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.

Thyatira, Daughter of Jezebel

I have a complicated relationship with the Seven Church Ages view of Revelation 2-3.  What I've been doing lately is trying to develop my own modified form of it, that's almsot more of a genealogy then a Timeline, but also it's fluidity allows the eras to overlap.  But I still consider any such view less important then the idea that at any time there are some Churches that fit all of these descriptions.

When I was most hostile to the idea I emphasized it as tied to a Western Bias in looking at Church History.  And Thyatira being both the Roman Catholic and Medieval Church was vital to how I painted it that way  But as a student of History I should have known better.  The Catholic Church did impact the lands of The Bible during the Middle Ages, and that impact is still felt today.

One aspect of that is the Maronite Church which claims to have always been in Communion with Rome and is still the dominant form of Christianity in Lebanon.

However The Crusades are the bigger deal.  Catholic Kingdoms ruled Jerusalem for nearly a Century and places like Cyprus, Acre and Antioch for longer.  Then the Fourth Crusade had Latins take over much of the Eastern Empire's territory.  The Cities of the Seven Churches themselves always remained part of the Greek Empire of Nicaea, but the Catholic Empire was near by.  And then the Knights Hospiltars' rule of Rhodes gave them presence in the Eastern Mediterranean till after The Reformation started.

And since then the Maronites have become no longer the only Eastern Rite Catholic Church.  The Melkite Greek Catholics are the majority of Christians in Modern Israel, and the Chaldean Catholic Church are the Majority of Christians in Iraq, something that should perhaps be considered more often in the Mystery Babylon and Papal Antichrist debates.

Protestants seeing Catholicism in this message tend to overlook the good things that are said about them.  And indeed the good things said about Thyatira are the good things that can be said about Catholics even today.  Maybe not the Church Hierarchy as an institution, but many individual Catholics and local Parishes do take seriously the Church's mandate to give to the poor and care for the sick better then most Protestants, especially in the modern U.S. who've gotten wrapped up in that Prosperity nonsense.

This Church getting the longest message is often used to justify it getting the longest time period in the Seven Ages view.  While it has the longest message it's not half the total.  The modified version I'm considering would begin the Thyatira era with Pope Gregory I and ends Pergamos's primacy with the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 and then begin Sardis with the preaching of John Ball and John Wycliff in the 1370s and ends Thyatira primacy with the death of Mary Queen of Scots.  So it still has more of the timeline then anyone else.

It is the figure of Jezebel in the message who is the most enigmatic.  With even speculation on the original 1st-2nd century local context being unsure what to make of her.  Later Church history doesn't seem to associate any female Prophets false or otherwise with this city, the Montanists claimed their prophetic lineage from Philadelphia.  Scholars even disagree on if the intent is to reference the Old Testament personage or if this was an individual literally named Jezebel.

The Anti-Paul cultists out there have from time to time thrown out the idea that this Jezebel is Lydia of Thyatira from Acts 16.  There is no real evidence of that besides she's a woman linked to both this location and Paul and these people are determined to believe all the bad things said in these 2 chapters are directed at Paulian Christianity. 

The association of this message with Protestant criticisms of Catholicism has often resulted in this Jezebel being associated with The Catholic view of Mary, sometimes specifically that this is referring to a Demonic Entity that is behind those Marian Apparitions.  However I feel Jesus is definitely referring to a flesh and blood female Human claiming the office of Prophet.  But eschatologically it could be applicable to multiple false Prophets who've filled this role over the ages.

Perhaps my most controversial Hot Take on the applicability of this prophecy is that maybe if Thyatira is Catholicism then Jezebel is Jeanne d'Arc? (Joan of Arc for uninformed Anglophones, I only got used to the proper pronunciation because of all the Anime she pops up in.)

I get annoyed every time Protestants try to claim her as some kind of Proto-Protestant (including one website I read on the Historicist view of Thyatira), she actually called for a Crusade agaisnt the Hussites, the actual Proto-Protestants of 15th Century Europe. She was in fact both religiously and politically conservative and even reactionary.  In fact I don't think any woman living in 15th century Europe would be more hostile to modern Feminism.  And again I don't think any of the talk of "Fornication" in this chapter or 17-18 is actually about Sex, the Greek word is a word for prostitution but in my view is here about spiritual whoredom, i.e. Idolatry.  Catholic Idolatry was something Jeanne promoted in claiming specifically Catholic Saints talked to her in her visions.

But that is by no means my only or even main theory.

I think the reason people are confused by the name dropping of Jezebel is because we don't properly think of Old Testament Jezebel as someone claiming to be a Prophetess.  But the role of Prophet Biblically is not just about giving predictive Prophecies or even for claiming to have directly communicated with God, it's being a forth teller of God's word.  And there are in that case two types of false Prophets, those who attribute false words to the True God, and those who promote false gods.  Jezebel was the chief False Prophet of her era because she was leading the propagation of Baal Worship.  

The Prophetess of Isaiah 8 was in my opinion probably the wife of Uzziah and mother of Hezekiah.  And while Biblically the word Prophetess is never used of her Jewish tradition does call David's Wife Abigail a Prophetess because she did Prophesy.  That's two precedents for a Prophetess of YHWH being a Queen-Consort of the House of David, so the Queen-Consort of Ahab being his False Prophetess rhymes quite nicely.

My reading of Jezebel does have a bit in common with what I said of Jeanne d'Arc above.  Even though she was a woman who held power, she and her daughter Athaliah I see as conservative women driven by a lot of internalized misogyny.  So I am a bit annoyed that a certain famous Feminist website has named itself after her.  I get it, they don't want to give The Bible the benefit of the doubt on Gender issues so see it as empowering to embrace a Biblical Villainess.  But I do believe The Bible's historical narrative allows more nuance then people realize, that some Heroes aren't Lionized as unconditionally as we assume, and that some villains it is okay to emphasize or sympathize with.  Jezebel and Athaliah are simply the worst to claim as Feminist icons, Delilah I actually like but what most people assume about her is also off.  Even Athaliah would be better since she was a Queen-Regent and not another example of the trope of a woman wielding power because of who she's screwing or is related to, she even tried to massacre her own grandchildren to be rid of that pretense.

Back to Revelation chapter 2.  Since the name itself is a point of contention, I decided to look at the Greek text.  The Greek spelling is Iezabel.  That spelling makes perfect sense to me as a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Iyzebel.  But I'm also struck by how much it resembles the Romance Language European names Isabel/Isabella and other variants.

The Wikipedia page for the name Isabel/Isabella says they are forms of Elizabeth.  But that seems utterly ridiculous to me.  As if Catholic Europe doesn't want to admit how often they've been unwittingly naming their daughters after one of The Bible's notorious villains.

The most famous Isabella is Isabelle of Aragon the first Queen of Spain, who the Catholic Church does highly revere, giving her the title "The Catholic".  She hasn't been made a Saint yet, but remember Jeanne wasn't canonized till the 20th Century, it can take awhile.  She died just before the Reformation but among her children and grandchildren were the fiercest Catholic political opponents of the Reformation, they include two Holy Roman Emperors and Bloody Mary.

However since I earlier defined this era as tied to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, perhaps I should look to figures who lived then.  The sin of Jezebel in Revelation 2 is Iconophilia, which prevailed at this council.

Empress Irene was the major political force behind the Council.  What's interesting is how much her biography resembles Athaliah rather then Jezebel.  She was first a Queen-Consort, then Queen-Mother and then Queen-Regent, and was in the end overthrown by a Coup.  But I suppose the only part that doesn't also apply to Jezebel is being an actual ruling Queen.

Update February 18th 2023:

I've argued earlier on this blog for Revelation being written during the reign of Hadrian.  And it has now occurred to me that perhaps many Jews and Christians during that era saw Empress Pompeia Plotina, as a Jezebel figure.  She was the wife of Trajan and by adoption Mother of Hadrian, she's the only Roman empress known to have been also deified in Egypt, and in Rome she was associated with Virgin Goddesses like Vesta and Minerva.  She held the title of Augusta and there are coins depicting her, she lived until at least 121 AD so a few years into the reign of Hadrian, and she was deified in Rome after her death.

Update March 5th 2023: 

I'm adding this update because I read Fred Harding's The Apocalypse Deception, I wrote a review of the Book on Amazon but it hasn't gone live yet, I find it interesting but have to reject it's main thesis which is that The Revelation is a Satanic False Prophecy.  But it's relevant here because there is a whole sub chapter on Thyatira.

First I did mention above that some people read the text as saying this Woman was literally named Jezebel, however I always considered that unlikely and had pretty much ruled it out before I bought this book.  But Harding is presuming there is no other reading in order to make Revelation seem nonsensical and ridiculous.  This chapter of Revelation already established that Hebrew Bible names will come up symbolically.

The teachings of Jezebel are basically the same as what's called the Doctrine of Balaam in the message to Pergamos.  But why use a different Biblical villain here when the text reused the name of Nicolaitans for a different doctrine?  It's because of the different context, Pergamos was a center of the Imperial Cult so the imagery of Idolatrous Adultery with a Foreign Pagan King was mot potent there.  In Thyatira the source of the Corruption is seemingly more internal, and the very name of Thyatira makes using a female symbolic figure who was a daughter of a Canaanite King poetically fitting.

Harding as a Hyper-Paulian asks why Jesus didn't just tell them to excommunicate this Jezebel, at which point I get confused because the entire Jezebel part of the message begins with Jesus saying "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel", I really don't know what he thinks that sentence is saying other then "You need to excommunicate her".

He also claims there is no other evidence there ever was a Christian Community in Thyatira in the Pre-Nicene era, but claims this only of Thyatira of these seven which I find odd.  Four of these cities are never explicitly mentioned (at least by this same name) elsewhere in The New Testament, Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis and Philadelphia.  Thyatira is missing from Polycrates letter on the Quartodeciman controversy but so are Pergamos and Philadelphia.  As far as the lack of a documented line of Bishops, I think all of these traditional lines from Eusebius are exaggerated because he wanted to push Episcopal polity further back into history then it actually existed, Thyatira may have not had it precisely because it was the most Paulian and Paul intended Church government to be Congregational with Presbyterian characteristics, Episcopal Polity came from the Heretic Igantius.  But the Traditional identification for Philadelphia doesn't have any known Bishops prior to the time of Constantine either.

Acts absolutely does depict Paul as visiting the general area of where Thyatira is but without naming specific cities on his third journey, and a native of Thyatira living in Philipi was converted previously.  It's highly unlikely a Paulian community wasn't established here.  Revelation 2 predicts Great Tribulation to fall on Jezebel and her followers in the near future, maybe those of the Thyatira Church who survived that simply moved elsewhere.

Also Lydia was a Merchant, that job required traveling, and we know independent of Acts 16 that Thyatira was important to the Trade of Purple during this period.  So it doesn't mater that we're never explicitly told she had ever traveled back to her hometown, her job basically required her to do so regularly.  

The Wikipedia page for Thyatira (titular see) mentions a second century Bishop named Carpus.  And there was also a Bishop representing Thyatira at Nicaea I, Chalcedon and Nicaea II the Ionophilic Council.

By the Third Century the city was a stronghold of the Montanist sect (my source on that being Epiphaninius Adv Haer LI 33) which did involve prominent Prophetesses.  Montanus was also said to have began his ministry in an unidentified town of Mysia, Thyatira I'd referred to above as Lydian but it was also arguably part of Mysia, sometimes placed right on the border between them. Maybe Montanus's claim to Prophetic succession from Amia of Philadelphia was a lie to obscure actually inheriting his prophetic lineage from the false prophetess of Thyatira?  On the other hand the Montanists seem opposite to what Jezebel was teaching since they were proto-Donatists opposing letting the Lapsi back into the Church while "Jezebel" was basically saying it's okay to Lapse. Maybe they were a movement formed after the time of this "Jezebel" as a reaction going in many ways in the opposite direction?  And of course people who like the Montanists could consider seeing them as those praised in the Message for not following Jezebel.

Speaking of the very concept of Prophetesses, Harding also in this part of the book engages in the typical Patriarchal abuse of 1 Timothy 2:12 which I've addressed in multiple posts on my other blog, Neither Male of Female and it's follow up, Women Pastors, ect and may address further in the future.  But it's also amusing that's he's willing to engage in this criticism of the established Canon, including breaking down stylistic reasons Revelation can't share an author with the other books attributed to an author named John, but then builds so much of this argument on the most disputed Epistle of Paul.

I intend to make a future post on broader claims of incompatibility between Paul and Revelation in the future, I'll maybe say more on Harding then.

I do want to elaborate on why Thyatira has it's name.  The city existed before Seleucus I Nicator but in 290 BC he renamed it to celebrate learning his wife had given birth to a Daughter.  Seleucus was the successor of Alexander who initially specifically inherited just Babylonia, he conquered everything else from there.  Meanwhile one of the names Thyatira is said to have had before this is Semiramis the Greek form of the name of an Assyrian Queen who Greek legendary histography exaggerated into being the founder of Babylon. Five verses of the Hebrew Bible refer to a "Daughter of Babylon", Psalm 137:8, Isaiah 47:1, Jeremiah 50:42, 51:33 and Zechariah 2:7.  Some imagery of the discussion of Jezebel is repeated when discussing Mystery Babylon in chapter 17.  So there could be a Poetic connection there.

Thyatira also may have been a city that was already Greek before the time of Alexander, I'm not sure if that means anything, but like Pergamon and Smyrna it would have been specifically an Aeolian colony. 

It's also interesting that today Thyatira has a Catholic Titular See not a Greek Orthodox one when in general this is an historically Orthodox region.  

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 Roma Cult and Mystery Babylon

I am not making this post to argue absolutely Babylon=Rome in some preterist or Historicist sense.  It should not be controversial to acknowledge that Rome is where Mystery Babylon was at John's time.  Zechariah 5 gives us reason to suspect she moves around.

I disagree with the argument that Babylon is "Code" for Rome in some way meant to hide it from Roman authorities who might read the Book.  It is largely Rome's own cultural symbolism that makes it explicit, applying purely prior Biblical meaning to the same symbols is if anything what weakens it.  A city on Seven Hills which had Seven Kings is how Rome defined itself, not how it's enemies defined it.

People interpreting Revelation have tried to make Seven Hills a defining characteristic of countless cities, I've looked into the argument for applying it to Jerusalem and find it to be pretty bad.  The thing is the only city already defined as a city on Seven Hills (whether that is strictly geographically accurate or not) before Revelation was written was Rome.  And since it was written the only attempts to make a city a Seven Hill city as a positive trait with no regard for the Biblical implications are ones doing so in a desire to claim to be a New Rome or successor to Rome.  It was done with both Constantinople and Moscow for example.

What I want to get into here is some stuff about Rome that may have been particularly relevant to the region of the Seven Churches The Revelation was first given to.

The City of Smyrna was where the Roma cult was founded in 195 BC.  Roma was the City of Rome personified as a Goddess.  Mellor has proposed her cult as a form of religio-political diplomacy which adjusted traditional Graeco-Eastern monarchic honours to Republican mores.  Athens and Rhodes accepted Roma as analogous to their traditional cult personifications of the demos (ordinary people).  In 133 BC when Pergamon became part of the Empire it quickly became another major center of the Cult of Roma.

We can't be certain what colors Roma would have usually be depicted wearing, what we know about how she was depicted comes largely from coins.  But we know that during The Roman Triumph the Triumphitor wore Purple and their face was painted Red, so I feel Purple and Scarlet as the colors of Roma fits.  Some want to point out Purple and Scarlet being the colors of the Veil of The Tabernacle/Temple of Solomon to support the Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon theory, but every-time the Veil is refereed to as Purple and Scarlet/Crimson in Exodus 25-28, 35-39 and 2 Chronicles 2-3 the color Blue is also mentioned, usually first, and no Blue is in Revelation 17-18.  The Veil of The Temple is basically the Bisexual Flag.

In the Hellenistic world typically Male deities had male Priests and Goddesses had Priestesses.  But the Roma Cult was explicitly an exception to this, her worship was lead by male Priests.  And so I think that is partly what the False Prophet may have been seen as to the book's earliest readers in these cities.

In either 30 or 29 BC the worship of the Emperor in the provinces began, and in Asia particularity it was essentially just merged with the Roma Cult. Pergamon was the first city where the Imperial cult was established. From here on Roma increasingly took the attributes of an Imperial or divine consort to the Imperial divus, but some Greek coin types show her as a seated or enthroned authority, and the Imperial divus standing upright as her supplicant or servant.  Thus her as a woman riding the Beast.

The reason Smyrna and Pergamon were the churches most facing persecution is because in these cities the worship of the Emperor was required by law, most Pagans didn't see it as a conflict.  Jews were usually excepted as theirs was an ancient religion, but Christianity was new and so once it stopped being seen as a sect of Judaism the Christians had a problem in these cities.

Aphrodite/Venus as the mother of Aeneas mythical progenitor of Rome naturally become identified with Roma sometimes, like in the Temple Hadrian built.  And in the context of Revelation I've already noted possible Aphrodite imagery for the Beast out of the Sea.

People who like to argue the United States is Babylon could easily draw attention here to how the concept of Roma is basically the same as the concept of Columba/Columbia.  But other such feminine personifications of the state exist in the modern world, the Pan-Europa movement has taken Europa of Green Mythology and made her more of a Roma type figure.  I'm pretty sure Athena was originally just the Demos of Athens before Pan-Hellenism turned her into an Olympian all of Greece had to recognize.  And of course I believe the Woman of Revelation 12 is the Demos of Israel being symbolically personified in a similar way.

The Seven Church Ages view of Revelation 2-3

[This theory I've semi-abandoned, I'm planning to revise it.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do have some interesting thoughts on Philadelphia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Seven Churches of Revelation

This is not an in-depth study, just my random thoughts on how this is studied by others.

First clearly every message applies perfectly to each Church at that time.

Clearly they go beyond that or they wouldn't be put here, every Church needs to try and see which one of these they most resemble.

All Seven are congregations of Saved individuals, Jesus would not be writing to them if they weren't.  Revelation is defined as a Revelation for His servants.

Two have nothing good said about them and two nothing bad said about them.  That doesn't necessarily mean either of those were actually flawless or without objectively redeeming qualities.

One important observation I feel is that neither the two best or the two worst have their positions on doctrine mentioned.  Jesus is judging how good they are at being Christians, not so much how good they are at believing Christian doctrine.

I talk about The Doctrine of The Nicolatians elsewhere.

I was in the past on board for the seeing them also in the order they are listed as representing a summery of Church History.  But I've grown more critical of that.

First of all it has a largely western bias to see only the second period of Church history as defined by persecution.  Right now the majority of the Body of Christ is under threat of being killed for their Faith, in countries like China, North Korea, Islamic nations and other Third World countries.  Meanwhile the French Revolution also gets overlooked.

Not to mention that perspective also ignores Christians being persecuted by other Christians, like the reformation period which has Catholics persecuting Protestants, Protestants persecuting Catholics, Henry VIII persecuting both and everyone persecuting Baptists.

Meanwhile in Matthew 24 Jesus warned us the end of the Church Age will see our greatest persecution ever.

The desire to see Thyatira as the medieval Catholic church causes people to want to see the Jezebel reference there as to the Catholic view of Mary.  But the context to me is clearly about a false prophet who happens to be female.

I talk about Laodicea here.

For Pergamos, better known as Pergamon, most people assume "Satan's Seat" there refers to the Altar of Pergamon, now housed as the Museum in Berlin.  But that doesn't have a Throne of any kind.

There are a number of other structures at Pergamon that could work better.  The Heroon where the kings of the by then defunct Hellenistic Kingdom of Pergamon were worshiped.  The Temple of Athena, The Temple of Dionysus.  The Diodorus Pasporos Heroon.

Two structures on the lower Acropolis involved Serpent themed deities.  One was the Temple of Asklepius (the Asclepium), a son of Apollo affiliated with healing.

The key however I think is that the Satan's Seat references are both before and after the reference to the Martyrdom of Antipas.  According to tradition Anipas was killed in the Temple of Serapis, known today as the Red Basillica.

At this temple in the year 92 Saint Antipas, the first bishop of Pergamum ordained by John the Apostle, was a victim of an early clash between Serapis worshipers and Christians. An angry mob is said to have burned Saint Antipas alive inside a Brazen Bull incense burner, which represented the bull god Apis.  

The name Serapis similarity to our word serpent is somewhat debatable if it's a coincidence or not. Supposedly the name came from a Hellenized combing of the Egyptian deities Osiris and Apis.  Apis was probably the Egyptian deity the Golden Calf was modeled after. Serapis also took on aspects of Dionysus and Hades.

The statues of Serapis tend to take a very basically Human and Hellenic form, but with a Serpent like base modeled after the Egyptian Uraeus symbol of ruler-ship.

Serapis is another deity that gets brought up in those ridiculous Christ-Myth theories.

The Partial Rapture Theory

All of my previous posts addressing Rapture views I disagree with have been focused on the main three popular views, Pre-Trib, Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath.

The Partial Rapture Theory isn't really a matter of timing, it can overlap with any of the other views.  It is sometimes linked to an idea that more then one Rapture will occur and thus they might all be right.  Some people believing a from of this I know are mainly Mid-Trib in their timing, so I feel the need to make sure people know this isn't a view I agree with.

The Partial Rapture Theory is that not all of the Saved alive on Earth at the time are Raptured at the Rapture, or at least not the first Rapture.  Only those who are the most Obedient and Faithful.

My views on Soterology and Ecclesiology could be viewed as lending themselves to this view.  I believe firmly in Eternal Security, yet I disagree with Calvinists and others who say they believe in Eternal Security but then turn around and say "if you are really saved you won't ______" whatever their line is.

I believe that like the Prodigal Son a Believer can squander their Inheritance but will never lose their Sonship.  I recommend Chuck Missler's studies on Eternal Security, including Hebrews 6.  Though I disagree with him on a few verses concerning Predestination where he sounds like he unwittingly agrees with the Calvinist view, but those are minor.

When Jesus in Matthew refers to the "Outer Darkness" that's not Hell.  Revelation 21:25-27 tells us that not everyone living in the New Heaven and New Earth will be in New Jerusalem.  And that some won't be allowed to enter it.  That's the "Outer Darkness" Jesus was referring to (because the context was clearly describing saved individuals, only the Saved are his servants), being outside New Jerusalem.

So some people when responding to certain views on Rewards tie in a disapproval of any notions that all Christians aren't equal at the Bema Judgment.  I believe we should not be Judging each other during our life on Earth, but it's clear in Eternity there will be distinctions.

BUT, that differentiation happens at the Bema Seat Judgment, and thus after The Rapture.  So it does not exclude anyone from The Rapture.  We are during our life on this Earth all part of the Body of Christ regardless of our obedience or faithfulness.

Some who agree with my view that the 144,000 are part of The Church and that they are Raptured in Revelation 14, will add that only the 144,000 are Raptured.  As I've said in other posts on that subject, they are a specific group that represents the whole.

I've said before that not all saved are part of The Church.  A related question to that however is, are all saved during the Church Age part of The Church?  While we're alive, yes.  I believe we're all The Body of Christ.  But after the Bema Seat Judgment, I do think it's possible some of us will lose our opportunity to be the Bride of Christ.

The Ten Virgins Parable of Matthew 15:1-13 is one Bible passage that could be used to support a Partial Rapture.  Actually the way Partial Rapture supporters interpret this is kind of the natural conclusion of the way Pre-Tribbers use it.  (That the Five Virgins taken represent those who hold the Pre-Trib view, and others those who do not).  Problem is, what Jesus tells the Foolish Virgins "I know you not" is how other Eschatological passages from Jesus define the unsaved.  Yet Pre-Tribbers don't usually want to say they think your not saved if your not Pre-Trib, but that seems to be the implication of their attitude sometimes.

Pre-Tribbers often forget that parables are not always what they seem.

I don't think this Parable is about the timing of the Rapture, or that the difference between the groups has anything to do with their theory on it's timing being correct or not.  Christ's offer to be his Bride is extended to all Humanity, but only the Saved are prepared to be ready to accept it when he comes.  Because the Saved have the Light of the World in us, our Lamps won't go out.

The Letters to the Seven Churches can also be used by Partial Rapture theorists.  Mainly the messages to Thyatira and Philadelphia.  Where certain statements make it seem like the former is told they will go into the "Tribulation Period" and the latter they will not.

To Thyatira he says of "Jezebel" and those committing Whoredom with her "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds."  Thing is, in my Great Tribulation study I show that it isn't a specific time period at all, it refers to all Persecution the Church has faced.

To Philadelphia he says "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."  This is often used against Post-Trib in general.  One Question is, if this is about the Rapture, does it being only in Philadelphia's message mean it applies only to Philadelphian Christians?  The Promise for the Believer parts of the other Letters seem to embody many things characteristic of all Believers, so no I don't think so.

But also it this really Rapture relevant?

This Verse doesn't use Wrath or Tribulatio, or Day of The LORD.  It says Hour of Temptation.  I'm reminded of how in the Lord's Prayer, we're instructed to pray that we are lead not into Temptation and delivered from Evil.  And in Matthew 24:24 Jesus says "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." The key complication is that it isn't possible.  I don't think this means we're immune to being tricked in general.  But once the Abomination of Desolation happens, things will be crystal clear to those with the Holy Spirit.

So neither of those two passages from the letters to the Churches I view definitively as Rapture relevant.