Seven Churches in Judaea

In my post on the Seven Churches in Asia being the historical context of Revelation I spoke rather dismissively of any theory that suggests the names of those Churches are mere codes and all this is really in Judaea.  And that is still my main view.

But I’ve decided to play Devil's Advocate with that possibility, especially since I do believe the Message to the Seven Churches are applicable well beyond their original immediate context.  I do hold to the theory that every Church can to some extent fit into the category of one of these Seven Churches.  So it could be a fun thought experiment. 

The first question is what cities are even confirmed to have had Christian populations?  Biblically in Acts Jerusalem is where it started, then the "City of Samaria” in Acts 8.  Then Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea Maritima in Acts 9-11.  But more that are not specifically named are implied.

The Last of the Seven is actually the easiest to make a Judaean identification for.  You see in Jewish Literature the city of Laodicea on the Lycus and Lydda/Lod in Judah are often confused or conflated with each other, at least when talking about Lulianos and Paphos the Slain of Lydda.

Another interesting fact about Lydda is that its Wikipedia Pages say it was a city that became majority Christian by at least as early as AD 200 and maybe even as early as 120.  I’ve never seen any other claim of any City becoming majority Christian already before the Fourth Century much less in the second.  And the precise nature of what is wrong with the Church of the Laodiceans in Revelation kind of makes the most sense if they are the most demographically privileged of these Congregations. 

Smyrna and Pergamon in Asia are where the explicit references to martyrdom happen because they were also the chief centers of the Imperial Cult. The chief centers of the Imperial Cult in Judaea were where Herod The Great built two Temples to the deified Augustus, Caesarea Maritima and Samaria which became known as Sebaste because of the Augustus worship there. Caesarea is like Smyrna in being a port city and where most Christians Martyrdoms happened during the Diocletian Persecution.  The Message to Pergamon makes reference to Balaam and Balak, characters who first appear in Numbers but the way they are referenced is arguably drawing on Micah 6:5 which is in context about the House of Omri who first built Samaria. 

The big question we need to ask when considering this is since both my view of when Revelation was written and the most mainstream view place it between AD 70 and the Bar Kochba Revolt was there a Church in Jerusalem during that period?  The overwhelming evidence is that during this period Jerusalem wasn’t inhabited at all besides the Legio X Fretensis being garrisoned there.  But Eusebius refers to some Jewish Christian community there that was expelled with the Jews when they were forbidden to live anywhere Jerusalem was even visible from. 

It’s probable there was a Christian community considered the Jerusalem Church still even though that wasn’t where they literally resided anymore but rather in nearby villages like Bethany, Bethpage or even Bethlehem which the later Greek Bishops of Jerusalem considered part of their jurisdiction. But in order to be close enough Jerusalem has to at least be visible from there, so Shechem/Nablus is too far North and Lydda too far west.

So then which of the Seven Churches in Revelation makes the most sense to identify with Jerusalem? Maybe more than one could if they were residing in up to three different villages?  But each Jerusalem candidate I’m about to suggest has alternative theories.

The name of Jerusalem appears in the text of Revelation only when naming New Jerusalem and thus in chapters 2-3 only in the message to Philadelphia. But perhaps that makes Philadelphia the least likely?  The name is used there explicitly in a non literal fashion in a message where having your name changed is a theme. And I indeed have other ideas for Philadelphia I’ll get to later. 

The Seven Church Ages theory (which I consider partially true but have unique takes on) leads to identifying Ephesus poetically with the beginning of Church History.  And the way it’s addressed as “of Ephesus” rather than “in” like most of the following Churches alongside how Paul met with the Ephesian Elders as Miletus means it can also be associated with the concept of a Church residing in a different location then where it was founded. 

Anti-Paulians who believe Paul and Barnabas are the False Apostles Ephesus rejected also love to imagine the Jerusalem Church rejecting them too.  But Epiphanes of Salamis confirms continuity between the Jerusalem Church and the Nazarenes who he also confirms did not reject Paul.  Hegesippus’s account of the events surrounding the death of Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem blames it on Heretics within the Church, those could be the False Apostles alluded to in Revelation. 

Ephesus is also the one I have the weakest alternative identification for.  The “City of Samaria” referred to in Acts 8 could be argued to be the first Daughter of the Jerusalem Church and Simon Magus could be the False Apostle they rejected. But I’ll return to that city later.  I’ve also considered Joppa because of how it was Peter’s base of operations for a while. 

The description of Babylon in the rest of Revelation is kind of repeating imagery of Thyatira (but also Pergamon and Smyrna as places of Martyrdom). And I go back and forth on Babylon being Jerusalem or Rome. Thyatira means daughter and both Babylon and Jerusalem are often Daughters in Biblical Language. Rome in Judaea would be the Imperial Cult Centers I already addressed. Though if you believed in a post Bar Kochba Revolt (or post its inciting incident) authorship date for Revelation then the former site of Jerusalem became a new Imperial Cult center as Aelia Capitolina. 

The use of the name Jezebel in the message to Thyatira has me thinking of Jezreel as a candidate. It continued to be inhabited through Hellenistic and Roman times eventually being called by the Arabic name Zirin. 

I above kept putting “City of Samaria” when referencing Acts 8 in quotes because in my view it’s ambiguous if that’s Samaria/Sebaste or the city that was the center of the Samaritan culture, Shechem/Sychar which is called “a City of Samaria” in John 4. 

It is often argued part of the reason Names are such a theme in the message to Philadelphia is because during the reign of Vespasian its official name was changed to Flavia Philadelphia. Well there was also a City renamed Flavia in Judaea, Shechem/Sychar which was renamed Flavia Neapolis from which we get modern Nablus. Neapolis means “New City” hence poetically fitting an allusion to New Jerusalem. And if this is the “City of Samaria” of Acts 8 then it’s notable that the name of Philip is cognate with the first syllable of Philadelphia. 

I’ve avoided expanding these speculations northwards into Galilee so far besides Jezreel which I’m unsure if that counted as part of New Testament era Galilee or not. But Acts 9:31 says there were Churches in Galilee.  Another city known for having multiple names was Sepphoris.  During the 66-73 War it renamed itself in honor of the current Emperor as Neornias to express its desire not to join in the rebellion.  But also around this time took the name of Eirenopolis which means City of Peace essentially a Greek Translation of the meaning of Jerusalem. But it also took the name Diocaesarea during the reign of Hadrian.

The aspects of Laodicea's described that made me feel it fit being a city where Christians were the majority is also part of its contrast to Philadelphia, in that city the Christian presence may have been so small it’s not even possible to independently verify it had a Christian population this early.  This is very true of Philadelphia in Asia and it happens to also fit both Neapolis and Shechem. Justin Martyr was born in Neapolis but he wasn’t raised Christians his conversion came after leaving. 

I also feel attracted to looking for Sardis in Zebulun because of the name Sarid from Joshua 19:10-12, there is a seeming phonetic similarity, and Sarid means Remnant or Remain, a word used in the message to Sardis. Sarid is not the name of a City though but a boundary marker.  So I’ve considered identifying the city closest to it with Nazareth, Japhia, Sepphoris or even as far west as Haifa. 

It could be in its Judaea application each of these even Churches has more then one city.  In Asia just these Seven essentially account for all of the Christians in the province but Judea as where The Church started can be expected to have way more than just seven.  I haven't even gotten to the Phoenician Churches connected to the Hellenized Jewish Christians who came there in Acts 11 yet. 

Maybe we could try equating some of them with entire regions of Israel.  Make Caesarea and Sebaste both Pergamon as both being part of Biblical Manasseh.  Meanwhile Smyrna is named after a woman in Greek Mythology tied to Phoenicia and Adonis.  Both the Haifa and Acre sub-districts of modern Israel are part of the Biblical Allotment of Asher. Smyrna was an Aeolian Greek city and the Aeolians can also be tied to Phoenicia and Asher.

Christian Exodus from Jerusalem in AD 70

 In Luke 21:20-23 Jesus warns the people to flee Jerusalem when it is surrounded by armies. 

Church Historians like Eusebius in Church History Book III drawing on older sources like Hegesippus record how the Early Christians in Jerusalem did exactly that, placing the Martyrdom of James the Brother of The Lord at about this same time (I believe a different brother was killed in 62 and that a Scribe mistakenly added the name of James to that account in Antiquities Book 20).. 

Secular Historians and Bible Skeptics may be inclined to doubt that narrative because it does not at first glance seem to be in Josephus’s account in Wars of The Jews.  

However I have noticed that Wars of The Jews Book VI Chapter 8 Section 2 does tell how when Jerusalem was surrounded by the Roman Army there was a distinct community of the Jews in Jerusalem who saw the writing on the wall and decided to leave.  However Simon Bar Giora sought to prevent their leaving and killed five of their leaders including one named Jacob/James and imprisoned more.  Yet most were able to escape the city anyway. 

However it’s the Idumeans Josephus is talking about there.  Also this Jacob is called the son of Sosas but I really doubt that is literally supposed to be identifying the name of his father, it must be some kind of title or epithet. 

“It was at this time that the commanders of the Idumeans got together privately, and took counsel about surrendring up themselves to the Romans. Accordingly they sent five men to Titus; and intreated him to give them his right hand for their security. So Titus thinking that the tyrants would yield, if the Idumeans, upon whom a great part of the war depended, were once withdrawn from them, after some reluctancy and delay, complied with them; and gave them security for their lives; and sent the five men back. But as these Idumeans were preparing to march out, Simon perceived it: and immediately slew the five men that had gone to Titus: and took their commanders, and put them in prison. Of whom the most eminent was Jacob, the son of Sosas. But as for the multitude of the Idumeans, who did not at all know what to do, now their commanders were taken from them, he had them watched; and secured the walls by a more numerous garrison. Yet could not that garrison resist those that were deserting. For although a great number of them were slain, yet were the deserters many more in number. These were all received by the Romans: because Titus himself grew negligent as to his former orders for killing them: and because the very soldiers grew weary of killing them: and because they hoped to get some money by sparing them. For they left only the populace; and sold the rest of the multitude, with their wives and children; and every one of them for a very low price: and that because such as were sold were very many, and the buyers very few. And although Titus had made proclamation beforehand, that no deserter should come alone by himself; that so they might bring out their families with them; yet did he receive such as these also. However, he set over them such as were to distinguish some from others; in order to see if any of them deserved to be punished. And indeed the number of those that were sold was immense. But of the populace above forty thousand were saved: whom Cæsar let go whither every one of them pleased.”

I have a post on my SolaScripturaChristianLIberty blog about how Jewish tradition came to identify Christianity with Esau/Edom and how the Idumeans likely played a role in that even though their own presumed connection to Edom is dubious.

Mark 8:3 refers to there being Idumeans among those who came to listen to Jesus so there were likely Idumeans in The Early Church right from Pentecost. Acts 8:1 refers to the Christians spreading throughout Judaea and Samaria following the Martyrdom of Stephen, Idumea is entirely part of Biblical Judah so it’s likely included in that since the NT never uses Idumea as a geographic term. And how James quotes Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:13-19 may have early on encouraged a poetic identification with Edom.

Also one can infer in this Josephus account that it’s not only the Idumeans who were trying to leave, he’s just putting a special focus on them. 

The English Translations of Josephus I use sometimes calls this figure Jacob and sometimes James, they are truly interchangeable. And in my attempts to google what Sosas means the best I could find is that it’s likely derived from the Greek word for Save or Saved. So it could be a title for this James being the son of the family who brought about Salvation. In Hegesippus’s account when James is asked about Jesus he answers that Jesus is the Savior. 

Antiquities of The Jews was written decades later when Josephus had become more informed about a lot of things.  That’s why when it refers to the execution of a Brother of Jesus who was called Christ it knows to identify him by that family relation rather than Sosas. 

Back in Wars Book IV Chapter 4 Section 2 is when Jacob son of Sosas was first mentioned, three other Idumean leaders are also named.  A John with no Patronym (it’s plausible to imagine he and Jacob were meant to share Son of Sosas enabling theorists more fringe than me to make a different theory about which Biblical James this Jacob could be) a Simon son of Cathlas and Phineas son of Clusothus.  Those Patronyms also do not seem like actual names to me.   

The names Simon and Simeon are interchangeable so maybe this Simon is the Simeon traditionally considered the second Bishop of Jerusalem.  Cathlas seems to likely be related to a Greek word for Pure and in Eusebius via Hegesippus account of Simeon it’s stressed how “the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin”.   This Simon gave a speech in Section 4.

Another story from Josephus of someone being killed by the rebels in Jerusalem resembles the specifics of how Hegesippus says James was tried and Executed, Zacharias son of Baruch from Wars Book IV Chapter 5 Section 4. 

“Hereupon there arose a great clamour of the zealots upon his acquittal: and they all had indignation at the judges, for not understanding that the authority that was given them was but in jest. So two of the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him. And as he fell down dead, they bantered him, and said, “Thou hast also our verdict: and this will prove a more sure acquittal to thee than the other.” They also threw him down from the temple immediately into the valley beneath it. Moreover they struck the judges with the backs of their swords, by way of abuse; and thrust them out of the court of the temple; and spared their lives with no other design than that, when they were dispersed among the people in the city, they might become their messengers, to let them know they were no better than slaves.”

Now a skeptic of the historicity of Hegesippus’s account may say he just pastiched together different stories he found in Josephs. However what happens to Zacharias is not meant to be entirely unique, Josephus is presenting it as the first of many Show trials the other victims of which he doesn’t describe in full detail but just names starting in Chapter 6, like the "Death or Exile” scene from The Dark Knight Rises.  So the execution of James son of Sosas of the Idumeans was almost certainly mostly the same sequence of events repeating.

I do believe Hegesippus’s account is somewhat fictionalized and not a perfect record of what happened.  It’s only The Gospels and Acts I view as Perfect. 

I also want to point out that regardless of if these Idumeans were or significantly overlapped with the Christians of Jerusalem I still doubt they were specifically guilty of all the things Josephus accuses them of.  Part of Josephus’s agenda seems to be to scapegoat the Zealots and Idumeans for the worst things that the Rebels did during this war.  

In this very chapter of Wars I find it hard to believe that the Idumeans were both involved in the killing of this Zacharias and then displeased with it in the very next verse. 

Patmos was actually Pithom in Egypt

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

I've expressed on my other blog that The Beloved Disciple was Mary Magdalene not any of the 12, and that she wrote the Gospel and Epistles commonly attributed to John, or at least 1 John. I think Letois was identified with Patmos derivative of the erroneous John in Ephesus tradition.

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

The John of Revelation however does not actually claim to be one of the 12 or a Son of Zebedee.

Revelation 1:9 is the only verse in all of Scripture the name "Patmos" appears in, the spelling is actually for grammatical reasons PatmO in the Textus Receptus.  It's called an Isle, and John says he's there for the Testimony of Jesus and alludes to tribulation, but there is still no direct reference to it being an exile as tradition has assumed it to be.  

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

Last time I flirted with this idea of an alternate location for Patmos I wound up going down the Cyprus/Paphos route for a somewhat arbitrary reason, but now I have a better theory.

Around February 23rd 2023 I visited Pithom's Wikipedia page and the Greek transliteration of the name listed was Πατούμος Patoúmos, a spelling that is literally Patmos with an ού added in the middle.  This spelling apparently comes from Herodotus Histories II.158 where my version (Translated by G.C.Macaulay and Revised by Donald Lateiner, published by Barnes & Noble Classics) transliterates it Patumos.

Now at face value calling Pithom a island may seem weird, but it's in the Nile Delta, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that someone in Pithom in the first or early second century would have thought of it as being an island.  A lot of these kinds of terms were not defined as strictly as how we define them today, the Peloponnese was sometimes called an island for example. There is also debate about the location of Pithom, the reference in Herodotus with this spelling places it by the Royal Canal. 

Pithom is a Biblical location from Exodus 1:11, a lot in Revelation is thematically presenting itself as a repeat of the history of The Exodus.  And there apparently are some Hebrew texts where there is no letter for O between the letters for Th and M which could explain this Patmos spelling's one difference from Herodotus.

The oldest surviving texts we have of Revelation are from Egypt, some examples being Papyrus 47, 98 and 115, but that's true of a lot of Ancient Texts, the Nile Valley is for Climate reasons a place where more ancient texts survived then in other regions.

I now suspect John of Revelation was John Mark, tradition does say he was in Egypt.  The function Mark is serving in Acts 13-14 is essentially the same one John is performing in Revelation.  2 Timothy 4:11 does also tell us Mark had been with Timothy at Ephesus for a time.

The individual Antichrist doctrine is a Marcionite Heresy

In 1 John and 2 John the only use of the word Antichrist that seems to have the idea of an expected future individual in mind is 1 John 2:18.

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.”

For what I'm arguing here the key part of that verse is “ye have heard”, elsewhere in The New Testament expressions like  “ye have heard” sometimes (but not always) refer to oral traditions that are in fact wrong, like Matthew 5:43. And when it does seem to be used of an actual quotations of Scripture the implication is still that it was being misused or misunderstood, for example “Eye for an Eye” was always meant to be an expression of restraint not a mandate. 

The doctrine of an individual Antichrist does pop up very early in Church history, a fact I stressed back when I was a Futurist.  But even as early as the second century wrong ideas were popping up, indeed some of what’s in The Epistles is dealing with bad ideas already popping up.

Marcionism is the Heresy of Marcion of Sinope that the “Old Testament” God is not a benevolent God and has nothing to do with Jesus or The Father that Paul spoke of.  What is obviously wrong with that doctrine was quickly deemed Heresy by most Christians including those academics call the “Proto-Orthodox” and is still deemed Heretical to this day by all Chalcedonian, Miaphysite and “Nestorian” Churches as well as even the most rebellious of Low Church Protestants.  

However he did manage to be influential, perhaps one of the first Heretics whose real influence came in how even those debunking him conceded to him more ground then they should have.  

While literally separating the Old and New Testament Gods is recognized as obvious heresy, a lot of casual discussions of The Bible still maintains a perception that God seems different in The Hebrew Bible.  People will talk about it as if He mellowed out or something, and Dispensationalists argue God is operating differently now during the “Church Age” but eventually it will end and we’ll be back in the Old Testament. 

The truth is much of what the New Testament has to say about God’s Mercy and Forgiveness and Unconditional Love has its roots in The Hebrew Bible, like in the Psalms and much of Isaiah. The ugliest stuff in the Hebrew Bible still leads to a Happy Ending, it’s Hebrew Prophets who said God’s Punishments are for Correction and His fire a purging fire.  And God’s Wrath is by no means absent from the New Testament or even specifically from Paul.

This perception largely comes from The New Testament being shorter in total, especially in terms of actual narrative content.  Pop culture focus on stories where God’s Wrath is apparent often purely for entertainment, but in The New Testament we run out of that content quicker not because it’s a smaller percentage of the whole but simply because it’s smaller. 

But I also think it’s in some cases made worse by mistakes in how The Hebrew Bible is translated relative to The New Testament. In the Hebrew you are a lot less likely to be confused about “Eye for an Eye” being a law of restraint rather than a mandate.

Back to the topic at hand.

Marcion did in fact have an Eschatology, alongside arguing that Jesus has nothing to do with the Jewish God he also argued that the Jewish God was indeed going to send a conquering Jewish Messiah who will be antithetical to Jesus.  

As Gentile Christians among the “Proto-Orthodox” were starting to become Anti-Semitic for their own reasons, it was attractive to adapt what Marcion said into an expectation of a False Messiah who will be antithetical to Jesus.

While modern Futurists are usually depicting The Antichrist as more of a Globalist Savior, with the Islamic Antichrist claiming to be the Mahdi theory being the second most popular model.  Some degree of remembering the false Jewish Messiah idea remains.  

Christ White wrote a book called “False Christ: Will the Antichrist claim to be the Jewish Messiah” back in the 2010s going all in on that as his main model for understanding the Antichrist (abandoning an earlier interest he had in thinking he’d be a New Age Maitreya figure) and does convincingly argue that all the earliest extra-Biblical Church writings on the subject were focused on a False Jewish Messiah model.  Yet those still include no one older than the time of Marcion.  The only Non-Biblical Christian Writing with any Eschatology in it that could be older than Marcion is the Didache which on the subject of villains for its End Time scenario refers only to “The World Deceiver" like quoting Revelation 12 in reference to Satan The Dragon.

Christ White’s Biblical argument is largely built on Daniel 11:36-45 which I’ve demonstrated is about ancient BC Rome not a future conqueror.  And John 5:43 “another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive”, which I view as fulfilled later in that same Gospel when the Jewish Priests say “We have no King but Caesar” and/or when they called for the freeing of Barabas. 

These early fathers liked to see what Jesus said about Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum in Matthew 11:21-24 and Luke 10:13-15 as relevant, I think it's self evident those verses are not about a villain coming from there and are probably fulfilled by these cities being destroyed in the First Jewish-Roman War or perhaps during the Bar Kokhba Revolt.  Being way up north they were clearly being tied into the whole Dan fixation which is why Chris White doesn’t use those verses in his own argument.  I have a prior post on the Tribe of Dan including how prophecies about Dan may have also been fulfilled in the first Jewish-Roman War.

Much of what Chris White does in this book or in Islamic Antichrist Debunked is to correctly argue against the Antichrist relevance of many other popular Prophecies to connect to that topic.  But as I just showed the same can be done to the ones he bases his view on.

I’ve already argued on this blog that the Abomination of Desolation Jesus foretold is Hadrian’s statue, and that the Man of Sin in II Thessalonians 2 is all Christian Monarchy and Episcopal Polity.

I have posts on how The Little Horn of Daniel 8 is the Seleucid Dynasty focused on Antiochus Epiphanes and The Little Horn of Daniel 7 is the Byzantine Empire focused on Justinian.  And Chris White himself has argued for the final part of Daniel 2 being about events in the Fifth Century though that might be one of his old arguments he’s since reversed. 

https://bibleprophecytalk.com/daniel-2-31-49-nephilm-toes-or-the-end-of-rome-nebuchadnezzars-dream-2/

And I've shown that the 70th Week is entirely 30-37 AD.

In the last verse of Revelation 13, "Number of a man" can arguably be instead translated "number of men" or "number of Man" as in Mankind which is why it's often thought to be thematically linked to Adam being created on the 6th Day.  That fits well with my argument that 666=Iapetos given what Iapetos is in Greek Mythology.

In developing my current Eschatology, I have considered a few individual Emperors as candidates for The Beast.  But the gist of my Baptism of The Beast thesis is that The Beast is Rome as a collective entity, whose long ongoing Baptism began with the Milvian Bridge and is still in progress right now.

It is what I think about the Beast out of The Earth I’m still working on. 

Ezekiel 37 is about The Bodily Resurrection of The Dead

As I said before I happen to be a Zionist for Secular reasons but no longer hold the Bible Prophecy expectations associated with “Christian Zionism”, especially not its Futurist Premillennial Dispensationalist forms.

I'm not inherently hostile to the idea that Modern Israel could have a role to play in the Bible Prophecies I view as not already fulfilled yet.  But I don’t expect a Third Temple or some revival where they all convert to Christianity prior to The Parousia. When it happens The Parousia will affect every nation, so if you are in Israel when it happens you will have a unique view of it. 

Conservative Evangelicals have a tendency to side with the Revisionist Maximalists in terms of what the borders of Israel should be, but I’ve debunked that reasoning on my other blog.

What bugs me about the Eschatology of Christian Zionists is how they twist Ezekiel 37 in order to make it about 1948.

While contemporary Christian Zionism is viewed as mostly the domain of Pre-Trib Dispensationalism, it began among Puritans with a predominantly Historicist Eschatology.  However the most consistently hostile to Zionism is Full Preterism.  All forms of Christian Zionism exist in frameworks that are supposed to be built on stressing a literal physical bodily view of the General Resurrection of The Dead. 

And yet they wind up taking one of the most graphically explicit Hebrew Bible visuals of that literal bodily Resurrection, and allegorizing it the same way many Full Preterists do. Full Preterists agree with the Dry Bones of Ezekiel 37 being a picture of a rebirth of the Nation of Israel, however as Supersessionists they view that rebirth as the birth of The Church.

The core fallacy here is a refusal to accept that a Prophecy can be multiple things at once.  

Yes Ezekiel 37 it is putting a focus on how this will be a rebirth and reunification for Israel as a Nation.  But it is a renewal happening because all these dead Israelites of past generations are alive again.  Including David specifically singled out for reference, which Christian commentators keep saying simply represents Jesus here but I disagree, it is David himself Risen, Jesus in this chapter is YHWH, the one breathing the Breath of Life into them like back in Genesis 2. 

Because Pre-Trib is the most well known form of Futurism currently, Full Preterists love to cling to how they technically interpret Ezekiel 37 the same way and point out the absurdity of separating that Resurrection Prophecy from all the others.

The Resurrection is not a metaphor for national revival, it is the cause of it. 

Gog and Magog Invasion

Back when I was still a Pre-Millennial Futurist I became convinced of the view that the Gog and Magog Invasion of Ezekiel 38-39 is the same as the one in Revelation 20:8-9 and thus happens after the Millennium, I started being convinced of this after being first exposed to it by Chris White.  

Revelation 20 is clearly referencing that Prophecy in a way that implies this is what that always was.  I find it funny when people call Ezekiel's Prophecy "Gog and Magog" while denying they are the same because that exact wording is ONLY in Revelation and arguably a mistranslation even there, the Greek of Revelation 20 looks to me like it's saying "Gog from Magog" which is even more clearly referencing the language of Ezekiel.

However, I’m not Pre-Millennial anymore but a Partial Preterist so I can agree with that view but also wind up right back in the position of viewing it as possibly the next big event of The Biblical Timeline. Especially since unlike the standard forms of Postmillennialism or Amillennialism I view the end of The Millennium in verse 7 as already past. 

However that does not require me to expect something essentially the same as what most Futurists are expecting.  In my prior discussions of Revelation 20 on this Blog I’ve definitely argued for a reading that does not require taking its geography at face value, and seeing at least the start of the Invasion as something that’s also already happened.  However I’m not as firmly decided on how I view verses 8-9 as I am the first 7 verses.  Verse 11 on is definitely still yet future. 

Recent Geopolitical news I'm sure has riled up the typical Futurist Gog and Magog enthusiasts.  I also find it interesting how those who for Secular reasons spent all of 2022 and much of 2023 hyping up Putin as the New Hitler and saying our Foreign Policy decisions need to revolve around stopping him, failed to apply that to their positions on Israel, Palestine, Syria or Iran. Putin and Iran are allies and Putin is very Anti-Israel. 

I’m a Christian and a Zionist, but not what “Christian Zionist” as a term typically means.  My Eschatology does NOT demand me to see any Prophetic significance to modern Israel, it could wind up playing a role in something, but it doesn’t need to and I don’t particularly expect it to. It’s only on the topic of this Prophecy specifically that I’m even kind of thinking about it.  I’m a Zionist for Secular Materialist reasons just like most of the original Jewish founders of modern Zionism were.

I’m a Labor Zionist, in the original understanding of that term not what David Ben-Gurion turned Labor Zionism into, and I certainly have no love for the Likud party.  You can condemn both what Hamas did on October 7th 2023 and how Netenyahu has responded to it, it doesn't have to be either/or.

Many are going to use the connection they see between this situation and Ezekiel 38-39 to defend Netenyahu’s foreign policy decisions, but that is irrelevant actually.  A repeated theme in The Bible is that God saves The Nation in-spite of how unrighteous they are not because they deserve it. God’s intervention would be for the sake of the common people not the politicians in charge. 

However the big issue is that the implication of my prior discussions of Revelation 20 on this Blog see the Camp of The Saints as Christians not Civil Israel.  But there are Christians in Israel, some Cities who’s entire Population is Christian. 

Dispensationalists do believe Israel has a Sin that God is going to save them in-spite of, but rather than being any actual deeds it is the sin of not being Christians.  As both a Universalist and an Inclusivist I don’t think that matters, God is going to judge the Nations based on what they do not who they worship.  Jews are judged based on how they interpret and follow their own religions. I don’t see any value in actively trying to convert anyone.

I’m not writing this to come to any definitive conclusion at all, just sharing some thoughts I’ve been having. 

Materialism and Idealism

 https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2025/05/materialism-and-idealism.html

I'm copy/pasting the text of the above post below.  But if I ever make edits or revisions of it in the future I'll be prioritizing that original posting. [Of course a further confusion when added to Bible Prophecy is Idealism as a term for a way of interpreting Revelation.]

One thing that unintentionally poisons the well of Internet Leftist Discourse is that both of those words (as well as their -ist forms) have more than one meaning, and yet many either only know one meaning, ignorantly conflate the meanings, or are willingly ignorant that others don’t know the other meanings.

Idealism as in the Metaphysics of Platonism and Immanuel Kant has nothing to do with what it means when someone is called an Idealist in contrast to being a Pragmatist or Cynical.  In the latter case Ideal is being used as a synonym for Value or Moral rather then a Platonic Ideal Form.

Likewise Materialist Metaphysics (or lack of metaphysics) has little to do with the “Historical Materialism” of philosophies like Marxism and nothing to do with the Madonna song Material Girl.

You can be Idealistic while still rejecting Philosophical Idealism, and you can be a Historical Materialist while while holding to Idealist Metaphysics.

Materialist Metaphysics is a key pillar of Stoicism, and the main reason I call myself somewhat of a Stoic rather than most anything popularly associated with Stoicism.  While the rejection of anything metaphysical existing is Epicureanism. 

I agree with Historical Materialism but not the more specific Dialectical Materialism which I view as a symptom of Pythagorean Dualism.  And that’s why my status as a Marxist is questionable.

So I’m definitely not a Philosophical Idealist.  How much the other Idealism applies to me is purely subjective.