I've already talked a lot about the possible familial connections of the Seleucid Dynasty in my three part Genealogy of The Antichrist study.
In light of my recent speculation that the Eight King could be Antiochus Epiphanies himself. As well as my other speculation that The White Horseman could claim, validly or not, Ephraimite descent and try to claim he's Messiah Ben-Joseph. This is an interesting speculation.
As I said before, I don't think he'll admit to being the hated Epiphanes, I think it's possible if he is open about being someone from the past, he might claim to be his more fondly remembered father.
I do not necessarily endorse Lost Tribes became Western Europeans theories in general. But the nature of tribal migrations is complicated. And Dan certainly had an interesting history. Also my theory is more about him claiming such a lineage then if it's actually true.
Antiochus Epiphanes is not usually someone advocates of such theories seek to claim. But I have a different perspective.
The Macedonian Royal family claimed descent, like the Spartans, from the sons of Herakles and through him to Perseus and Andromeda of Joppa and the Danoi. All allowing possible connections to Dan or Edom. But the Seleucids have no provable direct connection to the Agrid line however.
The sons of Herakles whom the Spartan and Macedonian royal families claim descent from supposedly intermarried with the leading family of the Dorian tribes. Some engaged in Lost Tribes related theories have speculated that the Dorians could have a connection to Dor, a port city of Manasseh, one governor of Dor had married a daughter of Solomon. Dor is also associated with the Tjekker of the Sea Peoples.
The Macedonians were distinct from the other Dorian derived classical Greek nations in also having some Celtic stock to them. So Oliver Stone was not being completely random casting Irish and Scottish actors as Macedonians in his Alexander The Great film. The relationship between the Celtic and Cimmerian peoples is complex.
Apama the wife of Seleucus I was the daughter of Spitamenes, a Perisan Satrap. He had in his ancestry Persian and Median rulers and through them Assyrian ones too. The mother of Esarhaddon was possibly an Israelite. Further back there were Assyrian Kings named Asshur-Dan about whom we know little, making me wonder if connections between Assyrian Royalty and the Denyen might have taken place.
The City of Antioch itself is pretty much in the heart of the Danuna/Laish Dan area.
The Crimmerians are at the center of the main Lost Tribes became Europeans theories. Most critics of the view just point to the obvious connection between the Cimmerians and Gomer son of Japheth, that Bill Cooper documents well in After The Flood. He covers it in both the Where to Begin chapter and Appendix 3.
Thing is, the name Gomer also appears in Hosea as the name of the prostitute God has Hosea marry who becomes a symbolic type of Ephraim/Israel. So advocates of the theory suggest using that name could also be a prophecy about a future intermingling of the descendants of Gomer and the Northern Kingdom.
Khumri is how the Assyrians rendered the name of Omri, which they used to refer to the Northern Kingdom in general even well after the House of Omri fell. The basis for connecting the northern Kingdom exiles to the name of the Cimmerians has often been just based on arguing that Khumri could've become Ghumri and Gimri and so on. That I think is largely what makes it look silly to people. Though more implausible things have happened in etymology.
Our pre-history of the Cimmerians is pretty speculative, drawing mainly form Herodotus and other heavily contrived Greek accounts. But a connection between their name and Crimea I do consider likely.
The first appearance of the Cimmerians in Assyrian records is during the reign of Sargon II, dated to about 714 BC. After the first two main deportations of the Israelites. At this time they seem to be "In the midst Mannae" a buffer state between Assyrian and Uratu, rather then where they usually were later. They assisted Sargon in his war with Uratu. Mannae is mentioned in The Bible as Minni in Jeremiah 51:27. Their kingdom was located south and east of Lake Urmia. Firmly within Median territory where many exiles had been taken according to II Kings 17:6.
Later the Cimmerians during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal would become enemies of Assyria, and ally with other traditional enemies of Assyria. It's not implausible that descendants of exiled Israelites would have been attracted to joining up with the Cimmerians.
The Cimmerian nation at it's greatest extent expanded into many other regions of Turkey, like Pontus and Cappadocia. In Hellenistic times the Cimmerians who remained in the region were known as the Galatians. The Hellenistic kingdoms of Galatias, Cappadocia and Pontus royal families intermarried a lot with the Seleucid Dynasdty, as well as Pergamon and Commagene. The mother of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
The Kings of The East
Today references to the Kings of The East by modern Bible Prophecy speakers pretty much always assume they are the Far East, China, Korea, Japan, India and the other nations around them.
But The Biblical references to them during the Sixth Bowl account in Revelation 16:12-16 begins with talk about the Euphrates River being dried up. That river is depicted as the border holding them back.
The Euphrates river as a border should remind Biblically literate readers of God's original Covenant with Abraham, where it is the eastern most border of what God promised to Abraham.
But in John's day it was also the primary border between the Roman and Parthian Empires, whether you see John's day as Nero or Domitian's reign. With Parthia on the other side of that border were Parthian Client kingdoms, Edessa, Adiabene, Armenia, Media, Characene, Elymais, ect. Some of whom were often caught in the middle of Rome and Parthia's ongoing Cold War.
You do not have to be Preterist to keep what these geographical terms in John's day meant in mind when trying to interpret Revelation. Keeping them in mind is just common sense. The problem for Preterists is the only Army to come from East of the Eurphrates to Judea during the 66-73 AD Jewish-Roman War was the army lead by Monobaz II which was on the Jews' side.
What intrigues me as a Futurist who is interested in the theory that History always repeats itself. Is how in many ways the way the world is lining up now is eerily similar to John's day, though with obvious differences too. The region of "Persia" being in conflict with the West is one example of that.
This emphasis on the Euphrates River I feel is also damaging to any Mystery Babylon theory that is dependent on making Babylon some non Mesopotamian region. Whether it's Rome, America, Jerusalem/Israel, Arabia, Turkey, whatever your fixation is. The name Babylon is not the only geographical tie Revelation has to that region.
The first Bowl of God's Wrath is the immediate aftermath of The Mark being instituted. The rest come in pairs. 2 and 3 are about the world's water supply being destroyed, 4 and 5 are about the Sun. So it's not a coincidence that 6 and 7 both mention names linked to Mesopotamia.
Satan, The Beast, and The False Prophet, use demonic entities to gather the world's armies but particularly it seems the Kings of the East to Armageddon against God. Marching on God is indeed his plan but I think he also has another intent here.
Remember, Babylon is NOT the Beast's Capital, whatever kind of Geo-Political entity she is, she wields power over The Beast, she is riding it. It hates her and wants her dead. I think he wants to lure the armies around Babylon away from her so he can do a sudden sneak attack on her.
You may be thinking "Problem with your theory is the Euphrates isn't a border anymore". Our official Maps still like to think of Iraq as all one country, but internally it's divided. Right now the Euphrates may not make a perfect border between it's internal divisions yet, but I think it's interesting that most of what is under Iranian backed Shiite control is East of the Euphrates.
If modern Iran winds up effectively controlling most of Iraq (besides what's Kurdish) east of the Euphrates. It will become an Empire that looks a lot like the ancient Parthian Empire.
And so that is a problem for people who back up their view of a Pre-Trib Gog and Magog invasion by saying that Iran seems to play no role in the events of the Final Week. In fact it does.
It's also possible that this could be how The Medes role in the fall of Babylon as recorded by Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51 ties into Revelation.
But The Biblical references to them during the Sixth Bowl account in Revelation 16:12-16 begins with talk about the Euphrates River being dried up. That river is depicted as the border holding them back.
The Euphrates river as a border should remind Biblically literate readers of God's original Covenant with Abraham, where it is the eastern most border of what God promised to Abraham.
But in John's day it was also the primary border between the Roman and Parthian Empires, whether you see John's day as Nero or Domitian's reign. With Parthia on the other side of that border were Parthian Client kingdoms, Edessa, Adiabene, Armenia, Media, Characene, Elymais, ect. Some of whom were often caught in the middle of Rome and Parthia's ongoing Cold War.
You do not have to be Preterist to keep what these geographical terms in John's day meant in mind when trying to interpret Revelation. Keeping them in mind is just common sense. The problem for Preterists is the only Army to come from East of the Eurphrates to Judea during the 66-73 AD Jewish-Roman War was the army lead by Monobaz II which was on the Jews' side.
What intrigues me as a Futurist who is interested in the theory that History always repeats itself. Is how in many ways the way the world is lining up now is eerily similar to John's day, though with obvious differences too. The region of "Persia" being in conflict with the West is one example of that.
This emphasis on the Euphrates River I feel is also damaging to any Mystery Babylon theory that is dependent on making Babylon some non Mesopotamian region. Whether it's Rome, America, Jerusalem/Israel, Arabia, Turkey, whatever your fixation is. The name Babylon is not the only geographical tie Revelation has to that region.
The first Bowl of God's Wrath is the immediate aftermath of The Mark being instituted. The rest come in pairs. 2 and 3 are about the world's water supply being destroyed, 4 and 5 are about the Sun. So it's not a coincidence that 6 and 7 both mention names linked to Mesopotamia.
Satan, The Beast, and The False Prophet, use demonic entities to gather the world's armies but particularly it seems the Kings of the East to Armageddon against God. Marching on God is indeed his plan but I think he also has another intent here.
Remember, Babylon is NOT the Beast's Capital, whatever kind of Geo-Political entity she is, she wields power over The Beast, she is riding it. It hates her and wants her dead. I think he wants to lure the armies around Babylon away from her so he can do a sudden sneak attack on her.
You may be thinking "Problem with your theory is the Euphrates isn't a border anymore". Our official Maps still like to think of Iraq as all one country, but internally it's divided. Right now the Euphrates may not make a perfect border between it's internal divisions yet, but I think it's interesting that most of what is under Iranian backed Shiite control is East of the Euphrates.
If modern Iran winds up effectively controlling most of Iraq (besides what's Kurdish) east of the Euphrates. It will become an Empire that looks a lot like the ancient Parthian Empire.
And so that is a problem for people who back up their view of a Pre-Trib Gog and Magog invasion by saying that Iran seems to play no role in the events of the Final Week. In fact it does.
It's also possible that this could be how The Medes role in the fall of Babylon as recorded by Isaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51 ties into Revelation.
Monday, June 1, 2015
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.
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.
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.
Monday, May 25, 2015
The Seven Heads and Daniel 7
In the past I've been hostile to viewing the 7 Kings as 7 Kingdoms or Empires rather then a specific succession of individual Kings. Chris White argues they are 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms.
I'll never be convinced of a model that adds two empires or even one before Nebuchadnezzar. But my perspective on this changed when I noticed something about how Daniel 7 and the Beast from the Sea in Revelation are compared.
This thesis here could damage a lot of my earlier theories. But not my over all view of Bible Prophecy.
Seven is also the total number of heads in Daniel 7, 1 Lion, 1 Bear, 4 of the Leopard and the Ten horns are defined as on a head in Daniel 7. The Beast of Revelation 13 is all four of Daniel 7's beasts merged together.
So we have 7 Kingdoms, each also with one specific of their Kings to single out. That is how I now look at it.
The 7 kings do NOT each have to be a type of The Antichrist, that is just a made up rule some people have for studying this. Cyrus is indisputably the Second King in question here, he is never portrayed negatively in Scripture. In fact he is the only Gentile The Hebrew Bible ever declares a Messiah, and it's God himself saying it to Cyrus in Isaiah 44/45. Some of them may be types, but they don't all need to be.
In fact even though I've done and may still do a lot of talking about potential types of The Anitchrist on this Blog. The Biblical endorsement for the concept of types are entirely about Jesus, Paul in Colossians saying everything in the law was a foreshadowing of Jesus that had already been fulfilled, Jesus saying the Volume of The Book is of Him. There is no Biblical basis for calling ANYONE a type of The Antichrist.
This model has to make Rome the 7th rather then 6th Empire. How can Rome possibly be yet Future in John's time? Or be said to have not lasted very long?
The 7 Kings we're are looking for are not rulers or occupiers of Israel/Jerusalem. Revelation 17 is specifically about Babylon, it's about 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms who ruled Babylon, starting with it's native kingdom. Daniel 7 is in the Aramaic part of Daniel, the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians of Daniel's time. And he was in Babylonia when he had this vision. The four beasts are described as World Empires and all four are, but to the point of view of the Babylonians Daniel first made this Prophecy for, no one truly became a world empire till they conquered their world.
Rome did NOT rule Babylon at any point during the New Testament era or before it. John wrote Revelation at the latest during the reign of Domitian. The second Emperor after that, Trajan, was the first Roman to take Mesopotamia and Assyria. and it was at the very end of his reign that he did. Then Hadrian succeeded him, and he pretty much immediately gave them back to Parthia. So Rome only ever ruled Babylon for a very short time, just a few years.
The ruler of Parthia when John wrote was Pacorus II. (Who's mother was a Greek concubine, further showing he can count as a Greek King, and his father's maternal grandmother had Seleucid ancestry). When Pacorus died Trajan was already Emperor of Rome. Later in the 160s AD there was another Roman military incursion into Mesopotamia, but it never reached Babylon, it's focus was on Seleucica.
While it's not a coincidence that the 4 heads of the Leopard are the same number of horns the Notable horn of the Ram breaks into. I think what they represent specifically here could be sort of different. We are dealing with four Hellenistic era Kingdoms that ruled Babylon. The first is Alexander himself, then comes the successors.
I believe Parthia while often thought of as a quasi Persian empire can be looked at as coming out of Alexander's Empire. He had conquered that region, and by the New Testament period the Arascid Royal Family had Seleucid blood intermingled into them.
Babylon was taken from the Seleucid Empire by Parthia in 150 BC. It was still firmly Seleucid during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasomonean revolt.
Antigonus and Seleucus Nicator fought over Babylon early on after it was clear Alexander's own Dynasty would not survive. Eventually Seleucus secured it.
I'm going to consider Ptolemy the true successor to Alexander in this context. He had Alexander's body buried in the city named after him, an act that secured succession in Macedonian custom, and was possibly a half brother or cousin of Alexander.
The 4 Heads of the Leopard could be viewed as Antigonus in Macedon =The West, Antioch=The North, Alexandria=The South and Parthia=The East. Thus fitting the Four Winds of Heaven reference in Daniel 11. Though for that context we could also say the West was the Macedon-Greece homeland which was originally ruled by the Antipards but which the Antigonids took as they lost what was originally allotted to them to Seleucus.
So the 7 King(dom)s of Babylon from Daniel are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander The Great, Antigonus, Seleucid Dynasty, Pacorus of Parthia, and Trajan of Rome.
In the past I firmly argued that I believe The Antichrist's Death and Resurrection must both be in the future. And I was not comfortable with the theories making him some past King being brought back.
But in light of this, I must be consistent with my clear understanding of Revelation 17's terminology. "Was, and is not" means the Eight King is one of the first 5, since it defines the present of this message as the 6th.
I still believe the Beast Empire is largely a Revived Roman Empire, but the Little Horn shows up among the ten horns in Daniel 7, distinct from Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the 4 horns. He's ruling Rome but not as a Roman himself.
I don't believe it has to be someone who died from a head wound. The doctrine of The Antichrist's Resurrection to me is proven not by the mortal head wound being healed but by his ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and how that theme ties into Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-32, (though fatal sword wound references are there too).
It could be he's already an early example of the second resurrection when he receives the mortal wound, and what amazes people is him surviving something that should have killed him, because he now has a body like a fallen angel.
Alexander The Great is distinct as being in a sense the main King of the Leopard as a whole as well as one of the heads. I see Daniel 7:12 saying both that the Assyrian, Persian and Greek nations will exist during the Millennium. And that their main three Kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great, are saved individuals and will exist in The Millennium too.
That only leaves Antigonus and the Seleucids.
Daniel 11:40-45 seems to have The Antichrist as separate from the King of The North. However, I've explained why I'm no longer certain that even is The Antichrist, and that it might be Augustus. But if that is the End Times and is The 8th King, it's while he's not a ruler of his original kingdom anymore but of the 10 horns to emerge from Rome.
There is nothing to link Antigonus to the Antichrist, but a lot of reasons to link the Seleucids. Daniel 8 as well as Epiphanes doing the first Abomination of Desolation, which Jesus clarifies there will be one yet future.
I argued in the past when discussing Daniel 8 that there The Little Horn is the Seleucid dynasty as a whole, not just 1 or 2 individuals. So unlike others who've argued a thesis similar to what I'm arguing here, I don't necessarily think it's Antiochus Epiphanes himself who is the Seleucid ruler that will ascend out of the Bottomless Pit, but certainly could be.
There are reasons to believe The Antichrist will be someone The Jews accept at first until the Abomination of Desolation happens. If he's Epiphanes and is known to be Epiphanes, that would be unlikely. Epiphanes is up there with Hitler and Haman on the most hated by Jews list.
I do think it must be a Seleucid mentioned in Daniel 11, making him a Biblical figure. Seleucus I might be the candidate to start with, but while important to Seleucid history obviously, what's said of him in Daniel 11 is brief and pales in comparison to some of the others. But it is interesting that a legend existed in the ancient world that his mother Laodice claimed he was fathered by Apollo.
Three times in Daniel 11 a king is described as "doing according to his will". One of these is verse 36 which is clearly past the immediate history of Epiphanes already, after the Hasmonean Kingdom has fallen to Rome. And may or may not be about The Antichrist. It's first used of Alexander The Great at the start of the chapter. Between them it's in verse 16.
Verse 16 is during the time of Antiochus III The Great's wars. And usually he is identified by scholars as the one "doing according to his will" there. But Hippolytus of Rome in his Daniel commentary confusingly says this was an Alexander not known from any other surviving historical sources we have on the period. He might have gotten confused by how that phrase was earlier affiliated with Alexander The Great, or maybe it's a scribal/copyist error.
It was under Antiochus The Great that Israel was taken from the Ptolemies and became part of the Seleucid Empire. He is overall remembered fondly by The Jews as recorded by Josephus. His relationship with them in Daniel 11 seems positive. He continued Alexander and the Ptolemies general policy of not interfering with their Faith or The Temple.
But Josephus seems to be familiar with only 1 Maccabees and not 2 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees chapter 1 seems to refer to the death of Antiochus III and deems him ungodly. Some see the benefits Antiochus gave The Temple as having been good for the Priestly class but not really for the common people.
Epiphanes is still the key link this dynasty has to The Antichrist. It's highly possible he will lie about who he is, even when he first reveals himself to be a resurrected past individual he may lie about exactly who he is. Maybe he'll try to claim he's Elijah or David or Solomon or someone like that. Or maybe just a simple matter of lying about which Macedonian or Seleucid ruler he is.
Some have agreed that Daniel 11:36-45 can't refer to anything Epiphanes did, yet still feel that the tone of the text wants us to think of him. This could agree with a notion that he was recorded earlier as the 5th King and 36-45 is about him as the 8th King.
On the notion that we're dealing with a ruler of one of the earlier Kingdoms now ruling/reviving Rome. Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome, and Polybus said he liked to rule as if he were a Roman. Maybe he is the ideal person to revive the Roman Empire.
Which would create more options for someone he could claim to be, like Augustus.
But one interesting option is for him to claim to be Constantine XI, the last Byzantine Emperor. Like all later Byzantine Emperors he was firmly Greek, so Antiochus could remain the same ethnicity and native language. Constantine XI supposedly died in battle when Constantinople fell to the Turks, but his death was never solidly confirmed. So a rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a statue and hid him beneath the Gate of Constantinople and would one be awoken to drive to the Turks. His legacy has remained important among the Greeks, drawing on it during their War of Independence in the 19th Century.
And the legend of his return no doubt became interwoven with the Last Roman Emperor tradition. The original seed of which, the late 4th century prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl called him a King of The Greeks named Constans.
One argument against the idea that 36-39 could be about Epiphanes is that he was consistent with the religion of his fathers. However there is also a sense in which Epiphanes did change the religion of the Seleucid Empire, ironically the opposite of the change Augustus later made in Rome. Apollo had been the favored deity of earlier Seleucids, but Epiphanes downplayed him and was more fond of Zeus. But it still would be absurd to label Zeus a god "whom his fathers knew not" for any Greek people.
But if Epiphanes returns in the End Days his religion may be different, especially if he comes back after being resurrected and thinking Satan was responsible for it.
He did deify himself, technically the full name he used was Antíochos D' ho Epiphanḗs (Antiochus God Manifest, or Antiochus Zeus Manifest). I've noticed that while none of the known forms of Epiphanes/Epiphany I've found used in ancient Greek texts have a Greek gemetria value of 666, it isn't difficult to construct a form that does have that value, it seems 1 or 2 letters could make the difference.
Update August 2016: I just argued that the Eight King could be a Ptolemy.
I'll never be convinced of a model that adds two empires or even one before Nebuchadnezzar. But my perspective on this changed when I noticed something about how Daniel 7 and the Beast from the Sea in Revelation are compared.
This thesis here could damage a lot of my earlier theories. But not my over all view of Bible Prophecy.
Seven is also the total number of heads in Daniel 7, 1 Lion, 1 Bear, 4 of the Leopard and the Ten horns are defined as on a head in Daniel 7. The Beast of Revelation 13 is all four of Daniel 7's beasts merged together.
So we have 7 Kingdoms, each also with one specific of their Kings to single out. That is how I now look at it.
The 7 kings do NOT each have to be a type of The Antichrist, that is just a made up rule some people have for studying this. Cyrus is indisputably the Second King in question here, he is never portrayed negatively in Scripture. In fact he is the only Gentile The Hebrew Bible ever declares a Messiah, and it's God himself saying it to Cyrus in Isaiah 44/45. Some of them may be types, but they don't all need to be.
In fact even though I've done and may still do a lot of talking about potential types of The Anitchrist on this Blog. The Biblical endorsement for the concept of types are entirely about Jesus, Paul in Colossians saying everything in the law was a foreshadowing of Jesus that had already been fulfilled, Jesus saying the Volume of The Book is of Him. There is no Biblical basis for calling ANYONE a type of The Antichrist.
This model has to make Rome the 7th rather then 6th Empire. How can Rome possibly be yet Future in John's time? Or be said to have not lasted very long?
The 7 Kings we're are looking for are not rulers or occupiers of Israel/Jerusalem. Revelation 17 is specifically about Babylon, it's about 7 Kings of 7 Kingdoms who ruled Babylon, starting with it's native kingdom. Daniel 7 is in the Aramaic part of Daniel, the language of the Assyrians and Babylonians of Daniel's time. And he was in Babylonia when he had this vision. The four beasts are described as World Empires and all four are, but to the point of view of the Babylonians Daniel first made this Prophecy for, no one truly became a world empire till they conquered their world.
Rome did NOT rule Babylon at any point during the New Testament era or before it. John wrote Revelation at the latest during the reign of Domitian. The second Emperor after that, Trajan, was the first Roman to take Mesopotamia and Assyria. and it was at the very end of his reign that he did. Then Hadrian succeeded him, and he pretty much immediately gave them back to Parthia. So Rome only ever ruled Babylon for a very short time, just a few years.
The ruler of Parthia when John wrote was Pacorus II. (Who's mother was a Greek concubine, further showing he can count as a Greek King, and his father's maternal grandmother had Seleucid ancestry). When Pacorus died Trajan was already Emperor of Rome. Later in the 160s AD there was another Roman military incursion into Mesopotamia, but it never reached Babylon, it's focus was on Seleucica.
While it's not a coincidence that the 4 heads of the Leopard are the same number of horns the Notable horn of the Ram breaks into. I think what they represent specifically here could be sort of different. We are dealing with four Hellenistic era Kingdoms that ruled Babylon. The first is Alexander himself, then comes the successors.
I believe Parthia while often thought of as a quasi Persian empire can be looked at as coming out of Alexander's Empire. He had conquered that region, and by the New Testament period the Arascid Royal Family had Seleucid blood intermingled into them.
Babylon was taken from the Seleucid Empire by Parthia in 150 BC. It was still firmly Seleucid during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasomonean revolt.
Antigonus and Seleucus Nicator fought over Babylon early on after it was clear Alexander's own Dynasty would not survive. Eventually Seleucus secured it.
I'm going to consider Ptolemy the true successor to Alexander in this context. He had Alexander's body buried in the city named after him, an act that secured succession in Macedonian custom, and was possibly a half brother or cousin of Alexander.
The 4 Heads of the Leopard could be viewed as Antigonus in Macedon =The West, Antioch=The North, Alexandria=The South and Parthia=The East. Thus fitting the Four Winds of Heaven reference in Daniel 11. Though for that context we could also say the West was the Macedon-Greece homeland which was originally ruled by the Antipards but which the Antigonids took as they lost what was originally allotted to them to Seleucus.
So the 7 King(dom)s of Babylon from Daniel are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Alexander The Great, Antigonus, Seleucid Dynasty, Pacorus of Parthia, and Trajan of Rome.
In the past I firmly argued that I believe The Antichrist's Death and Resurrection must both be in the future. And I was not comfortable with the theories making him some past King being brought back.
But in light of this, I must be consistent with my clear understanding of Revelation 17's terminology. "Was, and is not" means the Eight King is one of the first 5, since it defines the present of this message as the 6th.
I still believe the Beast Empire is largely a Revived Roman Empire, but the Little Horn shows up among the ten horns in Daniel 7, distinct from Daniel 8 where he comes out of one of the 4 horns. He's ruling Rome but not as a Roman himself.
I don't believe it has to be someone who died from a head wound. The doctrine of The Antichrist's Resurrection to me is proven not by the mortal head wound being healed but by his ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and how that theme ties into Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28-32, (though fatal sword wound references are there too).
It could be he's already an early example of the second resurrection when he receives the mortal wound, and what amazes people is him surviving something that should have killed him, because he now has a body like a fallen angel.
Alexander The Great is distinct as being in a sense the main King of the Leopard as a whole as well as one of the heads. I see Daniel 7:12 saying both that the Assyrian, Persian and Greek nations will exist during the Millennium. And that their main three Kings, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great, are saved individuals and will exist in The Millennium too.
That only leaves Antigonus and the Seleucids.
Daniel 11:40-45 seems to have The Antichrist as separate from the King of The North. However, I've explained why I'm no longer certain that even is The Antichrist, and that it might be Augustus. But if that is the End Times and is The 8th King, it's while he's not a ruler of his original kingdom anymore but of the 10 horns to emerge from Rome.
There is nothing to link Antigonus to the Antichrist, but a lot of reasons to link the Seleucids. Daniel 8 as well as Epiphanes doing the first Abomination of Desolation, which Jesus clarifies there will be one yet future.
I argued in the past when discussing Daniel 8 that there The Little Horn is the Seleucid dynasty as a whole, not just 1 or 2 individuals. So unlike others who've argued a thesis similar to what I'm arguing here, I don't necessarily think it's Antiochus Epiphanes himself who is the Seleucid ruler that will ascend out of the Bottomless Pit, but certainly could be.
There are reasons to believe The Antichrist will be someone The Jews accept at first until the Abomination of Desolation happens. If he's Epiphanes and is known to be Epiphanes, that would be unlikely. Epiphanes is up there with Hitler and Haman on the most hated by Jews list.
I do think it must be a Seleucid mentioned in Daniel 11, making him a Biblical figure. Seleucus I might be the candidate to start with, but while important to Seleucid history obviously, what's said of him in Daniel 11 is brief and pales in comparison to some of the others. But it is interesting that a legend existed in the ancient world that his mother Laodice claimed he was fathered by Apollo.
Three times in Daniel 11 a king is described as "doing according to his will". One of these is verse 36 which is clearly past the immediate history of Epiphanes already, after the Hasmonean Kingdom has fallen to Rome. And may or may not be about The Antichrist. It's first used of Alexander The Great at the start of the chapter. Between them it's in verse 16.
Verse 16 is during the time of Antiochus III The Great's wars. And usually he is identified by scholars as the one "doing according to his will" there. But Hippolytus of Rome in his Daniel commentary confusingly says this was an Alexander not known from any other surviving historical sources we have on the period. He might have gotten confused by how that phrase was earlier affiliated with Alexander The Great, or maybe it's a scribal/copyist error.
It was under Antiochus The Great that Israel was taken from the Ptolemies and became part of the Seleucid Empire. He is overall remembered fondly by The Jews as recorded by Josephus. His relationship with them in Daniel 11 seems positive. He continued Alexander and the Ptolemies general policy of not interfering with their Faith or The Temple.
But Josephus seems to be familiar with only 1 Maccabees and not 2 Maccabees. 2 Maccabees chapter 1 seems to refer to the death of Antiochus III and deems him ungodly. Some see the benefits Antiochus gave The Temple as having been good for the Priestly class but not really for the common people.
Epiphanes is still the key link this dynasty has to The Antichrist. It's highly possible he will lie about who he is, even when he first reveals himself to be a resurrected past individual he may lie about exactly who he is. Maybe he'll try to claim he's Elijah or David or Solomon or someone like that. Or maybe just a simple matter of lying about which Macedonian or Seleucid ruler he is.
Some have agreed that Daniel 11:36-45 can't refer to anything Epiphanes did, yet still feel that the tone of the text wants us to think of him. This could agree with a notion that he was recorded earlier as the 5th King and 36-45 is about him as the 8th King.
On the notion that we're dealing with a ruler of one of the earlier Kingdoms now ruling/reviving Rome. Epiphanes had been a hostage in Rome, and Polybus said he liked to rule as if he were a Roman. Maybe he is the ideal person to revive the Roman Empire.
Which would create more options for someone he could claim to be, like Augustus.
But one interesting option is for him to claim to be Constantine XI, the last Byzantine Emperor. Like all later Byzantine Emperors he was firmly Greek, so Antiochus could remain the same ethnicity and native language. Constantine XI supposedly died in battle when Constantinople fell to the Turks, but his death was never solidly confirmed. So a rumor spread that an Angel had saved him and turned him into a statue and hid him beneath the Gate of Constantinople and would one be awoken to drive to the Turks. His legacy has remained important among the Greeks, drawing on it during their War of Independence in the 19th Century.
And the legend of his return no doubt became interwoven with the Last Roman Emperor tradition. The original seed of which, the late 4th century prophecy attributed to the Tiburtine Sibyl called him a King of The Greeks named Constans.
One argument against the idea that 36-39 could be about Epiphanes is that he was consistent with the religion of his fathers. However there is also a sense in which Epiphanes did change the religion of the Seleucid Empire, ironically the opposite of the change Augustus later made in Rome. Apollo had been the favored deity of earlier Seleucids, but Epiphanes downplayed him and was more fond of Zeus. But it still would be absurd to label Zeus a god "whom his fathers knew not" for any Greek people.
But if Epiphanes returns in the End Days his religion may be different, especially if he comes back after being resurrected and thinking Satan was responsible for it.
He did deify himself, technically the full name he used was Antíochos D' ho Epiphanḗs (Antiochus God Manifest, or Antiochus Zeus Manifest). I've noticed that while none of the known forms of Epiphanes/Epiphany I've found used in ancient Greek texts have a Greek gemetria value of 666, it isn't difficult to construct a form that does have that value, it seems 1 or 2 letters could make the difference.
Update August 2016: I just argued that the Eight King could be a Ptolemy.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Heli of Luke's genealogy is the father of Mary
I hold that common view, but I don't argue it in the more common way that view is presented. It's not about Heli being Joseph's father in law. At least it's not only that.
In the Greek of Luke 3:23, first of all the order of words are different. Secondly the entire genealogy in Greek only says "son of" once, and that's before the "as was supposed" which is put in parentheses.
In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article with one exception: the name of Joseph. Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that he was not really part of the genealogy. I actually believe the parentheses in English should be expanded to include his name.
So I would render it.
In both Greek and Hebrew the word for Son can mean Grandson or any descendant.
Tribal identity in Israel was usually determined strictly pater-lineally. But in the case of bastards where the father was unknown, or a proselyte marrying an Israelite woman and fathering children by her, the pater-lineal tribal identity of the mother would determine the tribal identity of that offspring.
Also while inheritance can usually go only through sons, a man with no sons but daughters can pass inheritance through his daughters if she marries within the tribe. Due to the law of the Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7. Joseph being of the House of David would qualify as the same tribe.
Another example of a bad argument to use on this issue is the Talmudic reference sometimes cited as saying Heli was the father of Mary (Chag. 77,4). This reference only seems to say this when a Christian is quoting it, so independent verification is wanting, and it has been cited by adversaries of this view as saying something different. The Talmud is complicated to study, so maybe there is something there, but we're better off just avoiding it for now.
We should not build doctrine on Apocrypha, but the Infancy Gospel of James is interesting. At first glance it would seem to contradict this view by clearly naming the father of Mary as Joachim.... But....
Joachim is a variant form of the name Jehoiakim. There is only one Jehoiakim in The Bible, he was a King of Judah of the House of David. The Infancy Gospel doesn't specify Joachim's ancestry, but other traditions related to his wife Anna/Hannah say she was of the House of David. Tie that to him having a Davidic name and it seems he's Davidic. [Update: I was rereading it recently and noticed the infancy Gospel does call Mary a Virgin of the daughters of David.]
King Jehoiakim was also known by the name Eliakim. Those names not only look similar in how they end, but they have effectively the same meaning, just using a different name of God to communicate the meaning. "He whom God has kept". So it's probable any Jehoiakim could have also been called Eliakim, especially if a later one was named after the King.
Eli could very easily serve as a shortening of Eliakim. And as I already said Heli was a Hellenization of Eli.
Yet the Infancy Gospel wouldn't have done it this way if it was seeking out to say the Biblical Heli is Mary's father. While plenty in the Infancy Gospel is clearly false, being the prototype of Catholic Marian doctrines. It may have been influenced by some real history that was passed on.
In the Greek of Luke 3:23, first of all the order of words are different. Secondly the entire genealogy in Greek only says "son of" once, and that's before the "as was supposed" which is put in parentheses.
In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article with one exception: the name of Joseph. Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that he was not really part of the genealogy. I actually believe the parentheses in English should be expanded to include his name.
So I would render it.
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli,Thomas Aquinus also said that Luke says Jesus was the Son of Eli (Heli is a Hellenization of Eli) though he didn't explain why. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, p. IIIa, q.31, a.3, Reply to Objection 2.
In both Greek and Hebrew the word for Son can mean Grandson or any descendant.
Tribal identity in Israel was usually determined strictly pater-lineally. But in the case of bastards where the father was unknown, or a proselyte marrying an Israelite woman and fathering children by her, the pater-lineal tribal identity of the mother would determine the tribal identity of that offspring.
Also while inheritance can usually go only through sons, a man with no sons but daughters can pass inheritance through his daughters if she marries within the tribe. Due to the law of the Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7. Joseph being of the House of David would qualify as the same tribe.
Another example of a bad argument to use on this issue is the Talmudic reference sometimes cited as saying Heli was the father of Mary (Chag. 77,4). This reference only seems to say this when a Christian is quoting it, so independent verification is wanting, and it has been cited by adversaries of this view as saying something different. The Talmud is complicated to study, so maybe there is something there, but we're better off just avoiding it for now.
We should not build doctrine on Apocrypha, but the Infancy Gospel of James is interesting. At first glance it would seem to contradict this view by clearly naming the father of Mary as Joachim.... But....
Joachim is a variant form of the name Jehoiakim. There is only one Jehoiakim in The Bible, he was a King of Judah of the House of David. The Infancy Gospel doesn't specify Joachim's ancestry, but other traditions related to his wife Anna/Hannah say she was of the House of David. Tie that to him having a Davidic name and it seems he's Davidic. [Update: I was rereading it recently and noticed the infancy Gospel does call Mary a Virgin of the daughters of David.]
King Jehoiakim was also known by the name Eliakim. Those names not only look similar in how they end, but they have effectively the same meaning, just using a different name of God to communicate the meaning. "He whom God has kept". So it's probable any Jehoiakim could have also been called Eliakim, especially if a later one was named after the King.
Eli could very easily serve as a shortening of Eliakim. And as I already said Heli was a Hellenization of Eli.
Yet the Infancy Gospel wouldn't have done it this way if it was seeking out to say the Biblical Heli is Mary's father. While plenty in the Infancy Gospel is clearly false, being the prototype of Catholic Marian doctrines. It may have been influenced by some real history that was passed on.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Was Alexander The Great Resurrected in 30 AD?
This is a follow up to an earlier study I did. Were some of the Angels once normal human beings. Where I argued many Old Testament Saints who were resurrected in 30 AD now also serve as Angels.
Why argue that a notorious Gentile Pagan world leader could be among those? We begin in Daniel 7.
Daniel 7 is a prophecy where the symbolism has two layers to it. The Beasts represents the kingdoms/nations of those world empires. But also for the first three at least their most notorious Kings who made them world empires. The Fourth is more complicated because Rome's history is more complicated.
Daniel 7:12 after describing the fourth beast's destruction says "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." This shows that those three nations will still exist in the Millennium. But I also feel it should also apply to the three Kings. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great. Which would make those three saved individuals.
With Nebuchadnezzar we know he's saved because Daniel 4 records his Salvation.
Some Dispensationlists teach salvation was different before The Cross, it's by Faith Alone only after. Problem is Paul was using the Old Testament to prove his point. In Galatians we are told Abraham was saved by Faith when he believed God in Genesis 15.
What exactly you needed to believe may have been different, since the NT wasn't written yet. But it was still by Belief. Jesus also tells us as The Queen of Sheba was saved because she believed Solomon, and the men of Nineveh because they believed Jonah. That they repented was a different cause to a different effect.
Isaiah 44-45 records a message God wrote to Cyrus before he was born. We know from the end of 2 Chronicles and beginning of Ezra that Cyrus did as God told him. Josephus records that it was Daniel who showed Isaiah's scroll to Cyrus. So Cyrus was saved by believing Isaiah's message I suspect.
Josephus later records that Daniel's prophecies that mentioned Alexander The Great were shown to Alexander when he was in Jerusalem. If you read Josephus account of Alexander in Jerusalem with this Biblical precedent in mind, you'll be left with little doubt that he was Saved at that time. And because I believe in Eternal Security, none of his later sins either disproved that salvation or undid it.
As I said before on the subject of the 30 AD Resurrection of Old Testament Saints. Maybe not all were resurrected then (Matthew's text says many not all) and some are being saved for later. So if we ever find Alexander's body it would not disprove anything I argued for above, only what I'm about to argue for below.
I've looked at the history of historical references to Alexander's body and/or tomb and found some things curious.
The last recorded visit that takes place before 30 AD is when Augustus visited it. Where he accidentally damaged his Nose trying to place a reef on the body. Dion Cassius, LI, 16 and LXXV, 13. reports Augustus' request to see the body of Alexander. "But touching the nose he did some damage to it. Asked if he wanted to visit the tombs of the Ptolemies, he refused, saying that: "I came to see a king and not dead men". Also Suetonius, vit. Auq. XVIII.
The first visit known to happen after 30 AD is Caligula's also recorded by Suetonius. He removed Alexander's breast plate, but the body isn't really directly mentioned. You'd think the man with the more reckless personality seeking to do a more difficult task would do more damage to it?
Dion also records that in his own day the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus sealed up the Tomb. He also mentions that Severus placed in the Mausoleum all the secret books "so none could read the books nor see the body". Septimius Severus was also one of the Emperors who persecuted Christianity, and his wife was a notorious opponent of Christianity.
The next Emperor, Caracalla, placed items in the Tomb but again the body isn't mentioned. A modern theory that he moved the body to a tomb in Macedon has been formed. Why would he do that while still honoring the Tomb in Alexandria? He also believed he was something like a reincarnation of Alexander (he was one of the crazy Emperors) maybe a lack of Body there helped reinforce that idea in his head.
The Body itself seems to have always been visible and referenced before 30 AD, but after that direct references to the body are avoided. Maybe it disappeared in 30 AD?
It was in the 4th Century that certainty of what structure was Alexander's Tomb was lost. Some theories interestingly have one of the earliest Christian Churches of Alexandria built over the Tomb. One specifically is a Church called the Church of Alexander. There were no Church Buildings before the Third Century, so Church building was still a new thing during this period. Why would Christians want to build a Church over his tomb and name it after him? Did early Alexandrian Christians have a tradition we've lost? Could it be in 30 AD Alexander rose again and proclaimed the Olympian gods false and that the recently Crucified Jesus of Nazareth was The One True God?
Let's return to Scripture. Acts 16:8-12
To 1st Century AD Greek speakers the biography of Alexander was as well known as the biography of George Washington is to us. And this part of the Acts narrative was very likely to make readers think of Alexander. Paul is sort of following Alexander's footsteps in reverse. Troy was one of the first places Alexander made a point to visit after he traversed from Europe into Asia. Paul is from Troy going to leave Asia and enter Europe with Macedon being the first place he goes. A city founded by and named after Alexander's father. Mention is also made of Samothace, the Island were Philip and Olympias (Alexander's parents) met while being inducted into a Dionsytic cult.
Other scholars have suggested that either Alexander or Philip is who the readers were meant to assume this man was. But they do so without tying any of these Resurrection or Daniel related issues into it.
Alexander did not have to be Resurrected to be used by God for this vision. Samuel did not need to be physically Resurrected to be used by God to deliver a message to Saul. But on this side of The Cross, Abraham's Bosom is empty, so the nature of the after life is different then it was before.
Saul was a namesake to Paul's Jewish name. But also similar to Alexander in some ways, both were important Kings of their nations but who's descendants didn't inherent their Thrones. For Alexander this detail about him is among the things Daniel predicts in chapter 11. Both also got angry and threw spears at people.
So, who knows, it's not something to build a huge doctrine on. But it's interesting.
Update March 4th 2017: I now consider this theory mostly defunct for two reasons.
1. I now strongly suspect those Resurrected in 30 AD are limited to people buried on the Mount of Olives at that time. And it's not likely Alexander's body wound up there.
2. Now that I believe in Universal Salvation, I no longer aboslutly need Alexander to have been Saved in his Mortal Life to possibly be on Earth during The Future Messianic Era, thus fitting Daniel 7. Though I still feel that is probably necessary to be here during the Millennium, and I do still think Alexander was possibly Saved in that sense.
Update October 23rd 2017: I have become more skeptical of the Mount of Olives model. And also decided that even if the 30 AD Resurrection began there, it may still have not been limited to it.
On the subject of Unviersal Sa;vation, I also don't even think those Resurrected in 30 AD were only of Believers, since I tie that Resurrection to Daniel 12. Either way I do still count Alexander, however flawed he was, as a righteous Gentile.
Update November 2018: Since that last Update I've become more convinced then ever of the Mount of Olives model.
But the main reason for this new update is that I've learned there are references to Alexander's Body in Alexandria following the time of Caligula. I've learned this while researching the theory that Alexander's Tomb become the Tomb of St Mark in the 390s AD.
Why argue that a notorious Gentile Pagan world leader could be among those? We begin in Daniel 7.
Daniel 7 is a prophecy where the symbolism has two layers to it. The Beasts represents the kingdoms/nations of those world empires. But also for the first three at least their most notorious Kings who made them world empires. The Fourth is more complicated because Rome's history is more complicated.
Daniel 7:12 after describing the fourth beast's destruction says "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." This shows that those three nations will still exist in the Millennium. But I also feel it should also apply to the three Kings. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus and Alexander The Great. Which would make those three saved individuals.
With Nebuchadnezzar we know he's saved because Daniel 4 records his Salvation.
Some Dispensationlists teach salvation was different before The Cross, it's by Faith Alone only after. Problem is Paul was using the Old Testament to prove his point. In Galatians we are told Abraham was saved by Faith when he believed God in Genesis 15.
What exactly you needed to believe may have been different, since the NT wasn't written yet. But it was still by Belief. Jesus also tells us as The Queen of Sheba was saved because she believed Solomon, and the men of Nineveh because they believed Jonah. That they repented was a different cause to a different effect.
Isaiah 44-45 records a message God wrote to Cyrus before he was born. We know from the end of 2 Chronicles and beginning of Ezra that Cyrus did as God told him. Josephus records that it was Daniel who showed Isaiah's scroll to Cyrus. So Cyrus was saved by believing Isaiah's message I suspect.
Josephus later records that Daniel's prophecies that mentioned Alexander The Great were shown to Alexander when he was in Jerusalem. If you read Josephus account of Alexander in Jerusalem with this Biblical precedent in mind, you'll be left with little doubt that he was Saved at that time. And because I believe in Eternal Security, none of his later sins either disproved that salvation or undid it.
As I said before on the subject of the 30 AD Resurrection of Old Testament Saints. Maybe not all were resurrected then (Matthew's text says many not all) and some are being saved for later. So if we ever find Alexander's body it would not disprove anything I argued for above, only what I'm about to argue for below.
I've looked at the history of historical references to Alexander's body and/or tomb and found some things curious.
The last recorded visit that takes place before 30 AD is when Augustus visited it. Where he accidentally damaged his Nose trying to place a reef on the body. Dion Cassius, LI, 16 and LXXV, 13. reports Augustus' request to see the body of Alexander. "But touching the nose he did some damage to it. Asked if he wanted to visit the tombs of the Ptolemies, he refused, saying that: "I came to see a king and not dead men". Also Suetonius, vit. Auq. XVIII.
The first visit known to happen after 30 AD is Caligula's also recorded by Suetonius. He removed Alexander's breast plate, but the body isn't really directly mentioned. You'd think the man with the more reckless personality seeking to do a more difficult task would do more damage to it?
Dion also records that in his own day the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus sealed up the Tomb. He also mentions that Severus placed in the Mausoleum all the secret books "so none could read the books nor see the body". Septimius Severus was also one of the Emperors who persecuted Christianity, and his wife was a notorious opponent of Christianity.
The next Emperor, Caracalla, placed items in the Tomb but again the body isn't mentioned. A modern theory that he moved the body to a tomb in Macedon has been formed. Why would he do that while still honoring the Tomb in Alexandria? He also believed he was something like a reincarnation of Alexander (he was one of the crazy Emperors) maybe a lack of Body there helped reinforce that idea in his head.
The Body itself seems to have always been visible and referenced before 30 AD, but after that direct references to the body are avoided. Maybe it disappeared in 30 AD?
It was in the 4th Century that certainty of what structure was Alexander's Tomb was lost. Some theories interestingly have one of the earliest Christian Churches of Alexandria built over the Tomb. One specifically is a Church called the Church of Alexander. There were no Church Buildings before the Third Century, so Church building was still a new thing during this period. Why would Christians want to build a Church over his tomb and name it after him? Did early Alexandrian Christians have a tradition we've lost? Could it be in 30 AD Alexander rose again and proclaimed the Olympian gods false and that the recently Crucified Jesus of Nazareth was The One True God?
Let's return to Scripture. Acts 16:8-12
And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, "Come over into Macedonia, and help us."
And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them. Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.I agree with the theory that the part of Acts 16 where Paul is at Troas (Troy) is where Luke (The Macedonian physician) joins him, because it's there that the narrative voice changed from third person to first person. But it's sometimes tied into that to identify Luke with the man who appeared to Paul in the vision asking him to come to Macedonia. But that to me is clearly an Angelic personage. Paul probably sought a Macedonian who was in Troas after that vision to help him as he decided to head to Macedonia.
To 1st Century AD Greek speakers the biography of Alexander was as well known as the biography of George Washington is to us. And this part of the Acts narrative was very likely to make readers think of Alexander. Paul is sort of following Alexander's footsteps in reverse. Troy was one of the first places Alexander made a point to visit after he traversed from Europe into Asia. Paul is from Troy going to leave Asia and enter Europe with Macedon being the first place he goes. A city founded by and named after Alexander's father. Mention is also made of Samothace, the Island were Philip and Olympias (Alexander's parents) met while being inducted into a Dionsytic cult.
Other scholars have suggested that either Alexander or Philip is who the readers were meant to assume this man was. But they do so without tying any of these Resurrection or Daniel related issues into it.
Alexander did not have to be Resurrected to be used by God for this vision. Samuel did not need to be physically Resurrected to be used by God to deliver a message to Saul. But on this side of The Cross, Abraham's Bosom is empty, so the nature of the after life is different then it was before.
Saul was a namesake to Paul's Jewish name. But also similar to Alexander in some ways, both were important Kings of their nations but who's descendants didn't inherent their Thrones. For Alexander this detail about him is among the things Daniel predicts in chapter 11. Both also got angry and threw spears at people.
So, who knows, it's not something to build a huge doctrine on. But it's interesting.
Update March 4th 2017: I now consider this theory mostly defunct for two reasons.
1. I now strongly suspect those Resurrected in 30 AD are limited to people buried on the Mount of Olives at that time. And it's not likely Alexander's body wound up there.
2. Now that I believe in Universal Salvation, I no longer aboslutly need Alexander to have been Saved in his Mortal Life to possibly be on Earth during The Future Messianic Era, thus fitting Daniel 7. Though I still feel that is probably necessary to be here during the Millennium, and I do still think Alexander was possibly Saved in that sense.
Update October 23rd 2017: I have become more skeptical of the Mount of Olives model. And also decided that even if the 30 AD Resurrection began there, it may still have not been limited to it.
On the subject of Unviersal Sa;vation, I also don't even think those Resurrected in 30 AD were only of Believers, since I tie that Resurrection to Daniel 12. Either way I do still count Alexander, however flawed he was, as a righteous Gentile.
Update November 2018: Since that last Update I've become more convinced then ever of the Mount of Olives model.
But the main reason for this new update is that I've learned there are references to Alexander's Body in Alexandria following the time of Caligula. I've learned this while researching the theory that Alexander's Tomb become the Tomb of St Mark in the 390s AD.
I'm kind of annoyed
That currently the post poplar post of this Blog is the Lunar Tetrad of 2032-33 post.
I'm not dogmatic about any of my date setting theories. And currently that one happens be my least favorite of the ones I've suggested in the history of this blog.
But I guess until this years Fall Feasts come and go the Blood Moon theory will remain the hot topic in Bible Prophecy, and so anything even vaguely related to it will get a lot of clicks.
I'm not dogmatic about any of my date setting theories. And currently that one happens be my least favorite of the ones I've suggested in the history of this blog.
But I guess until this years Fall Feasts come and go the Blood Moon theory will remain the hot topic in Bible Prophecy, and so anything even vaguely related to it will get a lot of clicks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)