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 because 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, and David’s own conquests continued 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 sometimes 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 is probably how the error of thinking Ben Joseph is the Pierced Messiah happened.  

There are no references to Joseph or Ephraim or Manasseh or Samaria 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 exiles.  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 a full 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 in 4Q372 and from then on doesn’t seem to acknowledge the 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. So they expect Messiah Ben Joseph to be a Western political leader, probably specifically 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 Mesopotamian 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 II is an ally of the Jewish 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.  Also Book 4 Chapter 9 Section 11 also mentions a Palace built by a Grapte who was a relation of Izates.   Cassius Dio's account also confirms that the Jews had allies from beyond the Euphrates in Roman History 65:4.

But someone else involved in the First Jewish-Roman War is also worth noting here.  Simon bar Giora is believed to be someone who's father was a Gentile convert o Judaism, and his first rise to notoriety during the Revolt was at Bethoron and later in Samaria, with some even arguing Jurish in Samaria was his hometown. And one of my Preterist theories about the Two Witnesses involves him as one of them.

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 at the time to 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 or multiple.  And 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 passage 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 current 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 all will be Risen by Jesus when He returns. 

But we are most truly fulfilling that mission when we do so as friends and allies of The Jews not as their enemies.

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 all that convinced of back then either.  But it got me thinking about this previously overlooked Prophecy.

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 (not that I currently recall anyway, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).  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 seemingly not 100% removed from their original homeland, a remnant there continued to exist, showing up in history 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 remained 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 verse 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? 

The most typical Preterist of this whole section of Jeremiah is that it's about the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar until Jeremiah shifts fucus to Babylon's future fall.  So maybe while he was taking many Jews to Babylon he also took some of these Elamites back to Susa.  But not all of them clearly., the process would have to be finished later. 

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 matters 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 fifths. 

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 parallel 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.

Of course there is another way to look at it, if you make a montage of Maps of the Wars of the Diadochi the Seleucid Empire largely looks it emerges out of Antigonus's Empire to eventually swallow it whole. In my desire to poetically associate the fourfold division of Alexander's Empire with the four sons of Javan in Genesis 10, Tarsus belongs first to Antigonus but then was taken by Seleucus. And a genealogical connection is formed too, with Statronice a daughter or granddaughter of Antigonus marrying first Seleucus I and then his son Antiochus I thus becoming a mother of the succeeding Seleucid Dynasty. 

And indeed the first detail of how The Little Horn is described fits Seleucus I and Antiochus Megas better then it does Epiphanes whose attempts to be a Conqueror were ultimately failures.  But the bulk of what's said of The Little Horn becomes focused on Antiochus IV Epiphanes because that's what is most important to what interests Daniel.  

It could have further relevance to the continued legacy of the Seleucid Kingdom.  But I don't here mean that in the way a Futurist would, I don't mean Epiphanes as a "Type" or distant ancestor 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 genealogical connection to the Seleucid Dynasty.

Commagene also had it's own Antiochus IV Epiphanes who was contemporary with 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.  Sohaemus of Emesa was another ally of Rome during The First Jewish-Roman War who descended from the Seleucids of Commagene. 

It's also my personal unverifiable hunch that Eutropia the Mother of the Second Wives of both Constantius I and Constantine I who was of Greco-Syrian origin may also have a similar Seleucid Ancestry.   Which if 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 I 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 was called by the Amorites of Ugarit Mount Zaphon which is also the Hebrew word for North used in Daniel 11.  Antioch remained a very important city of the Roman East down to the time of Justinian, continuing to serve as a base for usurpers like Avidius Casius and Joptanius, or a sub capital for Co-Emperors like Constantius Gallus.

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 multiple 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 a Northern Tribes exile at all.

The problem is contextually it’s Hosea 8 and 9 that are Prophecies of the then near future while Hosea 11 when read in its entirety is a bigger picture Prophecy, it's 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.  And the concept of Israelites returning to Egypt if they fall into disobedience is a concept already warned of back in Deuteronomy 28:68.

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,, 2 Kings 15:29 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 personal name, I think the same is happening here and that 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 for fleeing Ephraimites.  The 24th Dynasty was short lived but we know little about Sais's status during the Memphis based Cushite Dynasty numbered as the 25th, this hypothetical status as a haven for Ephraimites could have been maintained.  

The last 24th Dynasty King of Egypt who reigned from 725-720 BC was Bakenranef whose named is rendered in Greek sources as Bocchoris. In Against Apion Book I sections 34-35 Josephus discussing the version of The Exodus told be Lysimachus of Alexandria and he names Bocchoris, Tacitus repeated the same story.  This Ephraimite Refugee Crisis could be a factor in why conflation happened. 

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 at least partially 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. But later 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 II.

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 the other things in Josiah’s speech.  Instead right 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'm 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.  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 of The Jews Book 11 Chapter 8 Section 6 possibly alludes to Samaritans being settled in Thebes by Alexander The Great.  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, or a leader of Gentiles settled in Ephraimite territory.

Later in Book 12 Chapter 1 Josephus talks about Ptolemy I settling both Judeans and Samaritans in Egypt.  Book 13 Chapter 3 Section 4 refers to this Samaritan presence in Egypt showing it continued.  

The Hellenistic Period also included more Jews form Judea coming to Egypt which could have included more from Ephraim, particularly in Alexandria and the Onais Colony, there was also a Jewish community at Akhmim.

And at the end of Wars of The Jews Josephus talks about surviving Jewish rebels coming to Egypt at the end of the War and causing trouble in 73-74.

After the Kitos War in 116-117 all Jews in Egypt and Cyrenaica (where the rebellion started) who survived were forced to return to Judea, but this might not have included the Samaritans.  

A Jewish Community in Egypt would re-emerge from Jews who migrated there from Judea some time after the Bar Kochba Revolt.  Those may have been partly descendants of those who lived there before.  

But also Hadrian banned Jews from living anywhere Jerusalem was even visible from (according to Eusebius Church History Book IV Chapter 6 Section 3), and that includes a good chunk of Biblically Ephraimite territory (today roughly the Ramallah and al-Bireh Governorate and some of the Jericho Governorate).  Gophna (Modern Jifna) is one example of 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.

This website documents evidence of continued Samaritan presence in Egypt down to the Eighteenth Century.

https://members.tripod.com/~osher_2/Pummer.htm

[Update: Annoyingly that Website doesn't work anyone, and neither does the one capture of it on the Internet Archive.]

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 us 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.  

Revelation 13-19 fulfilled in the late Second Century?

In my post on the Hadrianic date for Revelation I proposed that if you view the succession of Emperors as rebooting with Vespasian’s victory in the year of the Four Emperors then Hadrian can be viewed as the 6th.  That’s not my main view on the Seven Kings but it’s a good starting point for this theory.

The weakest link of that argument is I can’t think of a way to justify saying Antonius Pius’s reign was short.  It could be Lucius Aelius Caesar was the Seventh.

But the main reason I’m attracted to considering this timeframe for the fulfilment of Revelation is the figure of Alexander of Abonoteichus whose death is usually dated to 170 AD.

That historical figure is also sometimes called Alexander The False Prophet or Pseudophrophetes because I think that was the original name of the fictionalized biography of him written by Lucian of Samosata.  In that account he creates a cult for a god named Glycon who he represents as a rebirth of Asclepius and used stage magic trickery to make an Icon of Glycon appear to be moving and speaking.

So that combination of a person independently called by the title Pseusoprophetes while making a Statue appear to be alive is compelling to me. Pergamon, one of the cities housing one of the Seven Churches of Revelation, was also an important cult center for Aeslepius.

Alexander was clearly presenting himself in part as a Prophet of Apollo, Apollo under the Epithet Karneia was depicted as having two Ram’s Horns.  But the Voice or Tong of the Dragon could also be alluding to Python, the mythical serpent also tied to Prophets and Oracles of Apollo. 

This Alexander persecuted both Christians and Epicureans.

The Roman-Parthian War of 161-166 AD could be the War with the Kings of the East alluded to in Revelation 16 after the 6th Bowl is Poured Out.  The Antonine Plague connected to that War could also be relevant to the first bowl. It was during this War that Rome completely destroyed Seleucia on the Tigris, a city I’ve already shown was also called Babylon.

During this time Rome had Two Emperors, Marcus Aurelius is who history remembers more but Lucius Verus was his Co-Emperor till January of 169 and during that time Verus mostly handled affairs in The East.  Verus as the son of Lucius Aelius could be argued to be the rightful 8th King then in spite of those who reigned in between.

The dating of Alexander’s death to 170 seems to be a rough guess based on Lucian saying he was 70 when he died.  Lucian’s account does present a number of things as happening seemingly when Marcus Auerelius is sole Emperor already, but that could be a result of his fictionalization.

The Persecution of Christians in Southern France centered around Lyon and Vienne and how it ended is often dated to 177 but other dates are proposed as well.  Marcus Aruelius did not personally Persecute Christians at all, like all persecutions in the first two centuries of Church History the source of persecution was usually local mobs and authorities.  Marcus Aruleius ultimately intervened to end the persecution.

The Story of why, which may not have actually happened but if it did it’s interesting here, involved miraculous rainfall.  I’ve said before that the language of Heaven being opened in Revelation 19 is drawing on certain Hebrew Bible precedents and in contrast to what happened in Chapter 11 can refer to rainfall. The “armies in Heaven” refers to Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven not actually people in a non non-Terrestrial location.  I have a prior post on Smyrna and The White Horseman where Lyon and Vienne are relevant as Daughter Churches of Smyrna.

But another candidate for The Beast is Avidius Cassius.  I mentioned him on this Blog before as a genealogical descendent of Augustus and the Seleucids and the Herodians and Hasmoneans, and in turn as an Ancestor of the Carolingians and thus all modern European Royalty. 

He was appointed a leading general for Rome during the Roman-Parthain War and was very successful “who is able to make war with him” and in 165 he led the sack of Seleucia.   In late 166 he was made the Imperial Legate of Syria and in 170 he was made Rector Orientis. 

In 175 Avidius Cassius became a usurper Emperor and for a brief time had the support of much of the East.  It started in Egypt but Antioch also became a key Capital. 

White Horse Rider of Revelation 19

Non Pre-Millennials with an at all face value understanding of the chronology of Revelation have to conclude that Revelation 19 does not depict the Parousia and thus this White Horse Rider isn’t exactly Jesus.

A lot of things said about Him are also said about Jesus elsewhere, but that’s in the context of how Jesus is the beginning of the fulfillment of Humanity's Destiny, and how He gave His Authority to His Faithful Saints.  

The White Horseman cna be viewed as Jesus in the sense of Jesus working through His Ekklesia.

He is Faithful and True to His Father and we strive to be Faithful and True to Him.

The Sword that comes out the Mouth of Jesus in Chapter 1 and this Rider in Chapter 19 is the Sword of The Spirit of Ephesians 6:17, the Word(Rhema) of God. When the Armies of The Beast are killed by this Sword I don’t believe it refers to the physical deaths of bodies but how the Word of God is killing their old selves to begin the process of Spiritual Rebirth.

The Name of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords being written on his Vesture can be interpreted as not his own name but the name of who he’s serving.  That said, given the Kingship of all Believers Doctrine, that too can be a title Jesus Shares with His Faithful in some sense.

Isaiah 63:16 depicts Israel as a Horse and Zechariah 10:3 depicts Judah as a Horse.

At least two things said about this Rider are references back to the Promises to the Overcomers in Chapter 2, the one to Pergamon in verse 17 and the one to Thyatira in verses 26-28.  The Overcomer promises I’ve always viewed as the least actually specific to the Ekklesia at hand, every Overcomer can expect to benefit from all 7 of those Promises, each one is tied to a specific Ekklesia in Chapters 2-3 for thematic reasons.  A third Overcomer promise could also be relevant to Revelation 19’s Horseman and that’s the one to Philadelphia where the topic of Names is again relevant.

Revelation 6:2 and 19:11 have more in common than just the idea of a White Horse and someone riding it, a lot of language is repeated verbatim, the only real difference is the weapon the Rider wields. I have a prior post arguing the Revelation 2 White Horseman is Smyrna.  And that could still be the case here, but the change in Weapon has me looking to the other Ekklesia with nothing bad said about them.

The only time the word “word” is used in Revelation 2-3 is twice in the message to Philadelphia in Chapter 3 verse 8 and 10.  There are also only two verses where the words “word” and “name” appear in the same verse, Revelation 3:8 and 19:13.  I think those verses relate to one another.

Also the Revelation 19 White Horseman already has a Crown while the Revelation 6 White Horseman is given one, just like the difference between the Crown references for Smyrna and Philadelphia.  Now the Revelation 19 Crowns are Diadems rather than Stpehanos, but the difference between those Greek words appears to be that Diadem is more specific, every Diadem is also a Stephanos.

Since Philadelphia is the Revelation Ekklesia who’s origins we arguably know the least about, maybe it was a daughter of Smyrna to begin with?

Heaven being Opened in 19:11 is an idiom just like heaven being Shut in Revelation 11:6 was, it's an idiom Scripture sometimes uses for Rain.  

Through out Revelation "Them that Dwell in Heaven" is not referring to a different location in the Universe then "them that Dwell on Earth", it's about a state of mind, it's about Believers being Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven rather then the Kingdoms of this World.  And it's the same with the Armies of Heaven in Chapter 19 verse 14, in fact the words "which were" in the KJV aren't even in the original Greek.

So no I don't think these verses are about anyone traveling through a Stargate.