To many readers, this may seem like a strange question. “Obviously the Romans were not Israelites,” they might say — “they were from the Genesis 10 nations.” We do not disagree. However, there are Christian circles who do indeed believe that the Romans were Israelites — and we would like to address that view in detail.
If anyone is not familiar with this debate, do not feel as though you have nothing to learn from this essay. We will cross a broad range of topics — and who knows — you may come across something new or even be able to contribute to the discussion in some way.
We do not deny that many Christians would be surprised to learn that some nations of people were indeed Israelites. Probably the best and easiest example to prove is the Lacedemonians — the Spartans. After all, God said to Isaac in Genesis 35:11,
I am God Almighty; Be fruitful and multiply; A nation and a multitude of nations shall come from you, And kings shall come from you.
Although we should not confuse the biblical concept of “nations” with modern geopolitical “countries.” No, nations are peoples with common ethnic traits or ancestry — borders and political authority have no bearing on true nations according to the Bible. As such — given the promises to Jacob, we should not be surprised to see Israelite nations in history. We should even expect to see it.
Unfortunately, in the modern day Jews’ attempt to monopolize Israelite identity, they have been forced to make the world forget about the promises God made to Jacob and all his descendants. They make it appear as if only the Jews were ever Israelites — and only Israelites were ever Jews. Jews would have us forget that according to 2 Kings 17, the entire northern Kingdom or House of Israel was deported and dispersed under Assyrian conquest — and they would like nothing better than for us to believe that these dispersed Israelites — the vast majority of the 12 tribes — simply vanished into thin air — which is exactly what the vast majority of Christians today believe.
Those Israelites did not cease to be Israelites merely because they were forced out of their land. An Israelite is an Israelite by their paternal lineage — not by the land they live in. If someone is an Israelite — whether they are aware of it or not — “the gifts and the calling of God [toward them] are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29) — insofar as being a “child of the flesh” (Romans 9:8) affords them.
So, yes, we would expect to even find Israelites living among the Romans, but that doesn’t mean all Romans were Israelites — or that Rome itself was founded as a nation of Israelites.
Conversely, modern day Jews are not Israelites at all — they have no claim to paternal lineage — by their own admission — and them being able to “explain away” Biblical patrilineal truth does nothing to solve this problem for them. Therefore, they are forced to reduce Israelite identity to themselves in the most dishonest way.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have Christian circles who claim that most — if not all — of the “nations” referred to in the New Testament were Israelites. As we have previously explained, this position is merely an attempted solution to a doctrinal quandary they have created for themselves.
They rightly believe that only white people could possibly be the true descendants of Adam and Eve — and as such, only these Adamic people qualify for salvation — and only Adamic people could ever be Israelites. However, we believe that the way they go about trying to prove this is unnecessary — and that they do so because they too have fallen victim to the misunderstanding of what the “nations” in the Bible actually are as we mentioned earlier.
Most — if not all — Christian circles have been indoctrinated since birth to believe that “every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9) means every biped with the ability to speak, read and write from every country across the globe. Christians who believe that the Romans were Israelites have fallen to the same snare.
Yet consider this: Og king of Bashan was a king of the Amorites (Deuteronomy 4:47), a Canaanite tribe living in the land of Canaan (Genesis 10:16). Deuteronomy 3:11 says that “only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim.” The Rephaim were a bipedal giant which lived in the region of the land of Canaan as early as Genesis 14 — and were a trouble for the people of the land since that time already as we can see in Genesis 14 and Deuteronomy 2. Og was the last one in existence.
It’s safe to say that Rephaim were not at all descendants of Adam and Eve — yet Og was clearly intelligent enough to rule a nation of men — the Amorites. In 1 Chronicles 20, we see a narrative about descendants of the Rephaim — or “giants” as they render the word in most translations. If Og was the last of the Rephaim — and if 1 Chronicles 20 refers to descendants of the Rephaim still in existence — then we can only conclude that 1 Chronicles 20 refers to something that is a descendant of the Rephaim, but simultaneously is not a Rephaim.
The only way to reconcile this paradox is to conclude that the giants in 1 Chronicles 20 must have been the product of inbreeding between Rephaim and descendants of Adam and Eve. In the same way that a mule is neither a donkey nor a horse, these hybrids were neither Rephaim nor Adamites — and as such, did not qualify for salvation according to Deuteronomy 23:2. Incidentally, Goliath — whom David slew — was one such an hybrid (1 Chronicles 20:5).
Therefore, intelligence, walking upright on two legs — or even being able to reproduce with a pure Adamic person — does not qualify someone as a descendant of Adam and Eve — and does not qualify someone for salvation — though Marxism has violated our minds into believing anyone with a “human experience” must deserve salvation. Neither does everyone with these traits qualify as being part of the phrase “[every] tribe, language, people, and nation” referred to in Revelation 5:9. We can rest assured that whenever the Scripture refers to tribes, languages, peoples and nations, it is never referring those who are not descendants of Noah (Genesis 10:5, Genesis 10:20, Genesis 10:31) — and by logical extension, to something which is not a pure descendant of Adam and Eve.
We believe that Christians who believe that Romans are Israelites have most likely overlooked these facts in their own studies. If they were to honestly read this paper, they should at least be able to agree up until this point and maybe even learn something — even if they disagree with everything else from here onward. Likewise, they should at least acknowledge that we are not trying to introduce non-Adamites into salvation — a groundless accusation we have heard before.
However, given that they see nations of men in the Scripture possibly referring to peoples who are not pure descendants of Adam and Eve — such as Edomites and Moabites — they have sought to find another way to prove their doctrine. They do so in the following steps:
- Adam and Eve were white.
- Therefore, Israelites were white.
- Only pure descendants of Adam and Eve were eligible for salvation.
- Of those who are eligible, only Israelites will be saved.
- Therefore, only pure descendants of Adam and Eve who are Israelites are eligible for salvation.
- And therefore all Israelites will be saved unconditionally.
Yes, there is more to that doctrine, but we are intentionally narrowing their argument to its logical steps — as opposed to its doctrinal framework. Logically, up through point three we would agree. As for point four, depending on whom you talk to and in what context, some may concede that non-Israelites who are pure descendants of Adam and Eve may qualify for salvation. This still seems to be a matter of debate and consideration among them — and many seem to be unaware of this doctrinal inconsistency. However, the central focus of their doctrine is that God intended on saving only Israel.
This focus conveniently keeps salvation centered on white people. It is a way for them to prove that salvation is limited to white people in a worldview which incorrectly allows for non-whites among the “nations” of Scripture. As a result, they paint themselves into a doctrinal corner — that they must seek to prove that only Israelites are saved and that all Israelites are saved — to keep non-whites — non-Adamics — out of the covenant promises. For them, it naturally follows that the focus of the New Testament can only be Israel — the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, James and Jude were, therefore, written only to Israelites.
For sure, some of the epistles were indeed written to Israelites — we are not denying that. For example, James addresses his epistle to “the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad” (James 1:1). However, despite agreeing with them that only white people are Adamites — we believe their doctrine takes it too far — and by doing so, this narrow racial doctrine destroys much of the spiritual teachings on righteousness and purity required of every Christian.
One of the cornerstones of this doctrine is that the Romans were Israelites. Of all arguments that the recipients of certain epistles were Israelites, Romans is the most fascinating and broadest in scope. Furthermore, this doctrine relies most on the Romans being Israelites given the nature of Paul’s arguments within the epistle itself.
In showing that the Romans were not Israelites, we will do our best to represent this doctrine as honestly as we can. In this section, we will begin by reviewing their more historical arguments — before moving into doctrinal arguments in later parts.
ZERAH SON OF JUDAH
Naturally, those who claim the Romans were Israelites have an explanation for how the Romans came to be Israelites in the first place. According to 1 Chronicles 2:6, Zerah, son of Judah, son of Jacob, had five sons whose names were Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara. They argue that Dara and Calcol left their family before Jacob moved to Egypt in Genesis 46 — and played a part in founding the ancient city of Troy.
Ignoring the fact that archeologists have found substantial evidence that Troy was originally founded at least 1,000 years before the birth of Zarah and his sons, they cite certain historians where names similar to that of Dara and Calcol are mentioned in connection with Troy, claiming that these names must be one and the same. One of a few Roman founding myths claims that its founders came from the city of Troy after it fell — completing the connection between Zerah’s sons and Rome.
The point at which they attempt to match up Scriptural history with secular history, however, has some serious flaws — and Genesis 46:5-7 clearly witnesses against their view:
5 Then Jacob left Beersheba, and the sons of Israel carried their father Jacob and their little ones and their wives in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him. 6 They also took their livestock and their possessions, which they had acquired in the land of Canaan, and came to Egypt, Jacob and all his descendants [seed] with him: 7 his sons and his grandsons with him, his daughters and his granddaughters, and all his descendants [seed] he brought with him to Egypt.
Jacob brought all of his descendants — and we would logically conclude that if Zerah had sons at that time, they would be certainly be counted among Jacob’s descendants and have gone into Egypt according to Genesis 46:6-7.
Some might be tempted to argue that Genesis 46:7 said, “his sons and his grandsons” — therefore “all his descendants” would be qualified as only “sons and grandsons.” After all, Zerah was Jacob’s grandson — therefore, Zerah’s sons would not be included, because they are great-grandsons — not grandsons.
However, Genesis 46:8 says, “these are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt, Jacob and his sons.” As a part of “the names of the sons of Israel”, Genesis 46:12 includes “Hezron and Hamul” — sons of Perez, Zerah’s brother — and Jacob’s grandson. Thus “all his descendants” definitely includes great-grandsons as well.
If we are to take these verses at face value — that Jacob brought all his descendants, then there were no descendants who left to go elsewhere. In other words, the theory about Calcol and Dara playing a part in founding Troy directly contradicts Genesis 46:6-7 — because if they were alive at that time, they would have gone with Jacob to Egypt. This fact alone should suffice to put the matter to rest — however, for the sake of completeness, we will give account of the full argument.
The Genesis 46 account doesn’t mention that Zerah brought sons with him into Egypt. If Abraham brought all of his descendants — and if Zerah didn’t bring his own sons — then Zerah simply didn’t have any sons at that time.
In Numbers 26, a census is taken of all the sons of Israel 20 years old and upward who came out of the land of Egypt. The sons are numbered according to their tribes and according to their families within those tribes.
Numbers 26:20 mentions the family of the Zerahites — the descendants of Zerah, son of Judah — but does not specifically mention Zerah’s sons — Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara (1 Chronicles 2:6) — by name. Some may postulate again that Zerah’s sons simply weren’t there. Although this doesn’t consider that in Numbers 26:20 there was a family of Zerah — so Zerah must have had sons in order for there to be a family of his own in the first place. We can say for certain then that Numbers 26:20 didn’t mention any of his sons by name, despite him definitely having had sons and a family.
In other words, no matter who Zerah’s sons were who brought about this family in Numbers 26:20, they were not mentioned by name. Therefore, the lack of Zerah’s sons being called by name doesn’t actually prove anything at all. We can then say for sure that Zerah did not have sons when he went into Egypt, but at some point in Egypt he had a family. Now Judges 7:1 says,
But the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully regarding the things designated for destruction, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, took some of the designated things; therefore the anger of the Lord burned against the sons of Israel.
Here we have explicit mention of a son of Zerah — a son by the name of “Zabdi.” Yet 1 Chronicles 2:6 says that the “sons of Zerah were Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara”. How could there be another son — “Zabdi” — not found in the list of 1 Chronicles 2:6? Is Zabdi some unaccounted for son in the first book of Chronicles?
In the Greek Septuagint, where “Zimri” is written in Judges 7:1 and “Zabdi” is written in 1 Chronicles 2:6, it renders each name the same way in the Greek: “Ζαμβρὶ”. It would be interesting to see how these names were rendered in the Dead Sea Scrolls but alas, at the time of writing of this article no scrolls have been found for Judges 7 or 1 Chronicles 2. Given that the Masoretic text dates after the Septuagint — and that both texts come from an even earlier original text, it’s hard to say whether a Greek translator changed the Septuagint to align the names — or whether the scribes of the Masoretic text misaligned the names later on.
Let us recap on the three points covered so far:
- Jacob brought all of his descendants into Egypt — If Zerah had sons at that time, they would have entered Egypt along with the company.
- 1 Chronicles 2:6 gives us all of Zerah’s sons — whoever Zimri (Joshua 7:1) was — if he was a son of Zerah — he must have been one of the individuals from 1 Chronicles 2:6.
- The Greek Septuagint renders Zimri in the same same way in Joshua 7:1 and 1 Chronicles 2:6.
Therefore, “Zabdi” and “Zimri” — according to the Hebrew Masoretic text — are the same person. Zimri was not mentioned in the census of Numbers 26, yet he must have been implicitly included among the Zerahites despite not having been mentioned — because his family was present with Israel in Canaan in Joshua 7:1. Whoever constituted Zerah’s family in Numbers 26:20, it must have been sons from 1 Chronicles 2:6.
For certain then, Zimri was born sometime after Zerah entered Egypt with the rest of his family. We also note that in the genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2 the eldest child is always written first. We can see this in 1 Chronicles 2:1 where Reuben is given first. We also see it in 1 Chronicles 2:3 where Er is written first — and is literally called “Judah’s firstborn.” This same pattern can be seen throughout the chapter.
If Zimri was the firstborn — and if Zimri was born after Zerah entered Egypt — then logically all of Zerah’s sons must have been born after they entered Egypt. If we had to take only points two and three in the list above and combine them with the fact that Zimri is the firstborn in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 2:6, we could already prove that Zerah did not have any sons before he moved into Egypt. Therefore, we have proof over and above the fact that Genesis 46:6-7 states explicitly that all Jacob’s descendants entered Egypt with him.
If Zimri was the firstborn sometime after Zerah entered Egypt, then Calcol and Dara most certainly must have also been born sometime after Zerah entered Egypt. Thus it is impossible that any of Zerah’s sons left to found Troy before Zerah entered Egypt.
Though we have not heard this argument, someone might say, “All right, fine, maybe Calcol and Dara left sometime after Zerah entered Egypt, but sometime before Israel received the law of Moses.” Well, hopefully if we’ve highlighted anything at all up until this point, it’s that from within the Scripture itself, the argument regarding Calcol and Dara is an argument from silence. That is, from the Scriptural point of view, we really can’t say anything one way or another regarding Calcol and Dara — except that Zimri — Zerah’s eldest — was definitely born during Zerah’s time in Egypt and that his descendants were with Israel when they entered Canaan.
As such, this argument regarding Calcol and Dara cannot take place at all from within the Scripture. Yes, there are other arguments claiming that the Romans were Israelites which we will address in this series, but none of them intersect with how exactly the Israelites ultimately came to found Rome.
Within the context of secular histories, the argument relies on the superficial similarities between the names of Calcol and Dara and some characters of Greek myth. Calcol is supposedly “Kalchas” — a Trojan seer during the time of the Trojan war with the Greeks. Dara is supposedly none other than “Dardanos” — one of the original settlers of Troy.
By this logic, why shouldn’t we also conclude that Zarah’s son Hemen is actually the Greek god Hermes? Or that Zarah’s son Ethan is the Greek god Eetion? Although sarcastic, we mean to relay an important point: In this context, arguments based solely on a similarity of names don’t actually prove much at all.
However, let us hypothetically concede that a mere similarity of names would somehow constitute “scholarly evidence” that Zerah’s sons founded Troy.
Even from within the secular histories this argument is deeply flawed — there is a vast time gap between Kalchas and Dardanos. Dardanos allegedly founded Troy while Kalchas was one of the refugees who left Troy after it was sacked. If we use Homer’s genealogy from Dardanos until Priam — the king of Troy during the Trojan war — there were around six generations between the two. It’s just not possible that Dardanos and Kalchas were actual brothers. They certainly were not brothers according to the secular histories either — and they didn’t even know each other. How could they have? And obviously, if they were not brothers, then it’s simply not possible that they could have been Zerah’s sons — because Calcol and Dara were indeed brothers.
The argument doesn’t work from within the Scripture or from within the secular histories. Since we cannot successfully argue that the Trojans were Israelites — it therefore follows that we certainly cannot then argue that the Romans — their descendants — were Israelites.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PRINCE
Another argument that the Romans were Israelites is found in Daniel 9:25-26,
25 So you are to know and understand that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with streets and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
The argument goes that the destruction of the city and the sanctuary here in Daniel 9:26 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple by the Romans under Titus in 70AD. Therefore, “the people of the prince who is to come” can refer only to the Romans themselves. We do not disagree so far.
This line of argument posits that “Messiah the Prince” in verse 25 and “the prince” in verse 26 are one and the same entity — and that furthermore, “Messiah the Prince” must be the Lord Jesus Himself. If He is the prince of verse 26, then the people are His own people — Israel. If He is “the prince who is to come” and “the people” destroyed the temple in 70AD — and the Romans destroyed the temple in 70AD — then the Romans must be Israelites.
Firstly, we would agree that “Messiah the Prince” indeed refers to the Lord Jesus; however, the argument conveniently oversimplifies the subject of “princes” in the book of Daniel. As if merely being a “prince” — according to Daniel — necessarily all refers to one and the same “prince.”
The angel who delivers the message to Daniel in Daniel 10 — who is none other than the Lord Jesus Himself — says that “the prince of the kingdom of Persia” (Daniel 10:13) was resisting Him and that “the prince of Greece [Javan] is about to come” (Daniel 10:20). He states that only one stands with him in the battle — “Michael your prince.” (Daniel 10:21)
Already we have explicit proof of multiple princes — who are not the same prince as one another — and not the same prince as the Lord Jesus Himself. Therefore — as we mentioned, the claim that “Messiah the Prince” and “the prince who is to come” are the same “prince” — merely because they are both “princes” — grossly oversimplifies the matter.
Jude calls Michael an “archangel” (Jude 1:9) and in Revelation 12:7 Michael can be seen fighting Satan along with his angels. Clearly there was a heavenly battle going on as early as the time of Daniel. As we have explained before, “Satan” is not one entity — but rather he is seven rebellious entities — or princes — who have dominion over the nations of men — and Michael stands against them. Daniel 12:1 calls Michael “the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people.”
The Lord calls Michael Daniel’s “prince” (Daniel 10:21) and the prince who stands guard over the sons of Daniel’s people (Daniel 12:1). Daniel is an Israelite, so if any prince is going to be labelled “prince of the Israelites,” it would be Michael — not the Lord Jesus. Indeed, we would contend that the Lord Jesus is not merely a prince — neither is He just another “chief prince” or “arch-angel”, of which there are more than one (Daniel 10:13) — rather in His office as a “prince”, He is the “Prince of princes” (Daniel 8:25).
Therefore we can conclude that “Messiah the Prince” and “the prince who is to come” in Daniel 9:26 are not the same prince — or at the very least, if we are being honest, we need to acknowledge there is credible evidence which demonstrates that these two princes could very well not be the same individual.
Furthermore, neither does anything in the book of Daniel suggest that “the prince who is to come” was the archangel Michael. Thus Daniel 9:25-26 cannot be used to prove that the Romans were Israelites.
HOW THE IDENTITY OF THE ROMANS FITS INTO PROPHECY
Having addressed the central point of the argument, we would like to go over and above merely showing that Daniel 9 cannot be used to prove that the Romans were Israelites. We would like to offer a counterargument — and briefly consider a few more points in relation to the prince of the Romans — and Satan in general. Hopefully in so doing, our readers will understand that we do not make this case about Daniel 9:26 lightly — we are not merely disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
If not Michael or the Lord Jesus, then who is “the prince who is to come”? In Luke 4, the Lord Jesus is tempted by “the devil” (Luke 4:2) — who is plainly called “Satan” in Mark 1:13. Luke 4:5-6 says,
5 And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory, for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I want.”
The Greek word for “of the world” is “oikoumené” (Strong’s G3625) — meaning the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks or the Roman Empire. Therefore — according to Luke 4:5-6 — Satan is in control of the whole earth inhabited by the Greeks which basically amounts to the Roman Empire as well.
We can then conclude that Satan — or at the very least, this particular prince in Luke 4 — who was the fifth of the seven princes — or dragon heads (Revelation 12:3) — was the prince of the Roman people. If the Romans destroyed the second temple in 70AD, then “the prince who is to come” was that very same prince who vainly tempted the Lord Jesus in Luke 4.
It’s no wonder that somewhere in the 50s AD Paul would say to the Romans of all people, “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” (Romans 16:20) Then when John writes his Revelation some time after 80AD he says, “five [heads] have fallen” (Revelation 17:10) — the princes of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12-13), Persia (Daniel 10:13), Greece (Daniel 10:20), the Seleucid Empire (or “little horn” — Daniel 8:10-11) and Rome (Daniel 9:26).
The prince of Rome must indeed have fallen just as Paul predicted — probably some time between 70AD and when John wrote the Revelation. After all, the prince or “king” who currently “is” — according to the wording of Revelation 17:10 — had his throne in Pergamum (Revelation 2:13) — indicating again that he is not the prince of the Romans (Daniel 9:26).
Furthermore, some time after the Lord was caught up to heaven after His resurrection, the dragon — representing all seven Satanic princes (Revelation 12:3) — was cast down to the earth — along with his own angels — by Michael and his angels (Daniel 12:1, Revelation 12:9). Therefore, Satan’s heavenly authority over the nations would be removed — and the Lord Jesus would “rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Revelation 12:5, Psalm 2:9) — “as the vessels of the potter are shattered” (Revelation 2:27).
Paul may have been referring to the fall of the Roman prince — or to the fall of the whole dragon itself. In all likelihood, he was referring to both simultaneously. In other words, the defeat of the Roman prince would mark the fall of the dragon as a whole.
The remaining two heads — including the sixth prince whom we are currently focused on — would not inherit any Genesis 10 nation. Rather, he would seek only to deceive and destroy them. For example, the prince of the Romans considered the Roman world to be his own domain and glory (Luke 4:6) — whereas the remaining two heads would seek only to “persecute the woman” (Revelation 12:13) and “make war with the rest of her children” (Revelation 12:17).
To this end, he summons “beasts” in Revelation 13 — which “make war with the saints and to overcome them” — and “authority was given to [Satan’s beast] over every tribe, people, language, and nation.” (Revelation 13:7) Satan even goes so far as to cause the nations to worship their very own enemies (Revelation 13:12) — an intensely strange paradox that anyone who has been reading the articles at Christians For Truth would be very familiar with (Read: Evangelical Zionism, God’s “Chosen People” and Revelation 2:9).
Incidentally, even though the remaining two heads are not to inherit any nation, Ezekiel 38-39 show us that one of them is none other than “Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal” (Ezekiel 38:2, Ezekiel 39:1). Magog, Meshech and Tubal are also Genesis 10 nations (Genesis 10:2) — and this prince must formerly have been custodian of them.
As we previously covered in the events of Revelation 6-7 — which occur simultaneous to Satan’s activity in Revelation 12-13 — the Lord Jesus uses the tribulation over the nations to “shatter them like earthenware” (Psalm 2:9, Revelation 2:27) — and to refine His own people, producing the heavenly fulfillment of His bride, body and church.
Much like how King David ruled among his enemies until they were all destroyed, the Father says to the Lord Jesus, “Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” (Psalm 110:1, Matthew 22:44, Hebrews 1:3)
Herein lies the solution to the great paradox — on the one hand the Lord would confirm that “the ruler of this world will be cast out” (John 12:31) — and Peter says Jesus Christ is “at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.” (1 Peter 3:22).
Yet on the other hand, Paul tells us still that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12) — and Satan continues to wage war against the saints after having been cast out as we already covered.
In other words, according to the writings of the New Testament, Satan is simultaneously in a state of having been defeated and continuing to be a problem. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus has won, yet His enemies somehow remain. We must acknowledge the situation to be nuanced in such a way that it cannot be explained by a single satanic arch-angel. Neither can it be explained by a “Satan” which is not an arch-angel.
Moreover — and most importantly, understanding this paradox goes a long way in helping us to understand our place in these ends times — and what’s expected of us. The second temple builders — who were commanded to build the temple in spite of adversity — served as a copy and shadow for those who live through the great tribulation. We too must fearlessly build the heavenly temple — focusing on the things above — despite the activities of our own enemies.
If we do not build the heavenly temple, they will serve as the tool by which we are smashed like a potter’s vessel. If we do build the heavenly temple, they will be ash beneath our feet when the Lord Jesus comes to take His Kingdom forever.
In Part 2, we will begin to address Paul’s epistle to the Romans — and how the epistle itself proves that the Romans were not Israelites.
In the 1980’s when I first got a computer , were videos of black’s claiming to be Israelites. That’s about 40 years ago, probably before this site was begun. This site and many followers seems to be dead set on feeling that White’s are Israelite’s and claim of White’s being Israelites. What most people know of Israelites or the word is from the Bible. But it’s not taught in schools , history classes, universities, colleges unless one goes to a religious school. So many on this site seem to know or claim to know who the Israelite’s are , and I believe that this would be a good time to let the politician’s ,news media , reporters who put articles out about the Ukrainian, Russian , and Israel-Hamus war , if the Jews are not Israelite’s, who are , if its the White race. I just saw a video explain that almost all of the Arab world is related and show Jewish -Arab genetics, and that many groups are just differences in Arabs who accepted various religions at various times , conquest or wars.
I had a short wave radio about 40 years ago and a call in Christian program would hang up on callers if you didn’t agree or think or believe like them. They hung up on me several times. Alex Jones does the same. Joyce Riley of the” Power Hour” did the same, when you get into mentioning anything critical of the Jews , they get angry and hang up. Alex Jones , justifies it by saying that there are “good people and bad people in all groups.” He’ll mention the ADL , or the Jesuits, or Rothschild’s, but is careful how and what he says about them. He’s married two Jewish women. How and why would a Jewish woman marry a supposedly Christian , who brags that since about 19 years old , he has been exposing the New World Order which many calm has the jews behind it?. But most of all, why would a Jewish women marry a supposed exposer of the New World Order if Jews are behind it except to be a sort of control over his views? I’ve read several authors who say that when the world empire comes that the Jews will be killed. This makes me think, if true, that the Jews may be used to take over society , and the world and when they’ve served their purpose, they will be destroyed. Our ancestors have said that ” when the United States has served its purpose it will be Laid Low.” So , are the Jews who they believe they are or deceived? Some call them “Fake Jews.'” Catholic Joe Biden is no friend . He says there is no room in this world for antisemitism. So ,he looks good to his Jewish in laws, children’s Jewish mates, Jewish world. Up until the attack on the Jewish settlement, anyone who criticized the jews were antisemites. Racists, bigots and couldn’t defend oneself because the news media supported them. But since this Russian -Ukraine and Jewish -Hamus War, attitudes , information , has changed about the Jews and there are many demonstration’s against them and critical articles, or how Israel was created , how they treat the Arabs in Palestine etc. , etc. I sent dozens and dozens of videos I made from news and others videos from the internet about the terrible things Arab immigrants did in Europe, destroying the facilities, dominating neighborhoods, burning, looting destroying to politician’s and news media. I knew that many would not see them, but maybe their aides, secretary’s would , but also believed it made a difference and was recorded in in the spiritual realm. It took hours, and days over time. I bought pens, Ink , paper. At first, they were 10-15 pages ,but I realized that I couldn’t do much that way , because it took too much time and finally was able to reduce them to one page. The government claims , to write, neatly and use letter form, , but when I would get to the last few thoughts ,I just jammed them at end. I couldn’t afford postage after a while and got a Job, so that I could afford to do it, and have some extra money for my car, bills, etc., even though retired. So when anyone wants to criticize my comments, correct me with their religious knowledge, I’m may feel a certain amount of shame possibly, but don’t care, I’ve been doing it for 20 years and am getting tired . I can’t understand why Christian’s, right now, are wanting to see “End Times” come. Are they so arrogant that they think they will be spared suffering? Israel is so vile, that I just saw a news item video of telling Arabs to abandon and evacuate a hospital that has hundreds of patient’s in serious conditions, and refugees in its area for protection and most because of the Satanic,Luceriferian bombing of everything and anything they want and can get away with because the world sees their tragedy and they refer it to the Holocaust. And the Catholic, Joe Biden claims undying loyalty and support for whatever they do and his 40 year old friendship buddy Netanyahu and dares anyone and defies anyone in the world to attack Israel.
And Zelensky, a Jew wants to accuse Russia of Crimes against humanity?
Biden could have preventer this war by just one word: “No” to Ukraine NATO membership, but he deliberately and the news articles, you know, the news ,everyone’s hero, Doanld Trump called “Fake News” has revealed it. News even claims Zelensky was told to wage the war because it was wanted. Bush Sr. could have prevented the 20 year war against Iraq , that the World Trade center disaster allowed his son to get away with years after. Huessein complained that Kuwait was angle drilling into Iraq’s oil fields, and as usual, we always seem to have Jewish Secretaries of State, and who was it, Madeline Albright , that Catholic Joe Biden has made reference to that he admires, at least twice in the last few days, who according to news , told Hussein that it was his problem and just like Putin attacked Ukraine thinking he had to solve his problem , Hussein attacked Kuwait. Can’t anyone by now see that we are just like animals being raised to serve a purpose, food, money, pride, power, etc. and then when events are ready ,we are sacrificed?
I try not to care anymore, because it seems useless as some people just seem to not care that things go on the way they do. Even4 years of Trump, and knowing what the news has shown his character and morality and pretentious love of his fellow man and problems, we want him for 4 more years, and even seeing b?iden getting us out of Iraq, to, we can see now, for the purpose to make war with Russia and the Arab world , we ,if, Democrats , want Biden back for more years. Working beyond may retirement years ,made me understand that a person gradually has no purpose in the present generation except to exist, until death because things, morals, politics, attitudes change. Biden and Trump are not of this generation. The younger people should have it , because there comes a time when even parents must realize that their children are grown up and can’t be told what to do and think and need to mature. We despise Arabs? Maybe if all of the money made from wars, natural resources, just plain greed for money, was shared, technology, friendship, resources, love, patents, etc. the Arab world would progress. Biden, after putting billions to make war against Russia to Ukraine , and Zelensky telling Biden he will need billions and billions more to rebuild a deliberately destroyed country, wants an eternal pledge that Israel and Ukraine share the same slopping of our wealth ,money and technology, military aid and protection. Biden is playing god to defend the Jews and their so called ,2000 year old or more ,pagan blood thirsty ,animal sacrificing religion and Christian’s believe that we worship the same God. I’ve read several times that the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple, when they removed the veil. maybe I think Too much, but It made me think, that maybe the tales are true of human sacrifice , and the Romans , were shocked and destroyed it for that reason at what they may have seen.
The Italian peninsula was occupied by many different tribes of people prior to the founding of Rome. A major portion of those tribes were the Italo-Celts, who very well could have been descended from the Scythian Israelites who migrated into Europe at an earlier time.
And no one really disputes that Greeks were among the founders, and many Greeks were in fact of Israelite origin.
Does that mean that Romans were Israelites? No, but some were, even if they didn’t know it or care, and the epistle of Paul to the Romans seems to suggest that he’s addressing Israelites among the Romans at times.
Do we know that Rome was not founded by Israelites?
I accept CFT’s timeline about Genesis. I can accept CFT’s source that Troy was founded circa 3,500 BC.
My question does not gainsay any of that, as from what I can find, Rome was founded in 753 BC. King Solomon reigned in Israel 200 years prior to that, and CFT reported that his domain extended at least to Spain.
If King Solomon’s Israelites were.able to sail to Spain, they.could sail to Italy.
We cannot decide that Rome was founded by Israelites merely because nothing says Rome wasn’t founded by Israelites. The possibility that Israelites could have reached Italy in Solomon’s time doesn’t actually prove anything. By that same logic the Egyptians, Canaanites, Greeks, Assyrians and Celts could all have founded Rome.
We need evidence which says that they did found Rome. If we base our conclusions and theories purely on what’s possible — and what the Bible and historians didn’t say didn’t happen — then anything is possible.
That’s all people like to mention when speaking of prophecy is the 2nd coming but no one ever brings up Malachi 4:5-6, “Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers,…”
So what do you think about Malachi 4:5-6?
Gotta be something along the old “reincarnation” charade, I’d guess.
Many well-meaning Christians tend to fall for that futile gnostic, even dravidian mythology.
I think the scripture is self-explanatory. Before Christ returns to judge Elijah will be sent forth to prepare the way for the 2nd coming. And Elijah is not reincarnated because he never died, he was transfigured and taken.
There are many differing views on Malachi 4:5-6. So it might be self-explanatory for you, but I’m afraid many people have different versions of what “self-explanatory” means.
Are you suggesting Elijah will literally return? I guess given that John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah (Luke 1:17), though he wasn’t Elijah (John 1:21), many people believe that the “Elijah” represents something other than literally Elijah.
So what do you think?
Do you think we would even be able to know if it were a man in Elijah’s spirit or Elijah himself? Would it matter?
Perhaps God would prefer us to discern the spirit itself, between what is Godly and what is of the devil.
So for example we would all agree John Hagee does not present the spirit of Elijah.
I think God will always prefer we learn to discern through the spirit than to to be told outright.
One of my favorite lines in the Bible comes from Numbers 11:29… “Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” I would say most definitely, regardless of any other factors, everyone needs to have the Spirit and discernment. Peter needed discernment from the Spirit to be able to acknowledge Christ (Matthew 16:17). He also seemed to be involved with John from early on (John 1:41). Paul also puts it quite straightforward: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
John stated that he wasn’t Elijah. If we take that pattern and plot it forward, then likely the next Elijah won’t literally be Elijah either. Also, the pattern of the Bible is that men are raised up for the job in the time they live in. From that perspective, I don’t understand why so many see the spirit of Elijah as a movement or a ministry either. I haven’t seen a good argument for it being a movement or a ministry. That’s not to say there isn’t one; just that I haven’t seen one.
I think you are trying to make it more complicated than it is. THE LORD does not mince words. HE stated “I will send you Elijah”, this is not meant to be a parable or cryptic message. The reason why were told John the baptist came in the spirit of Elijah is to point out that even with THE LORDS first advent “Elijah” announced his coming. But I think Kevin makes an excellent point,it is extremely important that all Christians discern through the Spirit,whomever they listen to, remember what Christ said to the two disciples of John the baptist when John himself was trying to discern if JESUS was THE CHRIST prophesied to come in Mathew 11:2-19. The reason why Elijah himself did not show up in the first advent is because GOD said HE would only return “one time”, before the 2nd advent. I hope this “clears” things up for you.
Hmmm, I’m afraid it doesn’t “clear” things up for me. But let’s go through it if you don’t mind…
Malachi 4:5 says, “I am going to send you Elijah the prophet” Christ says, “if you are willing to accept it, he [John] is Elijah who is to come” (Matt 11:14) Christ also says, “but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him” (Matt 17:12)… And the disciples took Him to mean John (Matt 17:13) Christ says in Mark 9:13, “I say to you that Elijah has indeed come” Luke 1:17 quotes Malachi 4:6 concerning John.
Going by the plain words above, Elijah already came. Now John said he wasn’t Elijah (John 1:21), so we need to reconcile how John wasn’t Elijah, but fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah coming according to Christ’s words shown above. Luke 1:17 says he came “in the spirit and power of Elijah”, showing in no uncertain terms that one doesn’t need to literally be Elijah to fulfill the prophecy of Elijah. So Elijah came and it was John. If you disagree, could you please be very specific in showing where you believe I went wrong? Really break it down for me.
Now where did God say that Elijah ‘would only return “one time”, before the 2nd advent’? What are you quoting when you say, “one time”? Christ says in Matthew 17:11-12, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came”. He says in Mark 9:12-13, “Elijah does come first and he restores all things… But I say to you that Elijah has indeed come” The way Christ words it in each instance seems to leave room for Elijah to still come, in spite of having already come. So…
1. Elijah already came and assuming he is coming again. 2. When he came, it wasn’t literally him but the spirit and power of him. 3. It didn’t come as a movement, but as an individual (John)
Then why do people interpret his coming as a movement?
Clear, I think that much study doth make thee confused…lol; you are over analyzing the scripture but lets go through your talking points one at a time.1) That’s all the LORD is saying in Mathew 11:14 is that John would have been Elijah if the all the people would have excepted his message but they didn’t so when Elijah does come the world will know it not because they love him or love the LORD but because of the miracles he will perform, real Christians will love GOD weather Elijah shows up or not, but it’s the unbelievers, pagans, and evil people that will be forced to acknowledge the truth, not that they’ll convert, but their lies will be uncovered. Many shall hate Elijah and wish to kill him but they will do the same when THE LORD returns, there will be many who still will hate HIM and wish to kill HIM that’s why HE comes with ten thousands of his saints, to gather them for destruction,”the angels are the reapers” 2) when you say “going by the plain words above” what’s being said is that the future of what will take place is already written by GOD and will come to pass exactly as it is written, the first time Elijah came the people would not except him and the government tried to kill him until he exposed the false prophets by a miracle of GOD and then he had them killed. John wasn’t Elijah because he didn’t perform miracles and the only thing that gets the unbelievers attention is the Power of GOD. 3) Luke 1:17 does NOT SAY you don’t need to be Elijah to fulfill the scripture, it just says that John was symbolic of Elijah period. You are stating facts that are not implied. John said he was not Elijah,why would anyone say otherwise. 4) When you say where does it state Elijah only comes once is in the scripture “I will send you Elijah before the coming of the great and dreadful day of THE LORD”. After the LORD returns , the LORD will not need a prophet to speak to the people, HE will speak to them HIMSELF. The prophecy of Elijah is summed up in the fact that he announces the return of the LORD. Now to my knowledge THE LORD only returns once so therefore Elijah only returns once that’s why john came in the spirit of Elijah. As for people looking for a symbolic movement of Elijah, that’s because they can’t come to believe he will return literally. That’s their dilemma they must deal with it. I hope what I said here helped you, try not to over analyze scripture unless THE LORD is specifically stating a parable. If you want to analyze something try thinking about what Elijah did when he came the first time, he had all the false prophets killed, what will he do when he returns? interesting?
Chalam Balam wrote, “That’s all the LORD is saying in Mathew 11:14 is that John would have been Elijah if the all the people would have excepted his message but they didn’t”
“but I say to you that ELIJAH ALREADY CAME…Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.” (Matt 17:12-13) “But I say to you that ELIJAH HAS INDEED COME, and they did to him whatever they wanted, just as it is written of him.” (Mark 9:13) Elijah came already. There’s really no way to deny it. If they didn’t accept it (Matt 11:14)… it wouldn’t make it any less true.
Very many people did accept John’s message, but the Pharisees didn’t (Matthew 21:32, Mark 1:5, Luke 3:12, Luke 7:29-30, Luke 20:6, John 5:35). So we can’t say people didn’t accept John, because they very definitely did.
Chalam Balam wrote, “John wasn’t Elijah because he didn’t perform miracles”
Where does it say that Elijah had to perform miracles? It only says that he had to restore all things and turn the hearts of the children to the fathers etc (Malachi 3:1, 4:5-6).
Chalam Balam wrote, “Luke 1:17 does NOT SAY you don’t need to be Elijah to fulfill the scripture, it just says that John was symbolic of Elijah period. You are stating facts that are not implied. John said he was not Elijah,why would anyone say otherwise.”
Well John definitely was Elijah, evidenced by Matthew 17:12-13 and Mark 9:13. But he definitely wasn’t literally Elijah because he said he wasn’t (John 1:21). So if he was Elijah, but he wasn’t Elijah, then it will suffice that he came “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” There’s nothing logically wrong with this interpretation.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to stand firm on that point that Elijah already came. If you can’t satisfactorily address Matthew 17:12-13 and Mark 9:13, there’s probably no point in discussing it further. If you insist that he could only come once, then he already came and he’s not coming again. Why? Because Christ said, “Elijah has indeed come” and “Elijah came already”.
Here’s a bonus question though: If Elijah is supposed to come back before Christ returns, why isn’t he mentioned in the Revelation or the epistles? Don’t take this as a rhetorical question out to prove something… Just a genuine, open-ended question…
Clear, you truly have a dizzying intellect, when the LORD says “Elijah came already” and”Elijah has indeed come” HE was looking at the future and Knows exactly what will transpire because everything that happens in this earth age has been pre-written by ALMIGHTY GOD. You need to pray for a deeper understanding of the scriptures. Lets end the discussion and move on.
Of what I can see nothing indicates that Christ was “looking at the future” when He said those words. He literally spoke them in the past tense. After having spoken those words in the past tense, “the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.” (Matthew 17:13) At that point in time John the Baptist had existed in the past tense.
Sorry to be so pedantic, but I prefer to base my interpretation on what the verses actually say. Your view seems to rely on things the verses don’t actually say.
Those who claim that the Romans are Israelites are straining at a gnat. First, to rely on founding myths of the Romans is their first mistake. Trying to connect Zarah’s real son Dara with a mythical figure of Dardanos, the son of Zeus, is just dishonest and desperate. These are mythical figures of the Roman pantheon. Are you serious?
Why not claim that the she-wolf who suckled Romulus and Remus is the same wolf mentioned in Isaiah 65:25 while you’re at it? “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.”
Historical fact: The Romans were not made up of one ethnic group, and that includes the elite. Rome was settled over centuries by different tribes. Yes, they were white, but there is no way to prove they are Israelites without ignoring a huge mountain of facts that completely contradict the notion.
Jesus was sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He also said that the sheep would know his voice and would follow him. There is a couple of billion Christians that heard his voice – judging by his following. That includes many Romans. I’m referring to the rank and file Christians (not the
elitists that run the institutions ) The Jews did not recognize his voice but Jesus knew who the Pharisees were. There’s absolutely nothing dishonest about connecting the Romans to being Israelites, and the days will come when this becomes common knowledge.
Lee, everything you are contending here was addressed and refuted in our previous essay, “Did Christ Come Only For The Lost Sheep Of The House Of Israel — And What Does That Mean For Prophecy?” Please show us where our argument is flawed:
https://christiansfortruth.com/did-christ-come-only-for-the-lost-sheep-of-the-house-of-israel-and-what-does-that-mean-for-prophecy/
A wild olive tree, is
An olive tree
Nonetheless
What do you mean by this?
The section on Zerah got as much attention as it needed, but far more attention than it deserved.
Yes, I doubt very much that the Romans were Israelites.
Let’s say for arguments sake that a White group of people were found living on Mars… certain groups would claim them to be Israelites too and go to huge lengths to try to explain how they got there. These groups should direct their attention to more pressing matters, I feel. The gospel needs to be shared, and Jesus is the Way! By telling every White person that they’ll be saved simply for being White, or an Israelite, is a false gospel.
CFT I really enjoyed the bit about the princes and the satans. Good work! Helped me a lot.
Before you can go about proving that Romans are Israelites, you first have to establish who is a “Roman” and who isn’t. Were the Romans racially homogeneous? Did all Romans descend from the same patriarch? Unless you can prove this, the whole idea is intellectually untenable.
I have never seen any historian establish that the Romans were racially homogeneous. Evidence shows that the Italian lands were settled in waves by different tribes from different directions, including from the North, not just from the East, such as Greece. But are we talking just about the elite Romans, such as the caesars?
I think it’s safe to say that many of the Romans descended from the Greeks, but even the Greeks were not racially homogeneous. We know many of the Greeks descended from Javan, who was not an Israelite. That would mean that many Romans descended from Javan, too. How do we know the difference between the Javan Romans and the Israelite Romans, if you can establish an Israelite strain among the Romans. If.
Just like today, having Roman citizenship doesn’t make you a Roman, any more than having British citizenship makes you British. Paul was a Roman, but he was an Israelite, but he was a rare exception, not the rule. And he certainly didn’t speak of the Romans as “fellow Israelites” and given how important that issue was to the ministry of Christ, I have no doubt that Paul would have explicitly made the point that Romans were Israelites if they were. He wouldn’t have beaten around the bush about it, or left ambiguous at best statements that may or may not suggest their background.
“I have no doubt that Paul would have explicitly made the point that Romans were Israelites if they were.”
How do we take Romans 11:13? Read one way, it would seem to say that Paul is considering all Romans to be Gentiles.
Read the other, it would seem to say that Paul is addressing only the Roman Gentiles in his passage, and that not all Romans were Gentiles.
With Rome’s size, I can accept that it had many Gen 10 Adamites in it. By that same logic, I contend that it also had Israelites in it.
Is it plausible that Romans was written mainly to the Gentile perspective as a “one size fits all” approach, since from a religious/spiritual perspective the pagan Genesis 10 Romans and the pagan Israelite Disapora Romans were functionally in the same place?
But of course Rome had Israelites within its territory, and had Israelites as citizens. Paul is just one example of many. All the Israelites born within the Roman empire, that is “client state” residents, would have had Roman citizenship and technically be called “Romans”.
But that’s not what the argument is. The argument is that the core of Romans, from their founding, were Israelites, and maintained their Israelite identity through their fathers since the founding of Rome in 750BC, an incredible assertion if you really think about it. Given all the ethnic diversity in early Rome, even at its founding, how could they possibly have maintained their Israelite identity through correct marriages? By accident? Seriously.
If we suppose that Israelites did found Rome and that they did mix-marriage with Gen 10 Adamites, would that change anything?
I ask because I have seen it mentioned here that the rules laid out in the law for Gen 10s to become Israelites were not repealed. In a similar vein to CFT’s “Ruth Was A Moabite — But Does It Even Matter”?
You’re missing the main point. Israelite identity is determined only through the father, while the wife can be Israelite or Adamic. But if the mother is Israelite and the father is not, none of their descendants are Israelite. That’s all it takes.
If an Israelite man and an Adamic wife has five daughters, they will all be Israelite, but if those daughters take five Adamic non-Israelite husbands, none of those children from any of those marriages are Israelite. See how quickly it can change?
So if you don’t know and keep those Israelite marriage laws, chances are your descendants will lose any Israelite identity that they might have had.
That’s why it’s highly unlikely the Romans, as an ethnic group, could possibly maintain Israelite identity over the period of 700 years, from Rome’s founding until the time of Christ’s ministry.
You would also have to prove that the Iliad and the Aeneid were true stories, and the Bible says the gentile mythologies are not:
Jeremiah 16:19
O Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
The Thousand Years.
Are they gone (in the middle ages) or are they yet to come?
Thanks.
The thousand year reign (Revelation 20:6) happens after the Lord Jesus returns — between the events of Ezekiel 39 and 38 (in that order). We tie this in with Satan being locked away during the same time in our article Genesis 6: What Really Happened Between The ‘Sons Of God’ And The ‘Daughters Of Man’?
Interesting.
And could you please explain to me the second coming, too?
Will that be along the First Resurrection or after the fulfillment of Ezekiel 38?
Thanking you.
Revelation 19:11-19 — which fulfills Ezekiel 39 — is the second coming of the Lord Jesus. When He returns He will regather Israel to Himself (Ezekiel 39:27-28, Matthew 24:31, 2 Thessalonians 2:1) — which is also the first resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 1 Corinthians 15:23, Revelation 20:5-6).
Note how 1 Corinthians 15:23 says that those “who are Christ’s at His coming” are raised, then it says later in verse 25-26, “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.” Therefore, He must reign until all enemies are under His feet (v25) — but that reign includes those who He raised at His coming (v23) — and death will be abolished sometime after His reign begins (v26).
This exactly fits a plain interpretation of Revelation 20, where the Lord has those who are His at His coming (v4, 1 Corinthians 15:23) — and He reigns with them (v6, 1 Corinthians 15:25). Then verse 5 creates an explicit distinction between the first resurrection and some later resurrection when death is defeated (1 Corinthians 15:26).
In short, the second coming will go along with the first resurrection and the thousand year reign. Ezekiel 38 will come after that.
You guys are bros.