The Dual Fulfilment Fallacy

I'm a former Futurist who even when I was a Futurist interpreted a good number of individual Prophecies in ways that fit how a Preterist and/or Historicist could interpret them.  

When I tried to argue to a fellow Futurist that a certain Prophecy was clearly meant to be the near future of when the Prophecy was given, or even that at least how it begins was, that Prophets can't really be considered confirmed Prophets at all if nothing they predicted was fulfilled in their lifetime.  I occasionally get responses about the Dual Fulfilment concept, making it sound like it's an absolute that every prophecy has at least 2 fulfilments, near and far.  Understanding it this way makes it almsot impossible to definitively argue for anything.

Nathan's Prophecy about the Son of David building The Temple in 2 Samuel 7 is the core foundation upon which the dual fulfilment concept is based, and the reason why it can't even be called inherently Christian, every Jew who believes in a yet future Messiah Ben-David believes this Prophecy has a second fulfilment in addition to Solomon.

But the thing about this most undisputed case of a second fulfillment being needed, is that the first fulfilment failed.  Now make no mistake God always knew what was gonna happen, but the fact still remains that in theory Solomon alone could have been all this Prophecy needed, but he failed, the entire history of the divided kingdom is the legacy of Solomon's failure.  When you properly add that context it's not a dual fulfilment at all, it's only kind of applicable to Solomon at all because of what could have been.

That's why in my opinion dual fulfilments are possible and occasionally worth speculating on.  But to start building doctrine on some absolute expectation that no Prophecy is properly fulfilled till it's fulfilled twice is in my opinion foolish.

A lot of other almost undisputed examples of dual fulfilments are also ones where the second or final fulfilment is Jesus.  But in a lot of those cases it's typology, to Christians the applicability to Jesus is what matters most because we view everything through the lens of Jesus. But I would still call it wrong to act like that Prophecy wasn't actually fully fulfilled till Jesus.  The sense in which Jesus repeats it is a nice bonus for our Christian view of The Bible's metanarrative, but it often isn't at all what the original Prophet was concerned with.

Any Prophecy where I do feel that Prophecy was always chiefly about Jesus, I generally seek to, like with the failure of Solomon thesis, deconstruct the near fulfilment, which for example is how I currently treat Isaiah 7-8.  

However I long stopped to treating the "antichrist" concept the same way.  I actually think it's bordering on Dualism heresy how treat that figure is treated like a mirror image.  So yes in a sense every Hero of The Hebrew Bible is a foreshadowing of Christ, but that doesn't make every villain a similar type of the "Antichrist".

And the thing about a lot of the Prophecies I do think are about the fall of Jerusalem to Rome in AD 70. AD 70 was in a sense itself the second fulfilment, it was a repeat of the history of the fall to Nebuchadnezzar in 588 BC. so saying it must happen again in the future is arguing for a full on third fulfilment.

What I'm criticizing here is partly stuff I'd been guilty of myself in the past.  This is a product of how I feel I've grown wiser as a student of Prophecy.

In The Case of the Abomination of Desolation, Jesus tells us that an already fulfilled event will happen again.  However that doesn't mean every detail of Daniel 11-12 (or 9) is going to happen twice, the context of the next Abomination of Desolation could be very different.  I try to define what the AoD is based on the initial fulfilment of those prophecies, but that's it, everything leading up to and following it could and probably will be different.

And I now beleive the AoD Jesus was speaking of was Hadrian's Statue. 

Pompey The Great's Capture of Jerusalem

You will often learn in discussions of Plutarch’s Parallel Lives that it was a surprise he chose to pair Alexander The Great with Julius Caesar rather than Pompey. 

I think it’s telling that this debate is mainly about who gets to be the Roman Alexander. I don’t see many alternatives for a Greek Julius Caesar proposed and even less interest in who else should be the Roman Aqesilaus II.  

Most of that discussion will focus on very Secular reasons Pompey is a more natural Alexander. But what I couldn’t help but notice is that from a Biblical Point of View Pompey is obviously the Roman Alexander since he’s the first Roman Conquer to annex the land of Israel into Rome’s Empire.

I once made an argument for Pompey as the King of Daniel 11:36-45, but that’s no longer my main view of that passage.  Pompey is still in Daniel 11 as the start of what the last part of verse 33 describes. 

However there is a Prophecy that I have come to view as much more specifically about Pompey’s 63 BC Conquest of Jerusalem recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapters 3-4.  The first two verses of Zechariah 14. 

“Behold, the day of YHWH cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.”

When Zechariah lived the Babylonian Captivity was already in the past. 

To most Futurists this Siege of Jerusalem is still yet future.  To the vast majority of Preterists and some Futurists this is about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.  I’m not a Futurist anymore and don’t want to get into why here.  But why I disagree with an AD 70 view of this is more relevant.

In AD 70 you can indeed say about half the population of Jerusalem went into captivity.  But the other half Died, or some had already fled. Jerusalem was completely destroyed and after this Uninhabited till it was rebuilt as a Roman City which Jews were not allowed inside for another 500 years. 

Now “All Nations” here is Hyperbole, an AD 70 view can’t take that detail at face value either.  Rome did have allies in the Third Mithridatic War as Citizens in the Army who a few decades earlier were considered different Nations.

Now Josephus makes it sound like Pompey didn’t take any Captives, but I think he mainly wanted to paint Pompey as positively as possible.  The Fasti Triumphales in the entry for Pompey’s 61 BC Triumph lists Judea as among the conquests Pompey is celebrating, and part of a Triumph is having Captives of all those you Conquered.  It’s also documented that Rome had a Jewish Population already in the mid 1st Century BC, Cicero for example referred to them and he died in 43 BC, and Julius Caesar granted them special privileges. 

So if those verses are about 63 BC how does what happens in the following verses happen next?  Well my ultimate view on Zechariah 12-14 is one I’m still working on.  But it’s tied to my belief that The Crucifixion and Resurrection happened on The Mount of Olives.

Messiah Ben-Joseph

Messiah Ben-Joseph is a concept that exists in some Jewish Apocalyptic literature, it’s not as universally accepted among Rabbinic Jews as some want to make it sound, but it is interesting.   

David C. Mitchell published a book in 2016 titled Messiah ben Joseph that I do recommend for it collects a lot of different relevant texts even though I disagree with some of his interpretations as well as his endorsements of Ben Abrahamson’s weird identifications when talking about the Seventh Century.  I’ll be referring back to his work sometimes in this post. 

Some Christians often talk about the Messiah Ben-Joseph and Messiah Ben-David distinction as if it’s a matter of Jesus fulfilling the prophecies correctly or not associated with Ben-Joseph in his First Advent and Ben-David in his Second Advent.  Ben-Joseph is killed at the Gate of Jerusalem then rises from The Dead while it’s Ben-David who’s the Conquering King.  AD 70 Preterists may be interested in the versions that say Ben-David’s advent is 40 years after the death of Ben-Joseph.

The first thing this ignores is that Ben-Joseph is expected to be a conqueror as well, more so actually, Ben-David simply finishes the campaign mostly carried out by Ben-Joseph. This fits the pattern of the original Ben-David as Solomon’s reign was built on the Conquests of David, but David’s own conquests continue what was begun by Saul.

Meanwhile in a lot of these same texts with a Messiah Ben-Joseph we also have a Messiah Ben David often named Menahem Ben Ammiel.  This Menahem is in fact initially born to his Human Parents in an earlier epoch of history, but exactly when is inconsistent.  

He’s said to have been born during the time of King David, his mother is definitely the wife of someone named Nathan, sometimes that’s the Prophet sometimes it’s David’s son by Bathsheba, Ammiel is the name of Bathsheba’s father so that makes more sense with the bigger genealogical picture.  In Luke 3 a Greek Transliteration of Menahem is the grandson of Nathan Ben-David. But his mother is named Hephzibah and The Talmud’s Messiah named Menahem is called the son of Hezekiah.  

He’s also said to be born the same day the first Temple was destroyed while the Talmud’s Menahem is born the day the second Temple was destroyed. The Veil of The Temple was torn while Jesus was on the Cross and Resurrection is analogized to Birth in The Bible, so Jesus can be said to have a birth that correlates to the true end of the Second Temple. We also know that Hebrew Christians identified Menahem as the Hebrew equivalent of the NT Greek Paraclete translated in the KJV of John and 1 John as Comforter and Advocate. 

Also in some of these same texts in Mitchell’s book it is Menahem Ben Ammiel who is despised and rejected and who Isaiah 53 is quoted in reference to.

Meanwhile Messiah Ben Joseph doesn’t Resurrect himself, it is Messiah Ben David who resurrects him (sometimes Elijah is part of the process).  It is Messiah Ben David who has the Power of Resurrection, who conquers Death. 

Zechariah 9-11 is one contiguous Prophecy and Zechariah 12-14 is one contiguous Prophecy.  But they are not in my view truly contiguous with each other, at least not entirely, chapter 12 verse 1 uses language that to me means a new Prophecy is starting.  Their mistaken conflation with each other by Ancients is how the error of thinking Ben Joseph is the Pierced Messiah happened.  

There are no references to Joseph or Ephraim or Manasseh or Joshua in 12-14. And no David in 9-11 though Judah is mentioned.  As Zechariah originally wrote these Prophecies the Pierced One is of the House of David, that’s why the House of David mourns Him, all four names mentioned in 12:12-13 are also in the Luke 3 genealogy.

There are two places where Joseph/Ephraim imagery could be relevant to Revelation.  

In Revelation 6 the Rider on the White Horse has a Bow and is given a Crown.  Joseph/Ephraim has a Bow in Genesis 49 and Zechariah 9 and has a Crown in Isaiah 28.

Meanwhile the standard Ben Joseph Narrative arguably fits the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11 pretty well, they are a problem for the World for a time till The Beast wages war against them and prevails over them and kills them leaving their bodies to rot in the City for a period of time until they rise from The Dead.

One aspect of the Messiah Ben-Joseph tradition Mitchell doesn’t want to engage with is the idea of Ben Joseph as a Gentile and/or Proselyte rather than someone of Jewish ancestry.  

It’s often suspected that the exiles of the Northern Kingdom were culturally assimilated into the Gentile communities the Assyrians settled them amongst and lost their Israelite Identity unlike the Southern Kingdom’s Exile.  Meanwhile Genesis 48 prophesied Ephraim to become a Multitude of Nations or as some translate it the Fulness of The Nations, the LXX doesn’t use Pleroma in Genesis 48 but does use it to translate that same Hebrew word elsewhere. 

And so some interpretations of Messiah Ben Joseph see him as a Gentile ally of the Jews or maybe full on Convert who may or may not indirectly descend from the Northern Tribes. 

Mitchell, when discussing the Dead Sea Scrolls, argues against the reading that Joseph is leading a foreign army and from then on doesn’t seem to acknowledge Ben Joseph as a Gentile idea at all. But it is a big factor in Messiah Ben Joseph discourse to this day. 

For example today the Britam Website does this.  They are Jews who essentially believe in British Israelism and related ideas even though they aren’t Christians and so expect Messiah Ben Joseph to be a Western political leader, probably specially WASP since they identify Joseph with the English Speaking world.

However in Ancient Times people were more often looking to the East, since Assyria settled them in Northern Mesopotamia and Media.  Cyrus had Median descent through his Mother so maybe even his being called Messiah by Isaiah 44-45 was as a Messiah Ben Joseph?

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 20 Chapters 2-4 describes the life of Izates II King of Adiabene, he and his mother/aunt Helena were Gentiles by birth but converted to Judaism.  This Biography in my opinion clearly seeks to make Izates a parallel to Joseph in many ways starting with the envy of his half brothers. Either Josephus or an earlier source he’s drawing on I’m convinced saw Izates as a possible Messiah Ben Joseph and/or progenitor of one.  In the Talmud Adiabene called Hayab is identified as a place where Northern Kingdom Exiles were taken. I’ve argued the Kurds are the main modern descendants of the Northern Kingdom’s exiles using both geographical and DNA evidence, and indeed Erbil the ancient capital of Adiabene is in modern times the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan.

Iizates II’s main wife was the daughter of another Mesopamian King who converted to Judaism Symacho of Characene, but he had multiple wives and children by them.  He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Monobaz II who also converted to Judaism. In Wars of The Jews Book 2 Chapter 19 Section 2 Monobaz is an ally of the Jewihs Rebels in AD 66 and sends two Kinsmen one named Monobaz and one named Kenedeus to fight in the War. Later in Book 5 Chapter 6 Section 4 we are told that sons and brethren of Izates were among those taken as hostages to Rome. 

Yusuf, the Arabic form of Joseph, was the actual name of the Himyarite King popularly known as Dhu Nuwas who reigned from AD 522-530.  The Himyarites were also Gentile Converts to Judaism and there is evidence Yusuf wasn't his birth name but one taken after he converted to Judaism.  So I have no doubt he too was seeking to present himself as a Messiah Ben Joseph figure.

But what about the most well known historical figure popularly viewed to at the time have been Messiah Ben Joseph, Nehemiah Ben Hushiel?  I have too many speculations about that subject going on in my head right now, it could be its own very long post.  But some do indeed involve him being a Gentile.

But let’s return to Genesis 48’s Fulness of The Gentiles.  

Some Christians believe Paul was deliberately drawing on that verse in Romans 11 where the Fulness of the Gentiles are grafted into Israel and then All Israel will be Saved.  Meaning all Gentile Believers are by Adoption Children of Ephraim. 

I’m a Partial Preterist who believes the start and maybe even end of The Millennium are already in the past but the Parousia and Literal Bodily Resurrection of The Dead is still yet to come.  Like Post Millennials I believe we have a mission to make the world better as much as we can, but like Amillennials I still expect the Return of Jesus is what Finishes the Project. 

So to me the Christian view of Messiah Ben Joseph should be that he’s not an individual but The Entire Body of Christ.  We are the Rider on the White Horse of both Revelation 6 and 19 conquering with the Sword of The Spirit which is the Word of God rather than literal violence. Many of us have been Killed by the Enemy doing so and probably more will be, but will be Risen by Jesus when He returns. 

Jeremiah 49:34-39’s Elam Prophecy

A number of years ago a Futurist wrote a book about this Prophecy advocating an interpretation I certainly can’t agree with now and wasn’t convinced of back then either.  But it got me thinking about it.

For context to anyone new to this the Elamites were a people who lived in Southern Iran just east of Mesopotamia. Susa/Shushan was their major Capital before it became Persian.

This Elam Prophecy is very similar to a lot of the Prophecies about the Nations before it.  The detail that is unique to it however, that really stands out, is in verse 38 where YHWH says He will place His Throne in Elam.

No where else in Scripture does YHWH ever indicate that He will place His Throne on Earth anywhere other than Israel.  Where in Israel is not always as unambiguously uniformly Jerusalem as most assume, but it is definitely always in Israel. 

But recently I noticed that Ezra 4:9 refers to Elamites as being among the Pagan Gentile populations settled in Israel by Asnapper, along with Susanchites which may mean people of Susa.  Most scholars seem to view the name Asnapper here as a corruption of Assurbanipal.  And indeed Secular History shows Elam was conquered and defeated by Assurbanipal multiple times. 

The Elamites were not 100% removed from their original homeland, a remnant there continued to exist in the time of Cyrus and then Elymais existed during Greco-Roman/Parthian times.

But since Assurbanipal was before the time of Jeremiah, could it be that Geographically speaking the Elam that Jeremiah is talking about is where they were settled in Israel rather than Elam in Iran?

All of these people were settled in former Northern Kingdom territories, where contrary to what many others assume there were remnants of the Northern Ten Tribes also still among them.  The Samaritans do NOT descend from these Gentiles but from those of Ephraim and Manasseh in the area of Shechem.

And this is where my arguments about Bethel and Shiloh come into play.  The Ezekiel 40-48 Temple is not within YHWH-Shammah but to the North. 

We know Bethel remains a center of the Idolatry of the Northern Kingdom co-opted by these Pagan Gentiles at least until Jeroboam’s original Idol was destroyed by Josiah in 2 Kings 23:15.

Ezra 2:28, Nehemiah 7:32 and 11:31 speaks of Bethel and Hai being resettled by the Tribe Benjamin.  Before the Captivity this area was more associated with Ephraim though on the border with Benjamin.

Jeremiah 49 makes reference to God placing His Throne in Elam and then in the next talks about ending Elam’s Captivity.  

Could it be Bethel was specifically Elamite from the time of Assurbanipal till Ezra-Nehemiah but then they returned to Iran to become Elymais? 

Daniel 8 and the Horns of the He-Goat

One critique you often see of the traditional view of Daniel 8 is that Alexander's Empire was divided into Fifths not Fourths.  The truth is you could argue even more then that, but what matter here is a Jewish Perspective.

However even Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews opens  Book 12 by describing Alexander's Empire as being divided into Fifth. 

Now when Alexander King of Macedon had put an end to the dominion of the Persians, and had settled the affairs in Judea after the forementioned manner, he ended his life. And as his government fell among many, Antigonus obtained Asia: Seleucus, Babylon: and of the other nations which were there, Lysimachus governed the Hellespont, and Cassander possessed Macedonia. As did Ptolemy the son of Lagus seize upon Egypt.

My view is that Seleucus is not included in the original Four Horns of Daniel 8, instead they are Antigonous, Lysimachus, Cassander and Ptolemy.

The Little Horn is not an Individual but the Seleucid Kingdom as a whole. It's described as coming out of one of the Four which is explained by the Paralleled Prophecy in Daniel 11:5 where the progenitor of the Kings of The North is first described as "one of his princes" in relation to the King of The South.  Seleucus I Nicator was an Admiral serving under Ptolemy from 316-311 BC before he became a King.

And indeed the first part of how The Little Horn is Described fits Seleucus I and Antiochus Megas better then it does Epiphanes who's attempt to be a Conquer were ultimately failures.  

But the bulk of what's said of The Little Horn becomes focused on Antiochus IV Epiphanes because that's what's most central to what interests Daniel.

But it could have further relevance to the continued legacy of the Seleucid Kingdom.  But I don't here mean that in the a way Futurist would, I don't mean Epiphanes as Type of the "Antichrist".

First even just the Saga of the Hasmonaean Revolt doesn't really end with the death of Epiphanes, there's also the continued War between the Maccabees and Seleucid Kingdom under Antiochus V Eupater and Demetrius I Soter.  Demetrius I was the last at all strong ruler of the Seleucid Kingdom proper, but out of the declining Ashes of the Seleucid Empire emerged the kingdoms of Pontus, Pergamon, Cappadocia and Commagene.   Mithridates IV of Pontus the "Poison King" was very likely a Maternal Grandson of Antiochus IV Epiphanes but that wouldn't be his only connection to the Seleucid Dynasty.

Commagene also had it's own Antiochus IV Epiphanes who was contemporary wit the First Jewish-Roman War, a son of his who Josephus simply called Epiphanes fought in that War on Rome's side.  A descendent of his sister was Avidius Cassius as a Roman Usurper during the time of Marcus Aurelius who made Antioch one of his Capitals.  Jotapian a Usurper from the Crisis of the Third Century also likely had descent from the Commagene Seleucids.  There was also a 221 Usurper named Seleucus.

It's also my persona unverifiable hunch that Eutropia the Mother of the Second Wives of both Constantius I and Constantine I who was of Syrian Origin may also have a similar Seleucid Ancestry.   Which is true would give Seleucid Ancestry to Cosntantius II, Cosntantius Gallus and Julian The Apostate.  And I have another post connecting the Seleucids through Avidius Cassius to the Carolingians.

But it's not just about Genealogy.  The City of Antioch was founded by Seleucus and served as their Capital and then Rome's Syrian Capital.  The reason the Seleucid rulers are called King of The North in Daniel 11 is because of Antioch's connection to Jebel Aqra which called by the Amorites Mount Zaphon which is also the Hebrew word for North used in Daniel 11.  Antioch remained a very important city down to the time of Justinian.

Did Ephraim return to Egypt?

One of the alleged Bible Contradictions you will see thrown around is Hosea 8:13 and 9:3-6 saying that Ephraim will return to Egypt while Hosea 11:5 says Ephraim will not return to Egypt.

It’s one thing to look for these between different books with different human authors, or a book really big in scale that’s easy to imagine as older texts awkwardly patched together.  But Hosea is clearly a complete stand alone coherent message that obviously says these seemingly mutually exclusive things intentionally for a reason.

However most Apologists have decided to reconcile these texts in a way where only Hosea 11 is true at “face value” because everyone’s thinking is dominated by the popular simplified narrative that the fate of the Northern Kingdom was entirely being carried away by Assyria, or counter to that deconstructing the idea of an Northern Tribes exile at all.

The problem is it’s Hosea 8 and 9 that are Prophecies of the then near future while Hosea 11 when read in its entirety is about the Past but also the far Future when Israel will never be disobedient again. The present tense language is poetic or even ironic, it’s about God having protected Ephraim from returning to Egypt in the past. But the allusion to a future Captivity in Egypt is itself kind of in Hosea 11 in verse 11.

When you read carefully the accounts of the Assyrian Captivity you’ll realize that in spite of occasional hyperbole none of them are actually about the entirety of The Northern Kingdom.  1 Chronicles 5 talks about Pul carrying away just the Transjordan Tribes,, 1 Kings 15 talks about Tiglath-Pileser carrying away just Naphtali, and 2 Kings 17 is just the Capital City of Samaria which was in territory allotted to Manasseh.  The proper allotment of Ephraim isn’t included in any.

Instead 2 Kings 17:4 says that Hosea sent messengers unto So King of Egypt.  The word Pharaoh comes from a word for the royal palace of Egypt’s Kings yet The Bible uses it often as if it’s a name, I think the same is happening here and So is actually a form of Sais also rendered Sau and Zau which at this time was the capital of the 24th Dynasty.  These emissaries may have happened to be of the Tribe of Ephraim and been there when Samaria fell and helped negotiate the city becoming a refuge to fleeing Ephraimites.  The 24th Dynasty was short lived but we know little about it's status during the Memphis Based Cushite Dynasty numbered as the 25th. Its status as a haven for Ephraimites could have been maintained.  

2nd Chronicles 30 has Ephraimites among both those who rejected Hezekiah’s Passover invitation and those who accepted the invitation.  I think the rejectors of Hezekiah’s Passover are the ancestors of the Samaritans.  Those who accepted it possibly stayed in Jerusalem, 1 Chronicles 9:3 refers to a time when the population of Jerusalem included people of both Ephraim and Manasseh (2 Chronicles 15:8-9 refers to people of Ephraim and Manasseh moving south all the way back in the time of Asa) though the Babylonian Captivity and Return is still documented as being only Judah and Benjamin with their Levites.

After this came the reign of Manasseh King of Judah who desecrated The Temple with Idols.  Those who hold the view that The Ark actually came to Ethiopia through Egypt rather than the Menalik story believe this is most likely when The Ark was removed from The Temple.  But I don’t think it specifically came to Elephantine till later.  At first it was perhaps these Ephraimites in Jerusalem who recalled their brethren in Sais and helped some Levites smuggle it there. 

The Cushite Dynasty was destroyed and Egypt conquered for a time by Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal.  Nahum 3:8-1 speaks of the Egyptians being massacred and carried away into a Captivity of their own.  But after all that the 26th Dynasty arises from Sais under Psamtik I, his son was Necho.

In 2 Chronicles 35 Josiah among other things orders The Ark returned to The Temple.  But we don’t see the fulfillment of that intent like we do other things in Josiah’s speech.  No, instead after he is done preparing The Temple he attacks Necho, Necho tells him he is doing YHWH’s will and that YHWH is with him and in verse 22 the narrative voice agrees.  I’m convinced that the obvious subtext here is that Necho had The Ark.

The Elephantine Colony were initially mercenaries serving the 26th Dynasty.  I am among those who disagree with the accusations that they were Polytheists.  After the Elephantine Temple was destroyed some stayed and some went to Tana Kirkos. 

Bishop James Ussher in the 17th Century interpreted Psamtik I as fulfilling at least part of Isaiah 19 and he didn’t even know about the Elephantine Temple.  The “Midst of Egypt” is often looked for in the Memphis/Giza area because people want to read it through the lens of the Upper-Lower Egypt divide, but in antiquity I don't think people outside of Egypt thought too much about that.  No this Hebrew word for Midst as a geographical term in the context of Egypt I think most likely refers to The Nile.

Josephus in Antiquities Book 11 Chapter 8 Section 6 possibly alludes to Samaritans being settled in Thebes.  What’s said about the Samaritans and Sanballat in this part of Josephus is tied up in Anti-Samaritan Propaganda so I take it all with a grain of salt, but it’s worth noting.  Since Sanballat is called a Horonite it’s possible he had nothing to do with the Samaritans as Josephus accuses but was an apostate Ephraimite leader.

Later in Book 12 Chapter 1 Josephus talks about Ptolemy I settling both Judeans and Samaritans in Egypt.  Book 13 Chapter Section 4 refers to this Samaritan presence in Egypt again.  

After the Kitos War in 116-117 any Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica who survived were forced to return to Judea, but this may not have included those considered Samaritans.  

A Jewish Community in Egypt would remerge form Jews who migrated there form Judea some time after the Bar Kochba Revolt.  Those may have been largely descendants of those who lived there before.  But Hadrian Banned form living anywhere Jerusalem was even visible from, and that includes a good chunk of Ephraimite territory.  Gophna (Modern Jifna) is one example a city in Ephraimite territory archeologically confirmed to have ceased being Jewish and became Pagan at this time.

A Law issued by Theodosius I on February 18th 390 AD shows there were still Samaritans in Egypt then.

Past Millennialism

I made a post recently about how in my view of the nature of The Millennium I’m more like Amillennialism than Postmillennialism.  

However both those views as they are currently conventionally understood are different from my view in that they are both Hostile to viewing Satan as already released from The Abyss. There is one Facebook group devoted to a belief that we are currently in the “Little Season” but it’s also heavily wrapped up in the Tartaria Conspiracy Theory which I don’t believe in.  

So I’ve decided to coin the label Past Millennialism for the belief that all of the Revelation 20 Millennium is already in The Past but the Parousia is still yet future.  InspirisingPhilosphy’s video on time helps understand how what happens between those events may not necessarily happen as immediately as a casual reading of Revelation 20 will lead one to assume.

Again I want to stress that the only thing that happens at the end of The Millennium is Satan’s release, his attempt to destroy the Beloved City and Camp of The Saints is destined to fail.  Christ’s Kingdom is Without End.

Now this view can have its own internal debate about exactly what dates to give the start and end of The Millennium, which I’m currently still undecided on.  As well as exactly what you view the Mandate of The Church as being.