healed.  Since the meaning of "Continue" in my mind meant his life and reign being prolonged past the point when it should have ended.

But I recently checked the Young's Literal Translation and it says that The Beast was given authority to "make war" for 42 months.  Now this is not actually a perfectly hyper literal translation because the Greek word for War isn't in the verse, but it is elsewhere in the chapter and associated with The Beast in other chapters.  For example in both Revelation 11:7 and 13:7 the phrase "make war" appears, and in both the word for "make" is the Greek word translated "Continue" in 13:5, in fact the same word is translated lots of other ways as well.

I think the "make war" appearances are actually best translated "wage war".  In 13:7 the waging of war is defined as something The beast is given power or authority to do.  And 13:4 was also about the Beast's prowess in warfare. So it makes sense that what The beast "makes" or "wages" in those other verses is what is probably the context of verse 5.

The next is not a criticism of the KJV, but more the way we casually talk about Revelation 17 that may not even be supported by any actual translation.  And that is how we often refer to the Woman as Riding the Beast.  The Language the text uses is that The Beast is carrying the Woman.  And this difference is significant in terms of who can be presumed to have the agency in this situation.

The third is perhaps not a matter of a single word.  But I'd already argued on this Blog that I think the Miracles or Wonders that the later part Revelation 13 attributes to the Second Beast are meant to be believed by those being deceived to be performed by the First Beast.  But I didn't much try to support that with anything in the actual text of Revelation 13 but from inferences drawn by other prophecies I then assumed to be about the same persons.  I'm now more skeptical of a lot of those assumptions about what passages are and aren't about the "Antichrist", but instead have been thinking about what it means that the miracles are performed "in the sight" of The Beast, or "before the beast" in the YLT.

Such language exists in The Hebrew often about the relationship between The LORD and His Prophets or Anointed Ones.  In those Contexts is about how what the Agents of God are able to do what they do because of Power or Authority given to them by God or Jesus.  The natural perversion of that would be a False Prophet attributing his miracles to the person he's seeking to deceive the world into thinking is a god.

However another issue near here is about the Image of The Beast.  The KJV says that the Second Beast convinced the people to "male" an Image of the Beast but other translations say something like "set up" which I think is more accurate looking at the Greek verb itself.  The issue is the "make" translation had at times lead me to think the Image is something that didn't exist already prior to this, but the Greek is actually NOT using a word for Create. So it could be referring to doing something with an Image that was already there.

Revelation was written to Seven Churches in Asia

70 AD Preterists make the argument in terms of time period that the book must have been for the people who first read it, yet they don't apply that geographically.  If you're going to downgrade the scale of Revelation to not being the entire world but just a local region, then it should be about the region it was written to.  After all Revelation 22:16 says in the Greek and the YLT "these things concerning the Churches".

But Preterists are blind on that fact.  In response to my sharing of my last post on Facebook someone basically mused to themselves why it was written to these churches when it's obviously about Jerusalem???????

I was watching more videos from one of those Partial Preterists, and I began to notice another way in which preterists are oddly exactly like Pre-Trib Dispensationalists.  They can't wrap their heads around the idea of Revelation not being about the same geographical region most of the Old Testament is about, utterly ignoring everything prior New Testament books taught us about how now The Temple is The Church, now the true Holy City or Beloved City is the community of believers not a specific geographical piece of land, what Hebrews taught about the true Jerusalem and Zion being the heavenly one.

They get all those doctrines for how they apply to the present of course.  Their problem is they push back to 70 AD the spiritual changes that happened in 30 AD.  Jesus said the Law and the Prophets were until John (referring to The Baptist), Paul said we were already in the Age of Grace in Galatians written before 62 AD, Stephen was stoned for teaching God already doesn't dwell in a Temple made by human hands.  You see in Christian theology the physical destruction of the Temple is an after thought, a foot note, it was spiritually rendered null and void on The Pentecost of 30 AD at the latest.

Revelation only mentions Jerusalem by name when referring to New Jerusalem, and only says Zion of a location that is seemingly in Heaven in chapter 14.  I just made a post on The Great City.  These preterists don't take as literal geography things that point to Mesopotamia like Babylon and the Euphrates, but any excuse to say this is obviously Jerusalem in Judea they will cling to.

The Temple in chapter 11 is always referring to The Temple in Heaven, it exists in the context of what was just going on in chapter 10, the Angel who speaks about the Witnesses is that Angel, and at the end of the chapter we're explicitly told The Temple in Heaven is the one who's Ark is seen.  Likewise chapters 21-22 clarify that The Holy City is New Jerusalem, which is still in Heaven during the prior chapters.  New Jerusalem's size if you take it literally is large enough that if you put it's center at terrestrial Jerusalem it would encompass the entire region of the Seven Churches.  And Philadelphia is promised to be a Pillar in The Temple of New Jerusalem.

A lot of imagery and terminology later in the book is drawing back on things in the specific messages to the Seven Churches.  Satan's Seat is first in Pergamon but later becomes the Seat of The Beast, fitting it being the center of the Imperial Cult and Apollo's Seat in The Iliad where Aeneas mortal wound was healed.

At this point I feel like doing what I've sometimes done with Historicism, and play devil's advocate for what a proper Preterist interpretation of Revelation should look like.

We could begin within a century of when Revelation was written and look at Alexander The False Prophet, a person who's life was fictionalized by Lucian.  He was based in Asia Minor, he made an Idol of Aeskleius called Glycon that he made it appear to be speaking.  And he was the real driving force behind Christian persecutions that happened during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Aurelius himself actually tried to oppose the persecution of the Christians.  As interesting as that is it won't fully hold up.

The truth is the only real Great Persecution Christians faced under Pagan Rome was the Diocletian Persecution which was really masterminded by Galerius.  Early Nicene Christians simply started imagining the intensity of that Persecution into the entire Pre-Milvean Bridge era.  We have ancient sources testifying that many Apostatized during this persecution, which is why Donatism was an issue after it ended so that can be the Apostacy of II Thessalonians 2.  It also lased exactly 10 years from February of 303 to February of 313 which means you could apply a Day=Year theory application to the ten days of persecution alluded to in the message to Smyrna.

Then Constantine rose to power in 311-313 and virtually overnight the Empire went from trying to annihilate Christians to being ruled by one.  This era is when Post-Millennial and Partiral Preterist interpretations of Prophecy rose in popularity, with Constantinople being founded to serve as a New Jerusalem in addition to a New Rome, it's original main church was the Hagia Irene, Holy Peace, Irene is basically the Greek translation of Salem.

The region of the Seven Churches remained firmly in Eastern Roman/Byzantine control long past when most of the empire fell to the Ishmaelites, nor did they fall under Latin control after the Fourth Crusade, they remained firmly in the Greek Empire of Nicaea.  However in 1308 is when this region fell under Muslim Turkish control.  So for this region it was about exactly a Thousand Years of Christianity being the politically dominant religion allowing you to argue we are now in verse 8 or 9 of chapter 20.

However that was rhetorical, my view of State Sponsored Christianity is more amendable to Historicism then it is to Post-Millennialism.

The Latest Date for The Book of Revelation

I am about to settle the matter of a late date for the writing of Revelation in a way that even my fellow Futurists might not like since I now believe it was even later then the reign of Domitian.  But this view could be compatible with Preterism if you left the 70 AD obsession in favor of the real Desolation of Classical Israel.

Objectors may object that I'm making it too late to be legitimately Apostolic.  I don't see it that way of course.  Quadratus of Athens in his apology to Hadrian written for Hadrian's visit to Athens in 124 or 125 AD says that some of those healed and risen from the dead by Jesus were still alive at that time.  Today it is verified as being possible to live to 122, and I as a Creationist believes what humans can live to has deteriorated not increased over the millennia.  Pliny using documents related to a Roman Census of 74 AD says in one region of Italy there were many people who were over 100, 4 were 130 and some up to 140.  So I have no doubt that in Judea some people born BC lived through the Bar Kochba Revolt and that some people who were healed by Jesus and then witnessed Him Risen made it even into the reign of Antonius Pius.

The responsibility for keeping the Canon pure is The Holy Spirit's not Man's, it would not have been allowed to become universally accepted by Churches in every region if it wasn't the True Word of God.  Eusebius of Caesarea had to acknowledge that it was universally accepted even though he was personally biased against it.

The oldest reference to the existence of Revelation is Justin Martyr.

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."

Why does this quote make me think he's referring to something still very recent?  Because he's not even aware of there being a book, just that the vision happened, as if the text of the book proper still hadn't left the region of those seven cities but the gist of the message had spread by word of mouth.

The Message to Pergamon refers to a Martyr there named Antipas.  The traditions about Antipas say he was cooked alive in the Red Bull of the Serapion.  The Serapion of Pergamon was a second century structure, like the Temple to Trajan it was a project probably started during Trajan's reign but finished under Hadrian.  Now in a prior post about Pergamon I simply considered this a reason that detail of the tradition must be wrong, since I as this post itself shows don't inherently trust traditions.  However there is another factor to consider.

As I pointed out in the post on The Roma Cult it is not a coincidence both references to Martyrdom in Revelation 2-3 are the two cities that were centers of the imperial cult in the province.  In those cities everyone was required to offer sacrifices to the Emperor, nothing else about the religious views of an individual mattered.  Jews were exempted because the Romans recognized them as an ancient religion, and during the first century Christianity was still a sect of Judaism.

Even if you believe the mythology about the Neornian Persecution that was a brief persecution that didn't effect people outside Rome.  The Policy that lead to the systemic Christian Martyrdoms alluded to in Revelation 2-3 didn't begin till during the reign of Trajan, that's what the correspondence with Pliny The Younger was all about.  But Pliny was governor in Bithynia, our oldest confirmation this was going on in the province of Asia was during the reign of Hadrian when Gaius Minicis Fundanus was governor there.

In Polycarp's letter to the Philippians he seems to claim Smyrna didn't have a Christian community during the lifetime of Paul. Preterists have attempted to explain this as only meaning not when Paul was in Philippi.  But what I find interesting is the inclusion of Polycarp in the letter Polycrates of Ephesus wrote to Bishop Victor of Rome. His intention in the letter is to claim that these communities had been practicing Passover how they currently were from the beginning, so I feel it's logical to deduce that at least the first name associated with each city was a founder of that Christian community.  Meaning Polycarp himself may have founded the Church in Smyrna, and his birth is popularly estimated to have been 69 AD.

"But we know Ephesus wasn't founded by the people Polycrates associated with it because of Acts 18-20" you may object.  That original Ephesian Christian community I think was driven out of the city and dwelt in Melitos and Polycrates was citing the origins of the second Ephesian church.  I think Paulian communities generally took the opposing position on Passover because of how Paul stressed the Resurrection's link to First Fruits, hence Rome being who Polycrates was trying to convince.  That's also why he couldn't cite Pergamon/Troy and Thyatira as being with them on this, they were also Paulian.

Neither Smyrna, Sardis or Philadelphia are mentioned by name anywhere in Acts or in the letters of Paul, technically neither is Pergamon but I suspect Pergamon could have been the place Paul and Luke called Troy.  Meanwhile Laodicea and Hierapolis are mentioned by Paul only in letters I personally believe he wrote after the point when traditionalists claim he died.  Basically the letters Secular Scholars think Paul didn't write I think were written between 70-100 AD.

In the ongoing debate between if Revelation was written during Domitian or Nero's reign.  The Nero proponents may have numbers on their side, yes seemingly more sources said it was Nero (and some Claudius).  But Domitian advocates have antiquity on their side, Irenaeus is the first person to ever directly say anything about the when of Revelation's writing at all.

Thing is Irenaeus and Tertullian are already of the era when John son of Zebedee, the John who wrote Revelation, John the Presbyter, and the Beloved Disciple were all being conflated together by "patristic" tradition, I'm convinced those are 4 separate individuals one of whom was not named John, so by this point the "Early Church Fathers" are already fundamentally untrustworthy to me on this issue.  

Regardless it is of note that Irenaeus also said this John lived into the reign of Trajan.  And given the argument Preterists make about Irenaeus saying John being "last seen" during the reign of Domitian, he could have meant it was then he left for "Patmos" and the vision happened later.  Indeed his point in context is the recentness of the vision, so Domitian as the bare earliest date is in fact what makes most sense.

I think there was inevitably a desire of some to make Revelation older then it was, partly for concern that it's actual date was too young to be valid.  And in time as Origenists and Augustinians wanted to promote Post-Millennial and Prerterist interpretations of the book to force it back to the time of Nero.  So there is not a single "patristic" source I will consider a pure unbiased witness here.

I also currently believe the Nicolaitans were those promoting the Monarchical Church structure first truly popularized by "Ignatius".  I do not view it as a First Century problem at all.  Nothing the "Patristics" say on the Nicolaitans can be trusted because they WERE the Nicolaitans but in denial of that fact.

I would not consider it impossible that "The Tyrant" in some references might have originally been not a Roman Emperor at all but Simon Bar-Kochba who's persecution of Christians is witnessed in a contemporary source, Justin Martyr's apology to Hadrian.  Thing is I'm not convinced the reference to "Patmos" in chapter 1 is claiming a legal "exile" at all.

Futurists cite Cassius Dio as secular evidence Domitian was exiling people to Islands.  But this was for enemies who were Roman Aristocrats or at least citizens.  Of course if my theory that John Mark was John of Patmos is true then the name Marcus implies he was a Roman citizen.  While people exiled by Domitian were allowed to return as soon as he died, John may have chosen to continue witnessing Jesus to the natives of this island.  My hunch is John Mark was in Jerusalem for the spring feasts of 30 AD but probably not (by modern standards at least) an adult yet and so born between 10 and 20 AD.

In conclusion I think The Revelation was written down sometime in the reign of Hadrian.  If you still think the Sixth King of chapter 11 has contemporary with when John had the vision then Hadrian can be consider a 6th Emperor if you consider Vespasian's rise in the Year of the Four Emperors a sort of reboot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do have some interesting thoughts on Philadelphia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's possible Patmos wasn't where we think it was.

The Isle we currently identify with Patmos was mentioned rarely in Antiquity, and it's known that it was originally named Letois after Leto because of myths about Artemis raising it out of the Sea at the request of Selene.  It's not till the Fourth Century any Church commemorating John writing Revelation was founded there.  There are lists from sources like Tacitus of islands being used as penal colonies by Rome in the 1st Century and Patmos/Letois is never among them.

I've expressed on my other blog that The Beloved Disciple was Lazarus (and maybe also his Sisters) not any of the 12, and that they wrote the Gospel and Epistles commonly attributed to John.  I also believe John was never in Ephesus and that one of the False Apostles of Ephesus mentioned in Revelation 2 is the origin of that false tradition.  I think Letois was identified with Patmos derivative of that tradition.

The New Testament talks about Ephesus more then any other location that's not in Israel, never is anyone named John ever there.  Remember Ephesus is also where Timothy was when Paul wrote two Pastoral Epistles to him.  Revelation includes a message for Ephesus and other Churches in Asia which people often think implies John knew them.  But I feel it would have proven the Supernatural quality of this message better if it was able to address their issues so well even though this John had never been anywhere near them.

Revelation 1:9 is the only verse in all of Scripture the name "Patmos" appears in, the spelling is actually for grammatical reasons PatmO in the Textus Receptus.  It's called an Isle, and John says he's there for the Testimony of Jesus and alludes to tribulation, but there is still no direct reference to it being an exile as tradition has assumed it to be.  And this John does not claim to be one of the 12 or a Son of Zebedee either.

There are times in Scripture where the name of a City on an Island is treated as the name of that Island, like Melita/Melite in Acts 28:1.

The first time the New Testament uses a word for Island/Isle is Acts 13:6, while Paul, Barnabas and someone named John were on the Island of Cyprus, when they arrive at a city on Cyprus called Paphos.  It is upon leaving Cyprus in this chapter that this John separates from Paul and Barnabas.  It's pretty easy for me to imagine Patmos being an alternate form of or nick name for Paphos.

This John in Acts 13 was appointed to be Barnabas and Paul's "Minister", the specific Greek word used here implies a type of recorder or record keeper, someone who will be writing stuff down. His record of these events was probably used as source material by Luke when he compiled Acts, though I don't think Luke simply copy/pasted it.  The Book of Revelation is it's John serving that exact same function.

The reason scholars are pretty sure the John of Acts 13 is John Mark is because these events are referenced back to in Acts 15:37-40 where he's called both John and Mark.  That passage also tells us Barnabas and John Mark went back to Cyprus.  So could this John Mark have written Revelation at Paphos on Cyprus?  If John Mark is also the Mark who was a relative of Barnabas then he was a native of Cyprus to begin with.

But what if Mark and Revelation could have the same author?  Literary analysis only focuses on if Revelation lines up with books we've named after John son of Zebedee.  Mark's Gospel is likewise his record of what Peter preached.  Differences in literary style could perhaps be explained by him being the recorder of different reciters.

Acts 13 at Paphos is the only place outside of Revelation the word Pseudoprophetes (False Prophet) is used of a singular individual.

Kittim was a Son of Javan Son of Japheth in Genesis, but the name pops up a few times in Bible Prophecy.  It's pretty agreed on that it's an early name for the island of Cyprus, it's just disagreed to what extent Kittim extends beyond that, or if it's more specifically just Kition.  

Cyrpus at one point in it's ancient history was divided between Ten City-State Kingdoms, one of them was based in Paphos, one was Salamis and one was Kition.

The Wikipedia page for Paphos says some interesting things about the local Greek Mythology.  For one it's the source of the legend of Pygmalion, a myth about a statue named Galatea being brought to life by Aphrodite, many people talking about this story leave out that it was specifically a statue of Aphrodite.

The local cult of Aphrodite at Paphos believed the version of her origin story where she rises from the Sea, (the word for Sea in question being Thalassa the same one Revelation uses) after the genitals of Ouranos (Heaven) were cut off and cast into it (Nonnus, Dionysiaca 12.43, it's also in Hesiod).  Serpents were often used as Phalic Imagery in antiquity, so to a literate Greek reader Revelation 12 talking about the Old Serpent being cast out of Ouranos to the Earth might seem evocative of that castration.

The Greek text of Revelation may not define the Beasts out of the Sea and Earth as inherently masculine as our English Bibles make us assume.  The word for "Man" is always Anthropos which actually means Human and is not really gender specific.  And English is often forced to make pronouns Gender Specific that were not always so in the original.

There was also precedent for Aphrodite being worshiped as a War deity, Aphrodite Areia.  "Who is able to Make war with the Beast".

So it might be some of these local Pagan traditions influenced the Symbolic Imagery Jesus choose to use to communicate His message to this John.

It is also part of the Mythology of Paphos that they were colonized by Arcadians who fought in the Trojan War.  I have long theorized the Arcadians of Greek Mythology are the Arkite tribe of the Canaanites.  And I also think that Troy was partly based on the Northern Kingdom of Israel.  There is also a legend mentioned by Strabo about Paphos being founded by Amazons, who I also have wild speculations about.

Pygmalion was also the name of a King of Tyre who's reign is typically dated to 831-785 BC, he is known to have built colonies on Cyrpus and Sardinia.  His grandfather was the brother of Jezebel, Jezebel's father had been a priest of Astarte according to Phoenician historians quoted by Josephus.  Dido the founder of Carthage was the sister of Pygamlion of Tyre, she had stopped at Cyrpus on the way to Carthage.  Dido had also been married to a Priest of Melqart (The King of Tyre of Ezekiel 28:11-19).

This is why Cyrpus is often viewed as the origin of the cult of Aphrodite, or rather that it was on Cyprus Astarte became Aphrodite.

After the Christianization of the Roman Empire, The Virgin Mary began taking on aspects of the worship of many Olympian goddesses, including Aphrodite/Venus.  An Adonis Cave in Bethlehem became the Church of the Nativity.  Still it's important to avoid the bad Hislop derivative research you see being promoted by many Protestants, Hebrew Roots followers, Neo-Pagans and New Atheists. Nimrod did not have a wife named Semiramis, but it is true that the title "Queen of Heaven" in Pagan mythologies was often given to goddesses associated with the planet Venus.  And there is indeed a Church dedicated to the Virgin Mary in Paphos, and a few others elsewhere on the island of Cyrpus.

The title of Theotokos (Mother of God or God-Bearer or Birth-Giver of God) is part of Mary's quasi deification, so even though I'm not Nestorian I have my own reasons for not using that title for Mary, it's not Biblical so it doesn't matter if it's technically accurate. Aphrodite/Venus did have mother goddess aspects, as the mother of Aeneas she was a mother to Rome, and she was sometimes the mother of the god named Love.  Indeed one of the confusions of the conflicting accounts of Greek mythology is how Eros was both a son of Aphrodite but also a primordial deity who existed before Aphrodite's parents, sometimes Eros was even made the very first god.

There is a theory that one or both of the Jewish Temples (or maybe the Tabernacle of David) stood where Justinian built the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos.  So that's a pretty literal definition of an Abomination of Desolation.  But if you want a more symbolic one there is the fact that Catholics defend their Marian Doctrines by saying Mary is the Tabernacle and Ark of the New Covenant.  The New Testament actually teaches that every and all believers are The Temple/Tabernacle of God.

Update April 2020: I've decided this post should be viewed first and foremost as an argument for John Mark being the John of Revelation.  As a relative of Barnabas he was probably also born on Cyprus so so Jesus using Cypriot perspectives on things in the Vision is just evidence of that more so then Patmos being Cyprus.

I still have my doubts about the traditional identification of Patmos.  Is there any solid proof Letois was called Patmos before being associated with The Revelation?  Or that that association happened before the Fourth Century?

Update May 27th 2020: It has just been brought to my attention that there are some texts published by von Soden which say "John" wrote his Gospel after returning to Ephesus from Paphos.  That doesn't directly relate to Revelation at all, and ties into traditions I now consider false, but it is an interesting witness.
Here is the best link I find for a source on them.
Further Updates: The author of that book I've also interacted with on the comments section of a Preterist blog.
https://deanfurlong.com/2020/04/06/john-mark-beloved-disciple/comment-page-1/#comment-17
And they've written another blog post on the subject.
https://deanfurlong.com/2020/05/28/the-confusion-of-cyprus-and-patmos/

Update: We now need to depend on the Way Back Machine to read these.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210227203210/https://deanfurlong.com/2020/05/28/the-confusion-of-cyprus-and-patmos/

Universal Salvation in The Book of Revelation

The most common proof texts for Universal Salvation I cite are not from Revelation, I focus on Sayings of Jesus and Teachings from The Epistles.  But Revelation is the final chapter of The Bible, so it must help reinforce that message if it is true.  And I believe it does.

If you search for the phrase "Kings of The Earth" in Revelation, you'll find that from Chapter 6 Verse 15 to Chapter 19 Verse 19, they are consistently the bad guys, committing whoredom with the whore of Babylon and marching into battle alongside The Beast and False Prophet.  But suddenly in Revelation 21:24, after the last time the Lake of Fire is mentioned, we read.

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.

Now one could easily object that these are different kings, but Believers being fulfilled in our promise to Reign with Christ.  But I believe our Kingship exists within New Jerusalem (the "it" of this verse) while these are nations without it.  And in chapter 1 Jesus calls Himself the Prince of the Kings of The Earth, so this was foreshadowed.

It's also the implication of my Bride of Christ doctrine.  I feel I have shown that the Whore of Babylon is the same Woman as the Bride of Christ.

I've already talked about how to translate the Greek Phrase that becomes in the KJV "Forever and Ever", it should be "Age of Ages".  But I've also rhetorically argued for Universal Salvation being consistent with the KJV readings of these passages.

I also have a post on The Second Resurrection.

The last verse of Revelation 21, verse 27, also challenges our assumptions of what the New Heaven and New Earth is like.

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

It implies things that theoretically could defile New Jerusalem do still exist.  Revelation 22:15 again clarified that sinners do still exist outside New Jerusalem, the Lake of Fire can't be located there, chapter 14 clarified it comes from the Throne of God.

But I also like to emphasize that the Gates of New Jerusalem are always open according to 21:25, and that the leaves of the Tree of Life are for the Healing of the Nations.  So those too Unclean to enter the City when this condition starts may still become clean, that may also be the purpose of The River.

Revelation 21 also says that God will make ALL THINGS New.

So in conclusion, a plain simple reading of Revelation on it's own does infer a message of Universal Salvation.

The Ark of The Covenant

This post is a follow up of sorts to my The Mercy Seat is Not a Throne post.  I stand by all my main points made there, but I want to talk about some other issues related to The Ark I've studied since then, some of which may provide new context to what I discussed there.  And some of that material will be retreaded here.

This is partly about how I've become more skeptical of my past support of it being in Aksum.

1: Contents of The Ark

Hebrews 9:4 indicated that in addition to The Tablets, The Ark also contained the Rod of Aaron, and the Jar of Manna.  This is often viewed as a contradiction because of 1 Kings 8:9.

There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when Yahuah made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.

II Chronicles 5:10 says the same thing.  However these verses are set at the consecration of Solomon's Temple, after The Ark had been captured for awhile by The Philistines.  They may have taken the other objects in there but didn't see any value in broken stone tablets.

Hebrews 9 is referring to the Time of Moses. Exodus 16:33-34 says the Pot of Manna was placed before Yahuah and before the Testimony.  That could be consistent with in the same container, The Ark.  Numbers 17:10 says the same about Aaron's Rod.

Deuteronomy 31:25-26 adds a Scroll, presumably the first Torah Scroll, though one that timeline wise wouldn't have included Deuteronomy, into the Ark.  Why would Hebrews 9 leave that out?  Hebrews hardly contradicts more being in there, it's likely the writer was more drawing on verses set at an earlier point in the timeline of the wandering.

2. Was it in The Temple in the days of Hezekiah?

In Kings the last clear reference to The Ark is during the reign of Solomon.   In Chronicles this is also true save one verse from the Reign of Josiah which implies it had already left but that it might be possible to get it back..... More on that later.

But 2 Kings 19:15 is often cited as proof that it was there in the time of Hezekiah, because he "prayed before Yahuah, and said, O Yahuah God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubim".  And they assume this term must always refer to the Cherubim on The Mercy Seat.

But Solomon's Temple had some things The Tabernacle didn't.  One of those was it's own larger pair of Cherubim in the of The Holy of Holies, placed there already before The Ark was brought into it.  This is recorded in 1 Kings 6 starting in verse 23 (The Ark was brought to The Temple in chapter 8) and 2 Chronicles 3 starting in verse 10 (The Ark was brought there in chapter 5).

And it also could just be a poetic title of Yahuah based on his dwelling between the actual living Cherubim in his Heavenly Throne Room.

So it could have been there at that time.  But we have no direct proof it was.

3. Could Shishak have taken it?

Once one accepts there is no proof of it still being there later. It becomes easy to conclude the most logical option is Shishak took it.  The movie Raiders of The Lost Ark is based on this assumption.  And as I said before a belief it could be in Egypt might be key to some End Times deceptions.

On my Revised Chronology blog I talk about Shishak a lot, to some degree I've changed my mind about him over it's history.  In one post (at the time I'm first writing this the most recent on the Shishak tag is dated November 4th 2016 though I've edited it since then) I pointed out overlooked aspects of the Chronicles account that showed no battle was fought, Rehoboam was convinced by a Prophet to willingly hand over tribute.

To me that makes it unlikely The Ark (or anything else in The Holy Place) was removed then, Rehoboam would have stripped The Temple of all the purely decorative Gold.  But they wouldn't have handed over The Ark.  The Prophet's words were obeyed to avoid something that tragic.

4. What do I think of 2 Maccabees?

If that story is true The Ark was hidden in a cave on Mt Sinai/Horeb.  Which I've argued recently could be in Yemen but I'm not going all in on that.  I certainly view it as in Arabia, east of the Gulf of Aqaba.  But I've grown more skeptical of Jabal el Laws.

However I have argued against giving credence to the Deutercanonical books.  So I don't think that's what happened.

5. Where do I think The Ark is?

The Bible tells us, in the Book named for the premise that it is Revealing mysteries to us.  In The Book of Revelation chapter 11, after the 7th Trumpet is sounded in it's very last verse.

And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Now I know the counter argument, "The Tabernacle was modeled after The Temple in Heaven, so this is just what The Ark copied".  But you see what makes The Ark different is it's the one thing that wasn't an exact replica, it's there in place of the Four Living Cherubim.

This is the fate of The Ark being reveled to The World at the time The Beast is setting up his deception which I think may include a counterfeit.  Michael Rood who supports the Ron Wyatt theory I debunked, sees The Ark as possibly relevant to the Covenant of Daniel 9.  If there is an end times significance to the 70th Week, I think he's right but for the wrong reason.

5a. When did it leave Earth for Heaven?

Ezekiel 10 describes when Yahuah's divine presence left Solomon's Temple shortly before the fall to Nebuchadnezzar., and it's been noted how that presence never returned to The Second.  Though The New Testament supports it having some Holy Spirit presence till Pentecost, via John 4.  I think what only The First Temple had was The Word/Logos, while the second had only the Spirit.

The account of it's leaving makes reference to the Cherubim.  Maybe Yahuah took The Ark with him?

6. What about Jeremiah 3:16?

And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith Yahuah, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of Yahuah: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

My Mercy Seat post refuted seeing The Mercy Seat in verse 17.

But I also saw recently someone argue that because no one could enter the Holy of Holies in Ancient Israel, even the beginning of the condition described as ending here hasn't happened yet.  That is a massive abuse of the text, the intent here is clearly to allude to the Pilgrimage Festivals.  Under the New Testament we no longer need to go to Jerusalem or Shiloh or Bethel to observe those Feasts, because now WE are God's Temple and Tabernacle.  Wherever we gather He is there.  So I agree with the face value reading that this means the purpose of the Ark is served, it has one last function when the 7th Trumpet sounds and that is it.

7. Were there two Ark of the Covenants?

The last and most shocking issue I shall cover.

In Exodus it is clear that the first Tablets, which God made directly and which were broken.  Were placed in The Ark made of Gold that has The Mercy Seat as it's lid.  And that Ark was made by Bazael.

Deuteronomy 10 says God had Moses on his own make another Ark of only Wood and place the second set of Tablets inside them.  Some see this as a contradiction and evidence of the Documentary Hypothesis.  But it's perfectly consistent if one considers that God wanted a second humbler Ark to be made for some reason.

The Ark with the Broken Tablets is the only one with a "Mercy Seat". And thus the one associated with the Yom Kippur Sin Offering in Leviticus 16.  That Ark had the broken Tablets, therefor the Atonement in question can be viewed as the Atonement for the breaking of that Covenant.

Deuteronomy 10 is a reference back to when the Second Set of Tablets were first made around Exodus 33-34, so it's not saying this Ark wasn't made till near the end of the wandering.  Interestingly at that same time Exodus describes a separate Tent of Meeting outside the Camp when the Mishkan hasn't been made yet.  Numbers 11 and 12 also seem to refer to this tent outside The Camp.  Could it be a humbler Tabernacle for a humbler Ark?  In 1 Chronicles 17:5 Yahuah says he went from Tent to Tent and from one Mishkan to another.

This Link discuses the possibly of there being more then one Tent of Meeting.

Attempts to figure this mystery out by saying something like the Ark of Yahuah is the Golden one and the Ark of God is the Wooden one won't bear out, both are used interchangeably of the Ark the Philistines captured.  Still 1 Samuel 14:18 says Ark of God, viewing that as the Wooden Ark perhaps works best with how in general the Golden Ark is depicted as never leaving Kirijath-Jearim during this time.

Rabbinic tradition actually says there were two Arks.  Rashi's assessment that the Wooden one was the only one used in battle except when The Philsitines took it as a punishment I'm not sure will bear out. Though it might agree with the theory that the Wooden Ark became the Drum of Thunder of The Lemba tribe.

In my post on Bethel The House of God I attempted to explain why Judges 20:26-27 placed The Ark in Bethel when other passages say it was in Shiloh all that time.  If there were two Arks then we have a possibly simpler answer.  In this passage it is called the Ark of the Covenant of God.

Aven(Also rendered On) and Bethaven are used in The Bible of two locations.  On/Heliopolis in Egypt.  And seemingly a place near Bethel in Joshua 7:2, but also seems to be used as a synonym for Bethel in Hosea and Amos after Bethel became home to Jeroboam's Idol.  Samuel 14:18-23 possibly also links The Ark of God with Bethaven.

I recently argued that Zion, Which is The City of David is Bethlehem, not Jebus as popularly assumed.  One area where my argument gets difficult is the time frame from when David Brings The Ark to Zion after becoming sole ruler, to Solomon placing it is his Temple.  There being Two Arks could solve some of that.

Now I return to that verse from the time of Josiah.  2 Chronicles 35:3.

"Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders: serve now Yahuah your God, and his people Israel"

I notice that he didn't say "did Build for it".  Maybe the Ark in question here was never previously in Solomon's Temple?

I think the Ark of Gold with The Mercy Seat as it's Lid is what had those other objects placed in it.  And that it was kept in The Tabernacle with the other Holy Relics built for The Tabernacle.  And as such it was at Shiloh all through The Judges period, and then got taken by The Philistines and wound up at Kirithjearim.  When it was separate from The Tabernacle of Meeting, the Tabernacle had no Ark while it was at Nob and Gibeon.

I think the Ark of Wood was in Bethel all through the Judges period and still so down into the Reign of Saul and even the start of David's Reign.

During the reigns of David and the start of Solomon's reign I'm not always sure which Ark is where.  He originally brought the Ark from Kirithjearim to Zion.

The Ark of Gold was the one Solomon originally placed in The Temple.  And perhaps the other was placed in the Tabernacle of David in Zion when he moved the Daughter of Pharaoh out of there.  And later that Wooden Ark was the one mentioned in 2 Chronicles 35.

7a. Which one do I think was taken to Heaven?

Very likely both.

If one is still on Earth it's the Wooden lesser one.  But it might have had a Counterfeit Mercy Seat, designed to look like a Throne placed on it.  Maybe it's in Aksum, and had been on Tana Kirikos and at Elephantine.

The Arnion of Revelaion

I'm going to begin this post by repeating (with small adjustments) some of what I said in this now possibly defunct theory.  Much of that post I already possibly retracted here.

The KJV of the Book of Revelation uses the word "Lamb" 29 times, all but once of Jesus.  All of them are the same Greek word (Strongs number 721), but in 3 different forms.  Arnion/Arniou/ArniO. 

This word however appears only once in the NT outside Revelation, in John 21:15.  There however it is a form distinct from any of the 3 used in Revelation, Arnia.  I'm not sure but I think that could qualify as a feminine form, while the 3 in Revelation clearly do not.  There it is used of Believers not of Jesus.  But unlike in English translations the Greek text doesn't seem plural there, like Jesus is calling The Church as a whole His Arnia.

The suggestion has been made before that "Lamb" is not an accurate translation of this word, and even been suggested before that it should be "Ram".  It's controversial because this word is rare even in Ancient Greek usage outside The Bible.  Other Greek words are known to have existed for Lambs and Rams and Goats, the other words for Ram aren't used in the New Testament however (I give no credence to the Septuagint).  The main one would be Krios, the Greek name for the constellation Aries, The Ram.

When John, this same Author, in his Gospel quotes in Greek John The Baptist calling Jesus "The Lamb of God" in 1:29&36 he uses Amnos (Strongs number 286).  Likewise Acts 8:32 and 1 Peter 1:19 when alluding to Isaiah 53:7 and the Passover Lamb also use Amnos, though Peter spelled it Amnou.  In Hebrew also Isaiah 53:7's "Lamb to the Slaughter" uses the same word used of the Passover Lamb in Exodus 12, Strongs number 7716, Seh.

Revelation 5 tells us the Arnion has seven horns.  Revelation 13:11 tells us the Beast out of The Earth has 2 horns like an ArniO.  While lambs do have horns they're very small and not too noticeable, and so outside Revelation no Biblical references to Lambs mention that they have horns.  But they are mentioned in reference to other animals, including the Ayil, and Goats.

And the Shofar (one of two Hebrew words translated Trumpet) was specifically a Trumpet made from a Ram's horn.  It's the Shofar sounded on the Yom Kippur proceeding the Jubilee Year in Leviticus 25:9.  And traditionally Rams horns are sounded on Yom Teruah, though the Biblicalness of that is debated by Kariates and others.

In the Book of Joshua chapter 6 at the fall of Jericho seven Shofars were sounded.  If Arnion means Ram then it would be natural to speculate a connection between the seven horns of the Arnion in Revelation 5, and the seven trumpets sounded by the seven angels later.  Others have argued those seven angels are also the seven spirits refereed to, though I've disagreed with that in the past, but I've now updated that post.  And Jesus is described as having a voice like a Trumpet.

The repeat is over now.

While I had argued very recently before for the idea of it meaning Ram, my considering that Ayil maybe doesn't mean Ram weakens much of that.

I also learned recently that Shofars are not always Ram's Horns, they can be among other things, Goat's Horns too.  (The KJV using Ram's Horn in Joshua 6 is mistranslated, the word used there is actually Jubilee).  So the Shofar part of the Ram theory about the Seven Horns in Revelation 5 can also apply to Goats.

Arnion meaning Goat has not been argued for before from what I can find.  But as I said Arnion was very rarely used.  In Revelation it's first use din Chapter 5 where the Arnion is next to God on His Throne being described as the Arnion as it had been slain.  This could be connected to the Blood of the Yom Kippur Sin offering being sprinkled on the "Mercy Seat".

The End Times are viewed as being largely about the Fall Feasts rather then the Spring Feasts.  While Numbers 28-29 called for a lot of sacrifices on nearly all the Leviticus 23 Holy Days.  Only one Fall Holy Day day is affiliated with a specific special Sacrifice the way Passover is.  And that's Yom Kippur, The Sin Offering which was a Goat, described in detail in Leviticus 16.

A Greek word for Goat is used 3 times in the New Testament, in 3 different forms (Strong number 2055 and 2056).  EriphOn and Eriphia in Matthew 25:32-33 the Sheep and Goats judgment, and Eriphon in Luke 15:29.  In Luke it's at the end of the Prodigal Son parable, used by the older brother to disparagingly describe the animal that hadn't been offered to him in comparison to what his brother is getting now.  

So none of those are of a Goat as representing Jesus, and possibly all meant to be derogatory.  And neither is by the same human author as Revelation.  

While they begin with different letters Ar and Er could reflect a common etymological origin.

And the thing is Hebrew has two different words for Goat or Kid (the KJV translates both as both at different times). 

Sayir (Strong number 8163) and Ez (Strong number 5795).  The two words are often used in the same verse.  Anytime you see "a kid of the goats", Kid is Sayir and Goat is Ez.

Ez first appears in Genesis 15:9, the first appearance of several words for the Sacrificial Animals.  Saiyr first appears in Genesis 37:31 which also uses Ez.  Both are used in Leviticus 16, but Saiyr much more frequently.  And both are used of the Sin offerings called for in Numbers 28-29.  And both are used of the He-Goat or Rough-Goat that represents Greece in Daniel 8.

Azazel, the name of the Yom Kippur Scapegoat, is a compound word combining Ez and Azal (Strongs 235)  In a sense both Yom Kippur Goats represent Jesus, He both carries our Sins and Dies for them.  But I've also argued for a sense in which the Azazel goat could represent Satan, the Antichrist/Falseprophet or the unbelievers in general.  This could make sense with Goats representing those cast into Aionios fire (sheeps and Goats judgment).  So maybe that has something to do with the second beast having horns "like an ArniO".

In both Leviticus 17:7 and 2 Chronicles 11:15, Saiyr appears and is translated "devils" in the KJV.  The context is describing idols or false gods that are being worshiped.  Perhaps similar to the Greek goat-god Pan, or the Egyptian Goat of Mendes.  In Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14, Saiyr is translated Satyr.  A Greek mythological term that originally just refereed to the male counterparts of the Meaneds of Dionysus, but in time came to be thought of as Faun like creatures, which I think is what the KJV translators had in mind.

Isaiah 34 is about Edom, which is interesting since Saiyr is spelled the same as Seir in Hebrew, which is taken to mean Hairy and used to describe Esau's hairiness in Genesis 27.  Also in Genesis 27 Jacob uses Goat skins to mimic the feel of Esau's hairiness.  Song of Solomon 4:1 and 6:5 use Ez to describe the thickness of Shulamith's hair.

Ez seems to have no feminine equivalent used in Scripture.  But Saiyr has Saiyrah, used in Leviticus 4:28 and 5:6.   (Correction, Uzzah is a feminine form of Ez, but it only ever appears as a name.)

I'm thinking maybe Eriphon should be viewed as the Greek equivalent to one of those Hebrew words and Arnion the other.  Which is which I could go either way on, but I'm leaning towards Eriphon as Saiyr since Paul uses Esau as an idiom for the Gentiles in Romans 9-11.  The Septuagint I already know uses Arnion for neither, fortunately I don't trust it.  But it may be interesting to see how it uses Eriphon.  I don't feel like doing that myself right now, maybe for a future follow up.

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 3:231 says "ho men gar kata agnoian eis touto propesôn arna kai eriphon thêleian tôn autoetôn prospherei".  Which William Whiston translated, " But if a person fall into sin by ignorance, he offers an ewe lamb, or a female kid of the goats, of the same age;".  Arna is another form of Arnion, of it's NT appearances most similar to Arnia.

Josephus was not doing a Greek Translation of Scripture.  But he was here clearly alluding to one of the verses where the feminine Saiyrah was used.  Both verses also use Ez.  Leviticus 4:28 includes no animal names besides those, but 5:6 does.  It sounds like Josephus intent here was to be talking about Sin offerings, which are defined as being for sins committed in ignorance, which makes 4:28 the better fit.  But later the same account mentions Lambs, so it's still unclear even what Josephus meant Arna to mean.

Modern Satanism's use of Goat imagery has caused Christians to develop an unhealthy aversion to Goat imagery.  Even Torah observant Christians will talk about goats positively only when it's about Torah verses that require them too.  I've talked about the negative references to goats here, but let's not forget based on Leviticus 16, a Goat can represent Jesus just as much as a Lamb can.

Maybe Arnion isn't Greek in origin at all.  Because for other subjects I've attempted to research the Etymology of Arnon, the name of a River mentioned in The Hebrew Bible.  And found that name has been suspected to be related to Arabic, Aramaic and Syriac words for a type of Goat.