Volcano in Revelation 9?

When Revelation 9:2 says that the opening of the Abyss causes smoke like a great furnace to arise and darken the skies I can’t help but see that as a description of a Volcanic Eruption.

Now I know “Smoke of a Furnace” language is also how certain people try to argue Mt Sinai was a Volcano.  But in passages like Exodus 19:18,, Genesis 15:17 or Genesis 19:18 it’s not possible to interpret underground as the source of the Smoke, but that is heavily implied to be the source of the Smoke in Revelation 9. 

And I also can’t help but suspect Ancient Greek readers would have been reminded by this chapter of the mythology surrounding Mt Etna (the largest Volcano in the Mediterranean world), inside of which is imprisoned the monster Typhon and also the forge of Hephaestus a god who was cast down from Olympus.  

The last verse of Chapter 1 sets the stage that sometimes if not always in this book Stars represent Angels, so we have in Revelation 9:1 a Star falling from heaven and being given the Key to the Abyss which houses monsters including a King of those Monsters.

Maybe it wasn’t just Etna, maybe most known Volcanoes had similar mythological frameworks surrounding them and Etna’s is just one most well remembered?

In my desire to place as much of Revelation 6-19 in Late Antiquity as possible the most significant Volcanic Eruption is the one that happened in AD 536 causing the major climate issues of the next few years.  The main culprit for that Eruption is far away from the Biblical World, but other Eruptions seem to have possibly also happened the same year including another Eruption of Mt Vesuvius.

But the Vesuvius Eruption of 472 is one that could be notable being close to 3 ½ years before the Western Roman Empire is popularly viewed to have ended.  

And Mt Etna had one in AD 252 just before the Valerian Persecution happened.

Should Satan’s release from the Abyss after the Millennium be expected to be represented in the visible world by the same kind of events?  Those with less strictly chronological readings of Revelation are inclined to see both releases of a villain from the Abyss as the same event being described in different ways, i.e. Apollyon and Satan are the same.  That's not currently my main view but I'm open to it.

The Kingdom doesn’t end when the Millennium ends, the only event directly correlated to the Millennium ending is Satan being released from his prison.  His attempt to destroy the Camp of the Saints/Beloved City is doomed to fail.  

The YLT of Revelation 20:7 says “when the thousand years may be finished” which, along with looking at the Greek word for “Finished” or “Expired” used here, has me considering that during the 1000th could also be a viable reading.

I have been preparing to consider an Idealist model where the Millennium begins with The Resurrection of Jesus or the following Pentecost which I lean towards placing in AD 30 and that Satan was imprisoned in the Abyss about that same time when or after Judas died (who Satan was indwelling within). In which case it’s fascinating that a Mt Etna Eruption happened in AD 1030.

Other models for The Millennium I’m considering could make worth noting for it’s end the possible Etna Eruptions of 1169 or 1329 or 1381, the Mystery Eruptions of 1452/1453 and 1458, the Nuovo Eruption of 1538 or Etna Eruptions of 1536-37, the Vesuvius Eruption of 1631 and the Etna Eruption of 1669.

Mt Etna specifically is believed to have probably had Eruptions between 252 and 1030 that we simply don’t have the exact dates documented for.  Maybe one of them was among the Eruptions of 536?  But Geologists seem to have concluded that about 300-450 was one of its more active periods.  Also 1669 was not its first 17th Century Eruption, an Eruption has been dated to 1634 and in my Heraclius model 634 is a viable year to start the Millennium.  And a possible Eruption of 590-604 could fit one happening before the rise of Heraclius.

An Idealist could also, depending on how they view the relationship between Apollyon and The Beast, want to associate the Revelation 9 release of Apollyon BC with something soon before the Roman Empire “begins” as First Century Jews understood it.  

The Etna Eruptions of 140, 135, 126 and 122 BC can be seen as correlating to a time when the strife that would end the Republic and create the Caesars was beginning.  The 49 BC Eruption preceded Caesar becoming Dictator, the 44 BC Eruption was the year Caesar was killed and the reign of Antony and Octavian began. The 36-35 and 32 BC Eruptions could be seen as heralding Octavian’s Victory at Actium.  Octavian aka Augustus’s deification of himself was largely as an incarnation of Apollo, a name Apollyon can be easily linked to.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d825d5be337c890b5c7d05d52e313e403769dcc8

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 still in the future when it as written. 

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/

[Update: Here's a Third.

https://vridar.org/2022/09/11/the-simon-bar-kochba-rebellion/]

They argue that the Two Witnesses are Jewish but not Christian 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.

This logic I should note could also apply to Samaritans leaders.

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 any theories I suggest here, but it's worth noting.

Now for Vridar's time frame that means arguing they are Simon bar Kochba and one of the other leaders of that revolt.  And I am currently open to that possibility as well.

But AD 70 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, probably 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 mainly because the accounts of Caesar's Triumph focused on a singular enemy leader, regardless he had earlier told us there were two leaders in the procession, Simon and John.  I've come to find it highly unlikely John wasn't also killed with Simon.

But another possibility in this context is how Book IV Chapter 5 describes the former High Priests Ananas ben Ananias and Joshua ben Gamla being killed by the Zealots and their bodies left unburied.  Other people killed around this same time include Zacharias son of Baruch and then in the first part of Chapter 6 Joseph Ben Gorion/Gurion.

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 be believed by local Christians to be where Jesus was Crucified.  Or maybe because of how Rome did things they definitely were executed where Jesus was Crucified wherever that was. 

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 the 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 there being 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.

And that's the end of the Zeno comments. 

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.

A Third Jewish Temple was built in the 7th Century

 I'm Copy/Pasting below something I wrote back when I was still a Futurist, but it has obvious potential relevance to the new kind of Partial Preterism I've been developing on This Blog.

__________________________________________________________________

I have been looking into theories about reconstructing the history of the 7th Century and the origins of Islam.  I however do believe the traditional Biography of Muhammad is fairly grounded in real history, unlike Jay Smith.

And the thesis I shall provide here doesn't even matter much to if the early Arab Empire was already distinctly "Muslim" or not, my theories on that I get into elsewhere.  This is just specifically about what they did on The Temple Mount.

The current Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa Mosque were both originally built by Abd al-Malik the third Umayyad Caliph between 690 and 705 AD, that's pretty indisputably agreed on by everyone.  The question of whether or not the Arabs built some kind of earlier Mosque on the Temple Mount is difficult to answer since everything written on the subject from the Muslim POV is centuries later, including that account of Umar and Sophronius which many Gihon Spring Temple location supporters misunderstand.

There are however some contemporary 7th Century Christian sources, and one Jewish source.  Here is a link quoting a number of them gathered together by Hoyland in 1997.

 https://web.archive.org/web/20210211093519/http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html

There are Four primarily I want to quote, but first let me provide some context.

Byzantine Christians of Late Antiquity, and probably all the other mainstream types of Christians who existed at that time, on the subject of the possibly of a Third Jewish Temple being built had the exact opposite opinion of modern Dispensationalist Evangelicals.  They not only weren't expecting it but they believed God would never allow it.  So if they saw it happening they would have to either deny it, or interpret it as inherently negative.  Like how today many Anti-Semitic Post Tribbers pretty much believe the Third Temple itself will be the Abomination of Desolation.

Meanwhile I have on my other Blog documented that the Quran is actually a Zionist book, it affirms Israel's right to the Promised Land and expects their return.  The parts that seem Anti-Semitic exist in the context of the Arabs' conflict with Jews living in Arabia.  I believe Muhammad probably never intended his united Arab state to expand west of the Jordan River (or East/North of the Euphrates for that matter).  None the less when Umar did conquer Judea, even under the most traditional view of what happened he allowed The Jews to live in Jerusalem again after 500 years of Rome (both Pagan and Christian) banning them from the city.

Also on the use of the word "Mosque" in these passages, if that even is an accurate translation.  It should be remembered that in the Quran itself the word Mosque does not mean the specific type of Muslim worship building we're used to today, but rather just means a Sacred site.  The most popular interpretation of the Night Journey Sura is that the "Farthest Mosque" is the site of the Temple in Jerusalem even though no building of any kind stood there at the time.

So let's start with the witness of Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem who died in 638 AD.

[In a work originally composed by John Moschus (d. 619), but expanded by Sophronius (d. ca. 639), actually found only in an addition of the Georgian translation, the following entry appears, concerning a construction dated by tradition at 638, i.e., soon after the capture of Jerusalem ca. 637. It appears in a portion concerning Sophronius as recounted on the authority of his contemporary, the archdeacon Theodore, and may have been written down ca. 670.]

the godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). (Pratum spirituale, 100-102 [p. 63])

I notice how hostile the Christians are to their Arab conquerors seems to depend on their sect of Christianity, the "Nestorians" like Ishoyahb and John bar Pankaye got along with them just fine.  At any rate this reference doesn't tell us much about what's being built, but by "the Capitol" he almsot certainly means the City's highest peak, The Temple Mount, after all Hadrian's Temple bult there was called the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

The second reference shall be the Coptic Apocalypse of Pseudo-Shenute from about 644 AD.

The Persians . . . will go down to Egypt and much killing will accompany them. They shall seize the wealth of the Egyptians and sell their children for gold, so harsh is the persecution and oppression of the Persians. Many masters will become slaves and many slaves masters. Woe to Egypt on account of the Persians. Many masters will become slaves and many slaves masters. Woe to Egypt on account of the Persians, for they will take the church vessels and drink wine from them before the altar without fear or anxiety. They will rape the women before their husbands. There shall be great distress and anguish, and of those that survive a third will die of grief and misery.

Then after a while the Persians will depart from Egypt and there shall arise the Deceiver, who will enter upon the king of the Romans and will be entrusted by him with headship of both the military commanders and the bishops. He shall enter Egypt and undertake many tasks; he shall take possession of Egypt and its provinces, and build ditches and forts, and order that the walls of the towns in the deserts and wastelands be [re-]built. He shall destroy the East and the West, then he shall combat the pastor, the archbishop in Alexandria entrusted with the Christians resident in the land of Egypt. They will expel him and he will flee southwards until he arrives, sad and dispirited, at your monastery. And when he comes here, I shall return him and place him on his seat once more.

After that shall arise the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Esau, who hound the Christians, and the rest of them will be concerned to prevail over and rule all the world and to [re-]build the Temple that is in Jerusalem. When that happens, know that the end of times approaches and is near. The Jews will expect the Deceiver and will be ahead of the [other] peoples when he comes. When you see the [abomination of] desolation of which the prophet Daniel spoke standing in the holy place, [know that] they are those who deny the pains which I received upon the cross and who move freely about my church, fearing nothing at all. (Ps.-Shenute, Vision, 340-41 [pp. 280-281])

Since the King of the Romans here is certainly Heraclius, my first instinct was that the "Deceiver" being referred to was Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople being condemned for the Monothelite controversy, but the Coptic perspective made me doubt that.  Since the author would have considered Benjamin I the legitimate Bishop of Alexandria this Deceiver could fit Cyrus of Alexandria who was indeed given both Ecclesiastical and Military authority in Egypt.  John of Niku was another Egyptian of the period who tied his hostility towards Cyrus into how he talked about the Arab conquest.

The last detail of that account could sound like it's saying the Arabs of this time already said Jesus didn't die on The Cross.  But in the context of how Divine Impassability was what largely drove Nestorius to develop his view of the Incarnation, this could make sense to me as a criticism of Nestorianism.  Just as Ishoyahb III saying "those who say that God, Lord of all, suffered and died" is a Nestorian criticism of Cyrilian Christianity and not opposition to the doctrine of the Crucifixion or Incarnation.  

Arculf a pilgrim from the 670s.

In that famous place where once stood the magnificently constructed Temple, near the eastern wall, the Saracens now frequent a rectangular house of prayer which they have built in a crude manner, constructing it from raised planks and large beams over some remains of ruins. This house can, as it is said, accomodate at least 3000 people. (Adomnan, De locis sanctis 1.1.14.186 [p. 221])

However the most crucial witness to my theory is the Jewish one, Simon bar Yohai in the 680s.

The second king who arises from Ishmael will be a lover of Israel. He restores their breaches and the breaches of the Temple. He hews Mount Moriah, makes it level and builds a mosque (hishtahawaya) there on the Temple rock, as it is said: "Your nest is set in the rock." (Simon ben Yohai, Secrets, 79 [p. 311])

Not only did some Christians see this as a rebuilding of the Temple from a hostile POV, but Jews also celebrated it as a rebuilding of The Temple.  Meanwhile the Rectangular shape shows this was being built more like Solomon's Temple then like the Octagonal Dome we see there now.

This witness has actually effected my opinion on the Dome of the Rock being the Temple Site.  Having a Jewish pre Dome of the Rock witness to The Temple being on a Rock really lessens how unlikely I found that possibility previously.

Still technically it is the Al Aqsa Mosque that is in it's name claiming to be the "Farthest Mosque" of the Night Journey.  And the Crusaders called that Mosque the Temple of Solomon and the Dome of the Rock the Temple of The Lord.

However archeologically we know that where the Al Aqsa Mosque is was Herod's southern expansion of The Temple complex, the Royal Stoa, so the least likely place on the Mount for the The Temple itself to have been.

Heraclius as The Beast out of The Sea

I've already laid some ground work for this in a few prior posts that were mostly meant to potentially support more then one model but end on a connection to Heraclius (The Seven Kings, Pergamon, Roma, The Image being a Son).  Here I shall break things down more firmly.

I am of a few different minds about the issue of the Four horseman, I often learns towards a very Historicist understanding of them with all of Revelation 6 corresponding to the beginnings of sorrows of Matthew 24 and thus referring to conditions that start before 70 AD but apply still even today.  I will be considering in the future the arguments against viewing the Horsemen as villains.  But for this post I shall focus on arguing they can refer to the Sassanian Conquests of the early 7th Century.

The rider on The White Horse, the Conqueror, would be The Persian Shah Khosrow II.

The Red Horseman would be his general Shahin Vahmanzedegan who penetrated all the way to just outside Constantinople in 614 AD.

The rider on the Black Horse would be Shahralanoyzan the Persian military Governor of Egypt which position gave him a lot of Economic Power with Egypt having been a main source of the Roman Empire's Bread.

Death and Hades of course can't be identified with human figures.

There are strong arguments others have already made for The Two Witnesses being Jewish leaders (probably not Christians), paralleling Zerubbabel and Jeshua in Zechariah.  In this context they would be Nehemiah Ben Hushiel and Benjamin of Tiberias.

In Revelation 13 the Beast is described as like a Leopard, it is identified with the Third Beast of Daniel 7 more directly then any other.  The Reign of Heraclius is considered by many historians the key turning point in the Eastern Roman Empire becoming more Greek then Roman.

I think Hosea 13:7-8 is also a factor in understanding how Revelation 13 and Daniel 7 relate. The feet of the Bear are associated with violence and thus military force, I think they represent the Persian Generals who eventually defected to Heraclius, Shahrbaraz and Kardarigan.

We know from Daniel 7 the Mouth of a Lion must represent some connection to Mesopotamia.  But in 2 Timothy 2:17 the mouth of the lion is associated with Martyrdom.  There was a city called Martyropolis that was important to Byzantine Mesopotamia.

As far as the mortal wound goes, Heraclius was in some sources literally wounded at the battle of Nineveh in 627.  But symbolically I think it mainly refers to how the loses the Empire suffered in 610-614 seemed like something it would not be able to recover from, until it did under Heraclius's campaigns of the 620s.

622 was the beginning of Heraclius's counter offensive "who is able to make war with him", and I think the 42 months he Made War specially begin with his invasion in June of 524 and ends with the major victory at Nineveh in December of 627.  

The Beast out of Earth aka The False Prophet would be Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople, the highest ranking religious leader in the empire who also held pollical and military authority at times.

My Roma post ends with how The Beast destroying Babylon fits Babylon as Rome.  But if you view Babylon as Jerusalem then in the Spring of 630 AD Heraclius did betray and massacre the Jews of Jerusalem (and possibly Miaphysite Christians as well).  And if you want Babylon to still be an east of the Euphrates center of Paganism then that fits Takht-e Soleymān in 624 or Dastgerd in 627. 

One could also see the Woman of Revelation 17 as representing the Oriental Orthodox Church which wielded power in Persia at this time partly through the influence of Gabriel of Sinjar and Queen Shirin.

The Fast of Heraclius is a Coptic Tradition that comes from Heraclius supposedly desiring to repent of the massacre of the Jews in 630 so that could fit my Baptism of The Beast premise. 

Roma as Mystery Babylon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aphrodite/Venus as the mother of Aeneas mythical progenitor of Rome naturally become identified with Roma sometimes, like in the Temple Hadrian built.  

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

The theme of Martyrdom is most pronounced in the Smyrna section of Revelation 2-3, and it very pronounced in Revelation 17 as well.

The Greek word for City is related to the words Polity and Politics.  In my new semi-Historicist reading of Revelation the various Barbarian sacks of Rome in the 5th and 6th centuries are relevant.  But the final breath of the Roma Politeia was the dissolution of the Senate sometime between 603-630 AD, possibly tied to certain events of 618-619.  So once again a reason for looking at the time of Heraclius.

Pergamon and The Beast

All of Revelation is framed as a message to the Seven Churches not just chapter 2 and 3, the Vision that is 4:1-22:5 often repeats ideas from those two chapters.

And one interesting thing about Pergamon is how it seems specifically to be tied to the topic of The Beasts of Revelation 13 and 19.

Pergamon is described as being where Satan's Seat is (Thronos is the Greek word from which comes the English word Throne).  Later in chapter 13 verse 2 The Dragon (who is identified with Satan in chapter 12) gives his Seat to The Beast (and it's mentioned again in chapter 16 after the 6th bowl) and in the next verse is talk of the mortal wound that was healed.

The popular view on what specific location in Pergamon was called Satan's Seat is the Altar of Zeus built by Eumenes II King of Pergamon in the second century BC.  But the context is the persecution of Christians which in 1st and 2nd century Asia Minor was always for refusing to take part in the Imperial Cult, which Pergamon was the center of in the Roman Province of Asia.

I've read a lot on the theory that Pergamon is the actual site of Troy (really Ilion/Ilium more specifically which can be interpreted as a technically separate nearby city).  I was ultimately unconvinced of the theory because archeologically the city wasn't built till the 8th century BC after the very date for the Fall of Troy one of these books used, 811 BC.  However what I did become convinced of is that many locals of Pergamon in Classical Antiquity believed they were Troy.  And a core foundation of why was the name Pergamos being used of a citadel on the highest peak of Ilium in the Illiad.  

Pergamos is the spelling for Pergamon used by Xenophon in Anabasis and also by the KJV which followed Tyndale.  Why Tyndale used this spelling when the Textus Receptus used Pergamon is not something I've been able to find out by Googling.  Point is it is a form of the name that existed.

In some passages this Pergamos Citadel has the Seat or Thronos of Apollo the seeming Patron Deity of Ilium.

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

And also Pergamos is where Apollo heals the mortal wound of Aeneas.

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

Aeneas is the Trojan Hero who would later be claimed to have founded Rome, or some other Latin civilization that spawned Rome, Livy and Virgil would depict a son of Aeneas as fathering the Gens Julii specifically.  So with all the other reasons for viewing The Beast as Rome or a Roman Emperor this imagery fits poetically.

Pergamon first became a center of the Imperial Cult under Augustus who was a big fan of Apollo making his Birthday September 23rd a Holiday for Apollo, Suetonius biography of Augustus records that at some point Augustus was claimed to have been the Son of Apollo. Virgil's writings also play into Augustus's desire to be associated with Apollo.  So a place where Apollo was worshiped in Pergamon probably became the center of the Imperial Cult.  But later Trajan and Hadrian preferred to be associated with Zeus, so I think the Trajenum was built over the same place where Augustus and Apollo were worshiped previously.

In all this context it's easy then to see in the message to Pergamon the figure of The Beast typologically represented by Balac and The False Prophet by Balaam.

But Satan's Seat isn't the only connection.

Revelation 2:16 says "Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth." That sword being a reference back to verse 12 which was referencing back to Revelation 1:16 the sharp two-edged sword.  The Context in 2:16 is referring to specifically those in Pergamon who followed the Doctrine of Balaam and/or the Nicolaitans from the prior verses.

So when Revelation 19:21 says referring to the Beast's armies after he and the False Prophet are cast alive into the Lake of Fire, "And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth" it is I think meant to be an echo of 2:16.  The Beast's armies may be Christians.

Even after Nicaea it took awhile for most of the actual armies of the Roman Empire to become mostly Christians, discussions of Julian The Apostate's reign frequently talk about how most of the army were still Pagans.  The Edict of Thessalonica and Augustine's Just War Principal were the key turning points.

The Greek word for Stone in the White Stone reference isn't Petros or Petras, it is Psephos a word that in the Greek mind was associated with Voting and Democracy.  The only other time the New Testament uses it is Acts 26:10 where the KJV translates it "voice" the context is Paul saying how he voted.  Usually Psephos were used for secret ballots and so that's what the Name no one knows but the person who has it is probably alluding to.

On my other Blog I've already talked about why The Bible is actually Anti-Monarchy.  Eric Nelson's The Hebrew Republic contains a good discussion of the history of Judeo-Christian debates about Deuteronomy 17, and he revisits the subject in Royalist Revolution in the chapter on Thomas Paine's Common Sense (despite the title he does acknowledge Paine was authentically anti-Royalist).

I further hold the view that every appearance of Moloch/Molech in The Hebrew Bible should be translated The King and Milcom as Kings.

The relevance here is that Kingship is a Man being worshiped as God whether the Christians engaging in it want to admit that or not.

I have come to agree with the common Historicist reading of II Thessalonians 2, that The Temple of God there is The Church like every other time the Paulian Epistles speak of The Temple of God.  But I still don't agree with the Day=Year theory.  And I also don't make it about just The Pope specifically, it's all Episcopal Polity and all Christian Monarchies.

Many (though not all) Christian Emperors also persecuted believers of The Biblical God who didn't follow the right denomination.  Jews, Nazarenes, Ebionites, Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Pelegians and Nestorians had it difficult no matter which sect had The Emperor.  Until 380 it was mainly the Arian Emperors persecuting others, but after that the Nicenes became the intolerant ones.  And the Chalcedonian Emperors' attitudes towards the Oriental Orthodox were complicated.

In 262 AD during the Crisis of the Third Century the City of Pergamon was hit by an Earthquake and then sacked by the Goths, this really was the end of the City of Pergamon as it was known to the Author and original Audience of Revelation, (Ephesus experienced similar disasters in the same year but they were able to recover while Pergamon was not).  This is when the Library of Pergamon would have been finally destroyed if it was still operating at all, same with the Library of Celsus in Ephesus.

I have a personal hunch that I can't prove that the Church of Pergamon after this moved to Nicomedia and other cities of Bithynia (like Nicaea, Chalcedon and Byzantium) and that during Late Antiquity the Bithynian Churches were the heirs of the Pergamon of Revelation.  They then became the clerical heart first of Arian Christianity, then of Chalcedonianism within Nicene Christianity and of Greek Orthodoxy within Chalcedonian Christianity.

You do not have to think one of those sects was more Doctrinally Correct then Chalcedonian Christianity to view this interpretation of Revelation to be correct, I am writing this as a Chalcedonian.  You simply have to believe it was wrong and evil for Christians to persecute other religions at all and doing so to fellow Christians becomes a continuation of Imperial Persecution.

This can apply to a number of Christian Roman Emperors from Theodosius to Justinian down though all the Greek Emperors.  But once again I want to draw attention to Heraclius in the 7th Century AD who was the first Roman since 509 BC to openly call himself King.  Then he and Sergius did the Monenergism/Monothelitism project which created more internal strife within The Church.

The Image of The Beast could be his Son

At the end of my post on Translation Issues that could be important, I showed that the Image of The Beast is not necessarily something created then, that "make" in the KJV should be translated "set up" or "established" or something like that.

In Genesis 5:3 Seth is called the Image and Likeness of Adam because he is Adam's Son.

The first reference to the concept of an Image in The Bible is Genesis 1:26-27 where Adam is created in The Image and Likeness of God.  In Luke 3:38 Adam is called a Son of God.  

Derived from that all Human Beings are also The Image of God as we see in Genesis 9:6.  All Humans are called the Offspring of God in the Sermon on Mars's Hill in Acts 17:28.  Believers specifically as Children of God is vital to John 1 and 1st John and comes up elsewhere, as an Evangelical Universalist I believe the nonbelievers are only temporarily estranged from the family.

Paul calls Jesus The Image of God in 2 Corinthians 4:4.  And Jesus as The Son of God is vital to New Testament Theology.

So every time a living person is called the Image of someone else it's someone who they are the Son of in some sense.  So the question then is can The Image of The Beast be understood as that rather then a normal Statue or Coin or whatever most people are usually thinking of?

The main objection would be that if the Image is just a person why is it being able to speak and kill people treated as something attributed to the second beast?  And why isn't the Image also punished in the Lake of Fire?

Well both those questions could have the same answer, the Son in question isn't an adult yet, the actions legally attributed to them are really as a puppet ruler and thus they aren't actually morally culpable for any of it.

Naturally for an interpretation like this the fact that people will assume a Statue at first is intentional, this is why it takes "Wisdom" to understand what's going on here, don't jump to conclusions.  Consider how the only time the Greek word for "mark" is used elsewhere in the New Testament it's in Acts 17:9 it refers to Graven Images in a way that equates it with the Hebrew word translated "Graven" throughout the Hebrew Bible, that creates a further thematic connection to idolatry but it's also a reversal, now it's the worshipers being graven.

When I first devised most of this interpretation I jumped to applying it to Titus son of Vespasian in the context of 70 AD Preterism.  But that last piece of the puzzle, it being a child ruler, wouldn't fit Titus.

There are a number of examples of Roman Emperors making their still underage son Co-Emperor in some fashion.

Heraclius the Roman Emperor from 610-641 AD had a son named Heraclius Constantine who was born in 612.  In 622 when Heraclius left to lead his counter offensive against Persia his young son was named Regent in his place but the real power was wielded by Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople.  He had also been formally Co-Emperor since 613 basically and thus was also proclaimed Baselios when Heraclius was in 629.  Turning 17 that year he might have been an Adult by some modern legal standards but the Biblically adulthood is 20 at the youngest.

The set up language could apply Adopted songs.  I believe Revelation was written during the reign of Hadrian, he was an Adopted son of the prior Emperor and had an Adopted son.

But in my desire to interpret the Beast as ultimately a collective symbol and not merely an individual, I could consider how one of the Emperor's titles was Pater Patriae which meant Father of The Fatherland.  If The Emperor was The Beast then the Rome itself was his Son and Image, after all his literal image was on the Money and Standards borne the Army.  I actually this title is the main reason behind Jesus saying "call no man father".

The Seven Kings of Rome

What if the "one is" detail of Revelation 17:10 is not time sensitive in the way we usually think it is? Remember John was taken to Heaven, to God's throne, which means he was arguably taken to a place where Time is more relative.

Now I've seen people actually cite this Prophecy as if the "one is" part is referring to right now, as their citing it. That is certainly poor scholarship and truly amazes me that people do it.  And no they weren't doing it in a way where you could say the entire "Church Age" is within the time allotted to the 6th King.

Bible skeptics, Preterists, Futurists, Historicists and almost all Futurists pretty much agree The Beast is basically Rome in some sense.  And indeed to people who lived in the first or second century AD the first thing a succession of Seven Kings ruling a City on Seven Hills would make them think of is the Pre-Republic Kingdom of Rome founded by Romulus from 753-509 B.C.

According to legend, Romulus mysteriously disappeared in a storm or whirlwind, during or shortly after offering public sacrifice at or near the Quirinal Hill. A "foul suspicion" arises that the Senate, weary of kingly government, and exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus toward them, had plotted against his life and made him go away, so that they might assume the authority and government into their own hands. This suspicion they sought to turn aside by decreeing divine honors to Romulus, as to one not dead, but translated to a higher condition. And Proculus, a man of note, took oath that he saw Romulus caught up into heaven in his arms and vestments, and heard him, as he ascended, cry out that they should hereafter style him by the name of Quirinus. From Plutarch's Lives. Livy repeats more or less the same story, but shifts the initiative for deification to the people of Rome.

So perhaps the notion of one of the seven returning possibly came from that legend? the original Roman King in The Mountain myth?  Remus was the twin brother of Romulus but was never King and so isn't one of the 7, but he is in some accounts said to have been killed by a blow to the head with a spade.

It's interesting that in extra Biblical Rabbinic tradition that has developed over the Diaspora, the Anti-Messiah figure who kills Messiah Ben-Joseph is named Armilus, a name generally agreed to be derived from Romulus. This is generally just assumed to be because he represents Rome/Edom in general, but given what we just observed maybe there is more to it. 

Of the second King, Numa Pompilius. Plutarch depicts the early religion of the Romans as imageless and spiritual. He says Numa "forbade the Romans to represent the deity in the form either of man or of beast. Nor was there among them formerly any image or statue of the Divine Being; during the first one hundred and seventy years they built temples, indeed, and other sacred domes, but placed in them no figure of any kind; persuaded that it is impious to represent things Divine by what is perishable, and that we can have no conception of God but by the understanding".

The third King, Tullus Hostilius was said to be struck by Lighting for neglecting the gods. The fourth Ancus Marcius was a grandson of Numa, and had two sons.

Fifth was Lucius Tarquinius Priscus. Tarquin is said to have reigned for thirty-eight years. According to legend, the sons of his predecessor, Ancus Marcius, believed that the throne should have been theirs. They arranged the king's assassination, disguised as a riot, during which Tarquin received a fatal blow to the head. However, the queen, Tanaquil, claimed that the king was merely wounded, and took advantage of the confusion to establish Servius Tullius as regent; when the death of Tarquin was confirmed, Tullius became king in place of Marcius' sons or those of Tarquin.

Servius Tullius is the sixth, why give John this revelation as if speaking from the POV of his reign?  

The reign of Servius Tullius is traditionally dated from 575-532 BC, on the Biblical Timeline that's the last decade of Nebuchadnezzar's reign through all his successors and the entire reigns of Nabonidus and Belshazzar right on into the reign of Cyrus.  That means a good deal of Daniel takes place then, everything from Chapter 5 onward, including chapter 7 the chapter most relevant to Revelation 13 and 17.  Revelation is often viewed as the unsealing of Daniel, so perhaps the time when Daniel had those sealed visions is indeed the present being spoken of in Revelation 17?

Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was the Seventh and final King. He had a reign of 26 years, not the longest but at face value would hardly seem to justify "a short space". But maybe it just refers to him being the only one who didn't reign until he died? Since he was expelled from Rome when the Republic was founded.  His reign was cut short.

Perhaps the "Eight King" is simply about how ultimately Rome returned to Monarchy, whether they wanted to admit it or not. You see the Emperors made a point even in their later history never to officially call themselves Rex/King.  Yet we see in John 19:12-15 that Jews in Judea didn't care about those semantics, and secular sources show the other conquered peoples of the East were the same. The Emperors also took on the Pharaonic Worship in Egypt.  

Maybe the name of Octavius/Octavian being related to the Latin word for the number Eight is a pun being alluded to, which could reference Augustus and/or Octavius Mamilus.

If the Sixth King is the rhetorical present for this narrative, then the Ten Kings who don't have a Kingdom yet but will willing give their power to the Beast could represent The Senate, which did exist already but didn't have the power they will have yet. 

It's also I feel possible to argue The Beast/Eight King is the Roman Military rather then any individual or specific office. 

However the possibility of the Eight being someone more Specific does still exist.  There are two possible candidates for being an official Eight King/Rex/Basileus of Rome even using Rome's own perspective.  

Odoacer was proclaimed King of Italy in AD 476, when the Western Empire is conventionally said to have fallen/ended.  But this seems to have been used primarily of him as a King of the Arain East Germanic Barbarians in Italy at the time, in his relationship with the still existing Roman political structures like The Senate and the Eastern Empire other titles were used.

Heraclius was Emperor from AD 610-641, while much of Reconquered Italy had fallen to the Lombards by this time a good chunk was till part of the Empire including Rome itself.  In September of 629 after retaking the lands lost to Persia he had a Triumph of sorts in Constantinople and that is when he took on the title of Basileus as well as the Persian title Shahanshah "King of Kings".

BTW another theory about the name Armilus in Jewish texts is that it's some kind of Cryptogram for Heraclius since it first pops up in the context of the Jewish Revolt agaisnt Heraclius.