The Churches of Asia

 In verses 4 and 11 of the first chapter of The Book of Revelation the phraseology can be interpreted as seeing these Seven Congregations account for all the Congregations in the Roman Province of Asia.

“John to the seven churches which are in Asia”

“and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia”

But some others are seemingly known to have existed very early.  How do we address this?

Well first of all not every place Paul visited in Acts (in Asia or elsewhere) was a place a Church was planted.  Some may have produced converts but they likely joined Churches elsewhere or became traveling companions of Paul.

For example the only reference to Miletus in Acts is 20:15-17 where Paul met with the Elders of the Church of Ephesus. So when you break it down Acts doesn’t definitively plant any Church in Asia other than Ephesus. 

Colossians is actually the only solid Biblical Evidence for other Churches in Asia besides those named in Revelation, the audience of the letter itself is Colosse and Hierapolis is mentioned in 4:13.  Both of these cities are very near Laodicea, in a subregion of the province that Laodicea was the regional capital of. 

All three of those cities are often referred to as part of Phrygia but there is some confusion with Phrygia as a geographical term.  The part of the Province of Asia sometimes called Phrygia is a smaller lesser Phrygia, every appearance of that name in Acts seem to be to the larger greater Phrygia that was in the same Roman Province as Galatia.

Colosse is referred to by Paul as a place he hasn’t personally visited yet, and the same may be implied about Hierapolis and Laodicea.  So that explains their absence from Acts.

I want now to point out something about how the Churches are addressed in their letters.  For Smyrna through Philadelphia each is called the Ecclesia in (name of city).  However for Ephesus it’s the Church of Ephesus and for Laodicea it’s the Church of the Laodiceans.

The Church of the Laodiceans is also used in Colossians 4:16.  The only other Church referred to by Paul in such a manner is The Church of the Thessalonians in the first verses of both those Epistles.  And when going back to the origin story of that Church in Acts 17 most of Paul’s missionary success wasn’t in Thessalonica itself but in nearby Berea, so the people addressed by those Epistles are likely to include sounding cities like Berea.  Meaning the Laodiceans could be the same, they could include Hierapolis and Colosse in how Jesus addressed them.  Though Paul in Colossians 4:16 is seemingly distinguishing Colosse from the Laodiceans but that could be a matter of context.

There are two other Asian Churches that seem to pop up pretty early but aren’t mentioned in The Bible.  Tralles and Magnesia which both received letters from Ignatius of Antioch. Now in my view the earliest possible date for the Ignatian letters is the mid 140s so these Churches could have been brand new and non-existent yet when Revelation was written during the reign of Hadrian.

However if these did exist longer it’s worth noting that both are very near Ephesus, closer to Ephesus even then Miletus, and since Ephesus is the other Church addressed with an “of” rather then an “in” maybe it too could include the Christians of some smaller nearby cities.

Were there Jews in Smyrna and Philadelphia?

The two references in Revelation 2-3 to “them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” is commonly interpreted as referring to Non Christian Jews partly on the authority of John 8:44.

If that theory is true the way it’s used by Antisemitic Christians is still invalid.  In the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD Judaism was still a more privileged Religion then Christianity.  Jews were exempted from the legally mandated worship of the Imperial Cult because the Romans considered an Ancient Religion.  Christians were included in that exception when they were still perceived by outsiders as a sect of Judaism which they almost always were before the Bar Kochba Revolt and even often for a while after.  

The only thing that may have prevented them from being so exempted is if the prominent Jews told the Roman authorities they don’t count as Jews.  So the theory is some Jews (probably a minority of them) in Asia were doing that and so Jesus is simply responding to that by saying no you are the ones who’ve forfeited your Jewishness.

Today it's the Christians who have the political Privilege and need to learn to see Jews as brethren regardless of where we diverge.

But moving on, the problem with that assumption about the Synagogue of Satan is the two cities who’s Messages to their Churches include this reference are ones with a severe lack of any evidence of any Ancient Jewish Presence independent of this interpretation of Revelation.

For Smyrna even the Encyclopedia Judaica has only Revelation the Martyrdom of Polycarp to go on for any claim of an Ancient Jewish presence in the City, otherwise they have no records of Jews in Smyrna till 1605.

And the Martyrdom of Polycarp is not a reliable source, it was written long after the events it depicts and depicts an event almost always dated later than even my very late date for Revelation.  And it wouldn’t be an independent source, the authority may well be imagining Jews to have been involved because of what they assumed about Revelation. Polycarp’s own Epistle makes no reference to Jews.  

With Philadelphia also we only have this possible Revelation reference. If you Google it the AI Review will say they’re also referenced in Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Philadelphians, but no he’s just talking about Christian who still observe Jewish Laws, and is arguably only warning about the theoretically possible of his readers encountering them not real confirming there even are any in Philadelphia.

And it’s not as if the entirety of Jewish Presence of Roman Asia was undocumented. We have a lot of references to the affairs of Jews in Ephesus from Josephus to The Book of Acts and same with Miletus.  It’s also well documented how Antiochus III Megas settled Jews in both Laodicea and Hierapolis.  Josephus also records the existence of a Jewish community in Sardis.  Pergamon and Thyatira however do seem to share Smyrna and Philadelphia lack of Ancient Jews, though the Lydian woman of Thyatira in Acts 16:12-15 seems to be implied to be Jewish or at least a Proselyte.

Philadelphia was a pretty small city today viewed as important only because of its Revelation significance, the message to Philadelphia in Revelation 3 arguably alluded to this being a small insignificant church in a small insignificant town.  So the idea that the affairs of its Jewish population would be overlooked even by Josephus I could consider plausible.

But Smyrna was important, it was the birthplace of the Roma Cult and thus equal to Pergamon as a provincial center of the Imperial Cult.  There’s no way if they had a Jewish Population they did nothing  worth noting by Josephus.  Maybe they avoided settling in Smyrna and Pergamon precisely because of their cult center status?

What Alternative interpretation of the Synagogue of Satan is there then?  Well early forms of Supersessionism were popping up shockingly early.  

I’m not Dispensationalist but I still reject the notion that Jews are completely abandoned.  Saying “All Israel shall be Saved” in Romans 11:25-26 is a meaningless statement if you define Israel as only being the Saved.  It's not about whether The Church and Israel are separate Tents, it's about how big the Tent is.

The Two Witnesses as Jewish rather then Christian leaders

 First I want to say that given Revelation 11 prior to the Seventh Trumpet is specifically what the Angel of Revelation 10 is saying as opposed to the normal mode of John narrating what he sees.  I'm willing to consider that even within my generally highly Chronological reading of Revelation this material could be chronologically displaced. 

An Atheist Website called Vridar.org agrees with me on Revelation being written during the reign of Hadrian.  But for them that means what Revelation is claiming to Foretell also happens then while I see that content as mostly much further in the future. 

But it’s possible Revelation 11 prior to the Seventh Trumpet could be a more immediate future then most of this vision.  Or it could be further in the Future, given my current Post-Millennial view on the Bodily Resurrection this could be at least in part after the Millennium.

There are two particular Vridar Articles I’m interested in here.

https://vridar.org/2022/08/20/the-two-witnesses-of-revelation-11-part-a/

https://vridar.org/2022/08/21/the-two-witnesses-of-revelation-11-part-b/

They argue that the Two Witnesses are Jewish but not Christina leaders and are political figures of sorts not mere Prophets preaching doom in the Streets.  Specifically that they are figures in Military conflict with Rome being represented by The Beast.

The arguments have a lot to do with the quoting in Zechariah comparing them to Zerubbabel and Jeshua.  But also the fact that The beast “makes war” on them.  But also how their power and authority seem to come from the Chapter 10 Angel not God directly.

They also hold the view that verses 11-13 were not in the original text.  I’m not inclined to agree with that but the sudden switch in tense here is an issue I don’t have an answer for yet.  What I am considering is a way to justify arguing their Resurrection doesn’t happen immediately, which is only viable if I can argue the three and a half days of verse 11 are different from the earlier three and a half days.

There has been much speculation about the text in the Greek using singular language to describe the two witnesses, with appeals to John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 making a single person more then one witness, as well as how the two offices represented by Zachariah 4's Olive Trees are united in Jesus.  I don't think that'll be two important to what I suggest here, but it's worth noting.

Now for their time frame that means arguing they are Simon bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva.  And I am currently open to that possibility as well.

But 70 AD Preterists could instead look at Rebel leaders of the First Jewish-Roman War.  Simon bar Giora is the one we know for certain was killed in Titus’s Triumph, but I do think at least one of the others was as well, maybe John of GIshchala or maybe Eleazar ben Simon.  

If you watch the Historia civillis YouTube video on The Roman Triumph and then read Josephus’s description of Titus and Vespasian’s Triumph in celebration of Conquering Judea in Wars of The Jews Book 7 Chapter 5 Section 5-6, the possibility that Revelation 11:7-10 could be describing that Triumph with the Two Witness representing executed leaders of the Jewish Revolt will be become quite compelling.

 I read an article about how Josephus while an eyewitness to Titus's Triumph also drew in his description on prior literary accounts of Triumphs.  In that context I think when describing the execution itself Josephus focuses on just Simon because standard older Triumphs focused on a  singular enemy leader, regardless he had earlier told us there were two leaders in the procession, Simon and John.

Going back to the Hadrianic period however.  We do not have a complete list of every Roman Triumph that happened.  So while no known Triumph celebrating the defeat of the Bar Kochba Revolt is recorded one could have happened.  Maybe Hadrian had an unconventional Triumph that wasn’t in Rome but in the newly founded Aelia Capitolina and killed Bar Kochba and Akiva at the site of one of its newly consecrated Temples?

But going further into the future there are more options.  The Jewish Revolt against Constantius Gallus also had two leaders, Isaac of Diocaesarea and Patricius aka Natrona. 

Then comes that often overlooked history of Samaritan Revolt during the late 5th through much of the 6th Century.  

The Justa Revolt’s history is interesting for how it’s inciting incident parallels the Hasmonean Revolt, including dumb Secular Historian who want to deny that this Greek Gentile Ruler was actually persecuting these Semitic YHWH Worshipers and claim they brought it on themselves.

I'm gonna repeat here what I said in some comments on Thersites the Historian's Zeno video.

On the subject of the Samaritan Revolt I find the desire of modern scholars to say no the Persecution came after the Revolt to be an offensive Revision.  Just like the revisions people try to do regarding the Hasmonean Revolt.  The Empire had been increasingly trying to standardize Christianity as the only legal religion in the Empire for a Century by this point, it's absurd to suggest the Samaritans revolted for no reason after being perfectly content for centuries.  

We also know archaeologically that the Marian Church he built at Gerizim is similar to others being made at the same time like the Church of Mary's Seat north of Bethlehem.

Much of their argument is based on when Zeno could have been there personally.  The Problem is I don't think the Samaritan account actually intended us to think he was there personally, these kinds of Semitic Texts frequently treat a King and his Kingdom as inseparable entities.  I don't think Antiochus Epiphanes personally performed a big sacrifice in the Jerusalem Temple, a detail not even in the books of Maccabees, but I do believe his policies resulted in an Idol of Zeus being set up on the Brazen Altar in December of 167 BC.  So I don't think Zeno was ever personally in Samaria, it was the actions of his Regime.

A Church of specially Mary Theotokos being built at this time was probably tied to the whole Henotikon thing, Emperors trying to make peace with the Miaphysites loved to scapegoat the Nestorians and stress their common support of calling Mary Theotokos.  And 482-484 is the timeframe for that being a priority.

But the Bar Sabar revolt under Justinian is the most compelling, it's connected to the building of the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos which Porcipius describes in ways that make it sound like a rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple.  I no longer think its location is where The Temple actually was, but I do think a Tabernacle housing the Ark briefly before Solomon’s Temple was finished may have been there.  Its construction seems to have started in 531 and been completed in 543.

Justinian also sent The Menorah and other treasures of Herod’s Temple back to Jerusalem to be placed in Christian Churches after Belisarius’s Triumph in 534.  Which is notable considering The Menorah’s role in how Revelation 11 relates to Zechariah 4.

The 556 revolt could be of interest too, for in that one alone it seems Samaritans and Jews worked together, Judah and Joseph, and thus there could have been a leader for each.

We do not have exactly dates for the terms of any of the Samaritan High Priests during this period.

Interestingly there is a potential Samaritan Revolt not listed on the main Samaritan Revolts Wikipedia page, and that's one implied to have happened in the time of Babba Rabba traditionally dated to 308-328.  

Constantine contrary to Eusebius and his modern critics did across the board advocate Religious Tolerance so the source of any Samaritan Persecution during this time period couldn't be him.  But perhaps the persecutions of Monotheistic religious minorities under Diocletian, Galerius and Maximinus Daza could be relevant, or even Licinius who's alleged relapse into pro Pagan Persecution is controversial.  It's possible his traditional dates are off and that the references to Constantinople were originally Nicomedia.

One source places Babba Rabba's death in 362 during the reign of Julian, but he didn't persecute anyone either.  So basically the exact timing of Babba Rabba is highly unclear.

Finally there was the Revolt against Heraclius which I discussed in my main Heraclius Post.  It too had two prominent leaders, Nehemiah ben Hushiel and Benjamin of Tiberias.  And the Sefer Zerubbabel has some compelling parallels to Revelation 11 in how it talks about Nehemiah ben Hushiel.