Laodicea’s Sin was their faith in worldly success

There are three different types of Eternal Security based on how one deals with the question of backslidden or apostate Believers.

Those who say the backslidden or apostates simply never were “Truly Saved”, Calvinists are among those.  This to me isn’t actually Eternal Security at all because it offers no Assurance of Salvation, a Believer who thinks this is how it works ultimately has the same fear that believing Salvation can be lost carries.

Free Grace Eternal Security is based on a belief that believers will face a post Resurrection Corrective Punishment for our Sin, but are Saved regardless as seen in 1 Corinthians 3.  This was my soteriology before I became a Universal Salvation believer, and the gist of it is very much what I still believe, I now simply recognize that ALL Punishments God meets out are for Correction or Purification and never retributive.  I in fact now more then ever believe people can feel Eternally Secure in their Salvation.

Hyper Grace is the form of Eternal Security that rejects any type of Afterlife or Eschatological punishment for believers and insists any consequences a believer faces for their sins are limited to during this life.  A Free Grace believer does not entirely rule out facing consequences during this life playing a role, but Jesus warned against assuming bad things happening to a believer are always a punishment, as does The Book of Job.

Hyper Grace is most popular in the Charismatic Movement which is also where Prosperity Theology originated, and it’s easy to see how those two ideas can go together.  These are Christians who feel how much wealth they have proves they have God’s favor.

And that way of thinking is exactly what Laodicea was rebuked for.

Revelation 3:17-18 Because thou sayest, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing," and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

This is in contrast to the Smyrnaean Christians who were Poor by Earthly Standards but in Truth Rich.

However the correct conclusion that a type of Eternal Security is a factor in Laodiceanism will be used by some against all forms of Eternal Security. Assurance of Salvation is what’s promised to the Overcomer in each of these messages.  But there are also consequences.

Limne refers to a Body of Water

This is a follow up of sorts to the post on my main theology Blog about how The Lake of Fire is the Baptism of Fire, which was also relevant on this Blog to the Baptism of The Beast.

A fellow believer in Universal Salvation on YouTube who’s channel is titled Total Victory of Christ has made a big deal of arguing that Lake is an inaccurate translation of Limne, and in terms of what the word Lake implies about size to a modern English reader he may be correct.  However the word definitely inherently refers to a Body of Water.

Its number in the Strongs Concordance is G3041 and the only other NT author to use it is Luke where it’s always tied to the Lake of Galilee.  His theory that this refers to a specific Harbor rather than the Sea as a whole seemed plausible to me at first, but Luke 8:22-23 is a big problem for that.  But ultimately even if that theory is true it’s still a body of water.. 

Limne appears in the LXX three times, in Psalm 107:35 and 114:8 where it’s used for what the KJV calls Standing Water, and in Song of Songs 7:4 where it’s “Fishpools” in the KJV.  The Hebrew words behind them are different but both are words always used of bodies of water and get translated into English words like “pool” and “pond”.

Luke also uses the closely related word Limen G3040 in Acts 27:8-12 for harbors on Crete which the KJV translates Haven. Limen’s one appearance is the LXX was in Psalm 107:30 which is also Haven in the KJV. 

I agree that the metal refining imagery of Isaiah 48:10, Zechariah 13:9, Malachi 3:2-3 and Proverbs 17:3 & 27:21 has a role to play in understanding The Lake of Fire, but we can’t use symbolism to justify a translation decision when we know there were actual Greek words for refining pot or crucible that John could have used.  

In response to the argument that no one translated it “lake” before Tyndale, well no one wrote a Modern English Bible before Tyndale so there’s a lot of words no Bibles used before him.  But the Vulgate uses stagnum which means pool or pond so still a body of water. Researching what exactly was used in the Wycliffe Bible isn’t proving easy but it seems he too used Middle English synonyms for pond or pool.

The Greek word Baptize means to immerse or wash typically in water.  So I believe a word for a body of water is used here to guide readers to conclude this is the Baptism of Fire spoken of by John The Baptist.  It’s conveying the idea of Baptism without using the word.

Now I could likewise try to translate the verse in a way that would bias readers towards my interpretation by rendering it Baptistry or Mikveh to appeal to the Hebrew Roots people, but I’ve ultimately decided not to.  I could let my Weeb tendencies take over and suggest Chozuya.

My only issue with Pool is there is a different Greek word translated Pool in the KJV used in John 5 for the Pool of Bethesda and John 9 for the Pool of Siloam. That word has an etymology that could more specifically be translated Siwmingpool, though both these Pools were notably used for ritual bathing.  These two words do seem synonymous enough to justify translating into the same English word. 

However the traditional view that the 4th Gospel and The Apocalypse have the same author makes it hard for some to accept they’re using different words for the same kind of thing.  However I’ve become convinced that the Beloved Disciple can’t be a son of Zebede and is either Lazarus or his sister Mary Magdalene. Using Limne over Kolumbertha isn’t the only way I’ve observed Revelation to be more inline with Luke then the 4th Gospel in terms of vocabulary.

The size of this body of water isn’t the reason infernalists think these passages support them, lots of people being in it clearly makes it larger than a normal “refining pot”.  You could translate it as Lake or Sea or Ocean it doesn’t matter, what matters is getting people to understand that the fire is God’s Purging Fire.

So the more I think about it the more I come back to thinking Tyndale had it right.  Lake is perfectly fine.  God is using this Lake as a giant refining pot.

The Churches of Asia

 In verses 4 and 11 of the first chapter of The Book of Revelation the phraseology can be interpreted as saying 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 explain 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 in 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 not Asia.

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 Church 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 them an Ancient Religion.  Christians were included in that exception when they were 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, fellow children of Abraham, regardless of where we diverge.

But moving on, the problem with that assumption about the Synagogue of Satan is the two cities whose 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 and 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 theoretical possibility of his readers encountering them not really confirming there already are any in Philadelphia.

And it’s not as if the entirety of Jewish presence in Greco-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 it's possible no Jews even settled there because it was so small and insignificant they never heard of it.)

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 fulfilment 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 homeless Prophets preaching doom in the Streets.  Specifically that they are figures in Military conflict with Rome being represented by The Beast.

The argument has a lot to do with the quoting of Zechariah 4 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 to Christians united in Jesus.  I don't think that'll be too important to what I suggest here, but it's worth noting.

Now for Vridar's 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?  One of which would come to believed by local Christians to be where Jesus was Crucified.

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 Historians who want to deny that this Greek Gentile Ruler was actually oppressing 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 reunify 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 exact dates for the terms of any of the Samaritan High Priests during this period.  So one of them being executed alongside a Civil Leader of one of these Revolts is possible.

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.

The Tyrant of Babba Rabba's rebellion being called Pharoah of Egypt fits in well with my Maximianus Daza thesis.

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.