Is Ezekiel 39 a Prequel to Ezekiel 38?

[Update April 2023: I've mostly abandoned this theory and now just place both chapter after The Millennium.  That said there is I feel some value in some of the observations I made here.]

The name Gog is in The Bible outside Ezekiel and Revelation.  Everyone knows Magog is, as a son of Japheth.  However I have realized that Gog is as well (and I'm not referring to those Septuagint additions either, this is in the KJV and the Masoretic Text).  But first the main topic for this study.

I did a post on Ezekiel 38 and 39 being after the Millennium, in the context of Chris White's argument.  I wavered there a bit but ultimately came to agree with Chris.  Back then I still supported identifying Magog, Rosh, Meshech and Tubal with Russia, but I've now come to be more willing to agree with White's identifications for the locations of the nations involved also.

I alluded in that post to having once seen but forgotten where an assessment that Ezekiel 39 takes place before Ezekiel 38.  I've now found a website making that argument but I don't think it's what I originally saw.  It argues Ezekiel 39 is Armageddon and Ezekiel 38 is the post Millennial invasion.

https://escapeallthesethings.com/gog-magog/
I haven't looked at other articles on that site.  I suspect there is plenty I disagree with, I'm here endorsing only possibly this article.  I left a Comment that may or may not ever get approved where I made some incorrect statements since I didn't think them through well enough.  I'll try to say what I meant to better here.

First, when making an argument like this, it's useful to state that you're aware the modern chapter divisions aren't in the original text.  In this case the first verse of Chapter 39 does make sense as a partial change of topic, and the last verse of 38 does sound kind of like a conclusion.

Now I have dedicated this Blog to arguing Revelation needs to be interpreted Chronologically.  But the reason I emphasis that is because it's what's distinct about Revelation from other Prophetic books.  Others aren't even all one vision unless it's really short.  And even within one vision or revelation there are reasons why it could suit Yahuah to show some things out of order.  The difference in Revelation is John is being shown a clear sequence of events.  And that the Book defines itself as how to make sense of the rest of The Bible.

So I'm not 100% sure I agree with this view of Ezekiel 38 and 39 yet, but I want to have a conversation about it.

As for why would God show Ezekiel these battles out of order?  Why do so many Historical movies not start at the beginning of what they're going to show?  Why did Star Wars start with Episode IV?

The core argument for seeing Ezekiel 39 as Armageddon is that Revelation 19 :17-21's language of the birds devouring the flesh of the defeated armies is borrowed from Ezekiel 39.  Indeed people who argue both chapters are about Armageddon have this as their strongest argument, while I defending a Post-Millennial view argued that could be generic battle aftermath imagery, what's more important is John used proper names from Ezekiel 38&39 in chapter 20 not 19.  However that was always the one exception to my strong conviction that when Revelation is explicitly drawing on imagery from an Old Testament Prophecy, it is depicting that same Prophecy.  Now a solution to that problem exists, and so I can point out how language of Ezekiel 39 is drawn on in Revelation 19 before the Millennium and language of Ezekiel 38 is drawn on in Revelation 20 after The Millennium.

To the objection that implies it's inaccurate to define Armageddon as an invasion from the north, I wouldn't address that how this article did at all.  The Hill of Megiddo is not the site of the battle but the gathering place of The Beast's Armies.  They are planning to attack Jerusalem, though they may be cut off at Bethel before they get there.  Or they are headed to The Woman's hiding place in The Wilderness (Arabia).  Either way, they are coming to their target from the North, Megiddo was in the Northern Kingdom, close to the northern extremity of what was allotted to Western Manasseh.

It's possible, though maybe a stretch, that Gog is only really an individual in chapter 39, that Ezekiel 38 means Gog as a geographical or tribal indicator.  Some things said in 38 might be a little difficult to interpret that way, but it's possible.  There are other Prophecies where Yahuah seems to speak to nations as if they were individuals.  Also remember that translators sometimes add more pronouns than the original Hebrew directly justifies.

Revelation 20 definitely seems to be using Gog not as a person but as a location or tribe, that is why it (and never Ezekiel) says the three word phrase "Gog and Magog", they are refereed to as two of the same kind of thing.

Meanwhile Ezekiel 39 describes the place where Gog will be buried being named after him.  That will be important later.

Also Ezekiel 39 never directly refers to Magog as being part of the invasion, it says that when the invaders are destroyed he'll also send fire on Magog and "them that dwell carelessly in the Isles".  39 also never mentions Persia, Cush, Phut, Gomer and Togarmah, Tarshish or Sheba and Dedan.

Revelation 20 gets mistakenly claimed to have all nations involved.  It just says the Nations in the four Corners, it doesn't say all.  Ezekiel 38's alliance represents all four corners, Phut in the West, Cush in the South, Persia in the East, and Gog, Gomer and Togarmah are associated with the north.

I also think Armageddon may not be as absolutely everyone as people assume.  I've talked on this blog about how I view the 6th Bowl of Wrath in Revelation 16 as being about the Scattered House of Ephraim returning to their land, in Northern Manasseh.

The idea that one or both Gog and Magog invasions are about the scattered Northern Israelites in some capacity is supported by the Four Corners terminology, as God said Israel would be scattered to the Four Corners, and also by Revelation 20:8 saying their Number was as the Sand of The Sea, an idiom repeatedly used of Israel's numbers in God's Promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and of specifically the North in Hosea.

Meshech and Tubal can both be associated with ancient Uratu, in modern Kurdistan, near where the Assyrians took the Northern Tribes they deported, and where the Kingdom of Adiabene emerged in the first century.  Uratu also had four ancient Kings named Rusa.  So maybe "Prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal", should instead be "Prince Rosh of Meshech and Tubal"?  But also one of these Rusa had a location named after him, Rusahinili.  There is also a Rosh of the tribe of Benjamin mentioned in Genesis.

This article unlike others seeking to identify a Gog invasion with Armageddon, insists Gog can't be The Beast since The Beast is cast into the Lake of Fire, and not killed or buried.  Indeed, it may instead be that Gog is one of the Kings of The East, along with Rosh.  But maybe there are other ways to look at it, who knows.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ezekiel 38 is about the post Millennial Gog and Magog invasion of Revelation 20.  Ezekiel 39 is either more on that, or it's Armageddon, but there is no Pre-Trib or Mid-Trib Gog and Magog invasion.

Ironically we are now in an era where it's liberals/leftists who are paranoid about Russia.

Now what about that reference to Gog I promised?  It's in 1 Chronicles Chapter 5 verses 4-6.  The context is talking about the Tribe of Reuben at the time they were deported by Assyria in about 745 BC.

The sons of Joel: Shemaiah his son, Gog his son, Shimei his son, Micah his son, Reaiah his son, Baal his son, Beerah his son, whom Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria carried away captive: he was prince of the Reubenites.

So it seems Joel was a Prince of Reuben at the time of the captivity, and he and his seven sons were carried away into captivity.  And his second son was named Gog.  The word for Prince used here is Nasi, same as in Ezekiel 38 and 39.

Why am I certain this isn't just a coincidence of names?  Because Ezekiel 39:11 says the place where Gog is buried is east of the sea, all scholars agree the Dead Sea is meant here.  Reuben was one of the trans-Jordan tribes, and the only one who was far enough south to be east of the Dead Sea.  My English language Jerusalem Bible has a footnote here implying that the river Arnon is specifically mentioned.  I'm not sure why it thinks that, might be something lost in translation, but I mention it because it's consistent with what I just said, the Arnon was meant to be the southern border of Reuben, the border between Reuben and Moab.

So the reason Gog is being associated with persons or peoples separated by over a Thousand Years is I think because it's identifying descent from Gog ben Joel of the Tribe of Reuben.

People who want to interpret Ezekiel as just referring to his own time like to see Gog as Gyges of Lydia.  Well Gyges, who was called Gugu in Assyrian inscriptions, died before Ezekiel's time.  But I do think Gyges could be the same individual as the Gog of 1 Chronicles 5.

The deportation of the Trans-Jordan tribes was in 745 BC.  Gyges reigned from 716 to 678 BC.  If he was Joel's second born son he could have been between 7-20 years old when deported.

Gygyes' story in Greek sources has a lot of myth mingled in.  Needless to say I don't think he was the son of a Dascylus.  The story of him being a Bodyguard could be plausible, sometimes kings have used foreign mercenaries as Bodyguards, like Caligula, and Israelites living in Exile could have been attracted to such a job.

The version of his rise to power that involves him sleeping with the prior King's wife, have the potential to remind a Biblically literate reader of Reuben's sin.  That could mean one of two things.  The story is made up but Gyges encouraged it out of affinity with his ancestor. Or that it's a trait he inherited.

Gyges could be an ancestor of Cyrus.  A later king of Lydia from his dynasty, Alyattes, had a daughter named Aryenis who married Astagyes of Media and may have been the mother of Cyrus's mother Mandane.  A daughter of Cyrus married Dairus I and was the mother of Xerxes, who was probably an ancestor of Apamea royal wife of Seleucus I, who I've shown were ancestors of Charlemagne.  In that line from Seleucus to Charlemagne were princes of Galatia.

Cyrus went on to conqueror Lydia, ending Gyges' dynasty.   At that point you could argue he fully became a successor of Gyges.

Making a Reubanite prince an ancestor of Charlemagne would be interesting to Britam supporters, since they like to make France Reuben.  France having it's own River Arnon is an interesting coincidence.  And it's also interesting here how both Eugene Sue in Les Mysteries du People and Paul Feval in Anne of the Isles (Translated into English by Brian Stableford published by BlackCoatPress) construct fictional narratives with a mythical patriarch of a clan of Pre-Christian and Pre-Roman Gallic (specifically Bretan) France named Joel.

But as interesting as that all is, I think the Gog(s) of Ezekiel and Revelation will be attacking from Turkey or Northern Iraq.

Update: More on Lydia

The city of Sardis wasn't always called that it seems.  Homer called it Hyde, and I agree with the theory that Homer was contemporary with Gyges.  The oldest surviving reference to it being called Sardis is in the 470s BC.

I've talked on my Revised Chronology Blog about the Sherden/Shardana of the Seas Peoples being linked to both Sardis and Sardinia and possibly descending from the Sardite clan, descendants of Sered of the Tribe of Zebulun in Numbers 26:26.

In Gyges time however the Sherden were not yet native to Sardis, but were among the foreign mercenaries he was using and also recommended to Psamtick I of Egypt (Seti I in my chronology).  The son of a Reubanite prince using members of other Tribes as mercenaries would certainly be interesting.

The Masoretic Text's Hebrew spelling of Gog is Gimel-Vav-Gimel, and Magog is Mem-Gimel-Vav-Gimel.  But the vav like yot was sometimes used like a vowel in the Masoretic text, so some people theorize for words like this the vav might not have been used originally.  This factors into two theories about the etymology of Gog and Magog.

One is the idea that Magog is a Hebrew code for Babel (Babylon).  If the Vav is dropped then you get Magog from taking the next letter after it in the alphabet for each letter of Magog and then turning it backwards.  Gog then becomes just Bab, which means gate in the pagan etymology of Bab-El.  Makes me think of the Persian false prophet known as The Bab (but there was also Babai The Great an important 7th Century leader of the Church of The East).

The other is the theory that Agag might be a related name.  The Septuagint replaces Agag with Gog in Balaam's oracles, in Numbers 24:7, and I've heard the Samaritan Pentateuch does as well, the Samritians don't regard any of the Prophets so had no bias to want to add a name made famous by Ezekiel (or possibly Amos).

In the context of looking for Gog in Media or Persia, it's interesting to remember that Haman was called an Agagite (technically his parent, presumably father, was).  The Septuagint additions to Esther has the Persian King call Haman a Macedonian.  Maybe Makedon could be related to Magog somehow?  But also a Macedonian princess named Gygaea married a Persian noble and was the mother of another Persian noble.  Gygaea was also an ancient name for Lake Mamara in Lydia.

Update April 2020: Maybe Ezekiel 37's relationship is the same, maybe it's the Bodily Resurrection and final regathering of Israel that doesn't happen till the White Throne Judgment leading into the descent of New Jerusalem.  So we have three straight chapters that perhaps should be read in reverse?

I don't think there will be a Millennial Temple building.

I know my fellow Pre-Millennial Futurists are very afraid of any interpretation of Scripture that can be viewed as less then Literal.  I have more and more come to feel "Literal" is not the right word, what I say is that I take The Bible seriously.

What I want to discus here is that denying that the Old Testament Prophecies of a future Temple might very well be fulfilled by the New Testament Doctrine of The Church as The Temple of God, demeans the importance of that NT Doctrine in ways that I feel damage our Understanding of God's Word more then any allegorical interpretation of Scripture ever could.

And I don't view it as merely symbolic, as of Pentecost The Church is absolutely the literal definition of what a Temple is, in both Pagan and Judeo-Christian thought a Temple is what houses the Divine.  It is only what sounds like the description of a building and sacrifices that is interpreted as symbolic here.

And this Doctrine isn't limited to Paul, which I mention not just because of the Anti-Paul people out there, but because a Doctrine needs more then one witness.  It's in Revelation, both in the message to the church at Philadelphia and in the description of New Jerusalem (The 12 Apostles as Pillars is referencing Paul's own terminology in Ephesians 2 and Galatians).  And if you don't think Paul wrote Hebrews, Hebrews alludes to it.  Jesus teaches in John 4 that a time will come when God no longer dwells in a Temple building.  And it's implied that's what Stephen was stoned for teaching in Acts 6-7.  And it's in 1 Peter 2:4-5.

I've seen people say that Paul teaches the doctrine in the sense of an Individual Believer's Body being God's Temple only once so we can't build Doctrine on that (in 1 Corinthians in chapter 3 and 6).  However Peter refers to his Body as The Tabernacle in 1 Peter 1:13-14.  That is a second Witness more so then another reference from Paul would be.

Meanwhile in John's Gospel Chapter 2, we see Jesus refer to His Body as "This Temple".  That means that the doctrine of The Church as the Temple of God is inherently related to The Church as The Body of Christ.

And I've already talked about how The Body of Christ and Bride of Christ doctrine are related because of when Jesus says a Husband and Wife become one Flesh, and how Eve was made from Adam's flesh.  And the same passages of Revelation I alluded to above also reference the Bride of Christ doctrine.

And plenty of Prophecies about either The Millennium or New Jerusalem lack any reference to a Temple.  The Christian Doctrine of The Millennium is dependent on Revelation 20 and 1 Corinthians 15, neither mentions a Temple building.  Ezekiel 37 I view as about The Millennium and it mentions no Temple building, Paul quotes Ezekiel 37 when building his Church as the Temple doctrine in 2 Corinthians 6:16.  Even Zechariah 14 while talking about the Feast of Tabernacles being observed doesn't mention a Temple, Torah observant Christians observe that Feast without needing a Temple.

Isaiah 65 and 66 are viewed as about The Millennium by many but the New Heaven and New Earth by me.  Either way he makes clear there will be no Sacrifices.

Ezekiel 40-49 is the only presumed Prophecy of The Millennium that in detail describes a Temple Building and Sacrifices being carried out, there is no second Witness, other passages you can take as referring to a Temple in The Millennium lack details.  Yet the part on Yahuah-Shammah is clearly among what Revelation is drawing on in it's account of New Jerusalem, where all Christians agree the only Temple is The Church.

And when The Holy Days are discussed in Ezekiel 45, First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are left out.  Those happen to be the Holy Days most dependent on the Temple rituals.

And so here I point back to my past discussions on Ezekiel's Temple.  [Update: I now have this improved discussion of the topic.  Which was in turn a follow up to this revisiting.]

So now you may ask, what about the "Third Temple" as in a Temple The Antichrist will desecrate?

Historicism is predicated on saying The Temple Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2 is the same one he means in the Corinthian Epistles and Ephesians 2.  My issue there is mainly that Paul clearly means something unmistakable.  Even so the idea that the literal and symbolic meaning could both be true is possible, I have for many reasons become convinced The Antichrist will be within The Church.  But the issues with saying The Pope fulfilled this already are endless.

I firmly believe the Eschatological portions of the Thessalonian Epistles were Paul's commentary on the Olivite Discourses.  Jesus didn't use the word Temple there, but in both Matthew and Mark there is no denying he is using geographical terms.

Mark 13's Abomination of Desolation reference has often been interpreted to imply the location of The Temple but not necessary require the building itself to still be standing.  Which is why many have seen Hadrian's Temple built after the Bar Kokhba Revolt as fulfilling this.

However most of my fellow Futurists feel Matthew 24 saying "in" and "Holy Place" means inside a Temple building.  But in fact the Greek terminology there can refer to an outside as well as inside sacred location, the word for "in" is sometimes also translated "on".

The only reference to an Earthly Temple building in Revelation is at the start of Revelation 11.  In that case I recently read someone arguing that what the Greek Text actually says is that in 42 months Jerusalem will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles for an indeterminate amount of time.  I have shown that Luke 21 begins that time frame when The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

This person was a Futurist in their overall view of Revelation.  But argued this passage is about the time John received the Revelation being 42 months before September of 70 AD when Titus fully secured control of the City.  However this was an Anti-Paul website that teaches a lot of bad doctrine.

What's most important is that I have come to an understanding of the Image of The Beast that says the final Abomination of Desolation won't happen till after The Beast's mortal wound is healed.  Which in turn can't happen till after the Abyss has been unlocked is Revelation 9.  And that is why the Historicist view of II Thessalonians fails.

At the same time, I am now open to a Pre-Millenial Futurist view that does not require any future Temple Building.

But also, since I now think The Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple were originally Domes.  And the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque are both Domed buildings.  Is it possible one of them could be considered close enough?  (Perhaps likewise with the Christian Churches in Jerusalem that are Domed.)  The issue of where the Holy Place was in relation to those buildings I've discussed in the past and will again.

Long time readers of this Blog may recall that there not being enough time to rebuild The Temple was why I abandoned my 2018-2025 70th Week model (that came from the Suleiman the Magnificent theory).  Am I now willing to revive that?  Maybe, but I don't want to definitively predict anything.

I'm not saying for sure there will be no Third Temple.  But I'm saying i don't think it's quite as required as it used to be.

Iapetos could be The Name of The Beast

Iapetos was the name of a Titan from Greek Mythology, often called today Iapetus or Japetus because of Latinization, but Ἰαπετός Iapetos was the original proper Greek spelling.

Disclaimer up front, I'm not arguing Greek Mythology is true and The Antichrist will be a Titan from it.  Or even how many Christians usually tie the Titan Mythology into Genesis 6.  Nor would it require him being anyone who lived in the past returning.  By the end it will make sense why a (completely biologically Homo-Sapien) Jewish Messiah claimant, or maybe even someone claiming to be Jesus, would use this name. Just bear with me.

The spelling has a Greek Gemetria value of Six Hundred and Sixty Six.
Iota=10, Alpha=1, Pi=80, Epsilon=5, Tau=300, Omicron=70, Sigma=200.
10+1+80+5+300+70+200=666.

[Update May 2023: Since my overall Eschatological views have become more flexible since I first wrote this I want to clarify that I view this interpretation of 666 as also potentially  Compatible with Preterist Post-Millennial and Historicist views on Revelation even though everything below was primarily argued for in the context of Pre-Mil Futurism.]

This spelling is also 7 letters with no repeats, 7 different Greek letters.  Why do I find that significant?  At the start of Chapter 13 John says the Name of Blasphemy was written on the seven heads of the Beast.  I've long had a hunch this is the same name being dealt with at the end, just not sure what to make of it.  Here I think it possible that each Head had one letter.  Perhaps I could go deeper with that, but not today.

A few Greek names are known to have had this value.  Irenaeus and Hippolytos and other Early Church Fathers speculated on some but didn't notice this one.  Though Tietan, a bizarre I don't think attested anywhere else spelling of Titan, is included, and a Titan is what Iapetos was in Greek Mythology.  I'm not quite the first to notice this however, a google search for Iapetos 666 will mainly turn up stuff about a Metal band (I haven't listened to them).  But no Bible Study seriously looking into it.  At first I myself while excited to have stumbled on this didn't think too much of it.

But then I read how the name is usually interpreted to mean The Piercer.  It's thought to come from the word iapto which means wound or pierce, and usually refers to a spear.  Most scholars think this meaning is meant to apply the idea of mortality to him.

All that is stuff right from Wikipedia.  I myself think it could also be possible to interpret it's derivation from that word as meaning Pierced or Wounded.  Which can make us think of Revelation 13 even if we didn't already have the Gemetria connection.  But maybe The Beast would want both the Piercer and Pierced meanings to apply to him, he was Pierced, but after being healed intends to Peirce his enemies.

I will return to Etymology later.

Homer mentions Iapetos in the Iliad (8.478–81) as being in Tartaros with Kronos. He is a brother of Kronos, who ruled the world during the Golden Age.  2 Peter 2:4 uses Tartaros as a name for The Abyss, The Beast ascends out of The Abyss.  The beginning of Hesiod's theogony also associates Tartaros with the Deep.

The importance of that Homer reference has to do with how the idea of all the Titans being in Tartaros comes later, at first it was just these two.  Given how little we know of Iapetos, and how Homer and Hesiod come after Greek Mythology had already changed in many ways.  It could be Iapetos and Kronos were originally the same.

Egyptian mythology also has more then one Underworld god.  Anubis like Hades is seemingly existing only to rule there.  The other is Osiris who similar to the Titans originally ruled the world of the living but then was killed.  The Pharaoh was Horus in life and Osiris in death.

It is believed there was an underworld god among the Semites named Shalman, the god of the Theophoric Assyrian name Shalmanezzer.  Possibly related to the Hebrew name Shalim meaning Dusk.  In Egyptian Mythology the land of the Dead was also called The West, Amentis, because it was where they believe the Sun traveled from West to East during the Night.  It's not difficult to connect these names to the name of Solomon, as Shalim and Shalem are very similar if not identical in spelling.  And I've argued elsewhere adding an N to the name of Shalmo to get Solomon isn't just a result of the Greek.  And they are also speculated to be related to the Greek Salmoneus, another King imprisoned in Tartaros.  In the Septuagint Solomon is spelled Salomon.

Solomon is linked to the number 666 in 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13.  He was a type of Christ early on when he was doing well, but later he fell into Idolatry.  Even the fact that he built a palace for himself that took 4 years longer to build then The Temple is perhaps a sign of this.  That will be a subject in the future.  But this connection is still only as a type.

I've also talked on this Blog about how The Beast may seek to be an Adam figure.  That one of the titles of Christ he may claim for himself is The Last Adam.  How part of the reason his name adding up to 666 means something may be a connection to the 6th day of Creation being the day Adam was made.  And understanding The Image of The Beast begins with Adam being made in The Image of God.  And that maybe his deception will draw on false teachings that say Genesis 1 and 2 are about two different Adams.

Iapetos in Greek Mythology is made an ancestor of the entire Human Race, or at least the Hellenes and those the Hellenes felt kinship with.  Two of his sons are Prometheus and Epimetheus.  Prometheus is the father of Deucalion, the Noah figure of one of Greek Mythology's Flood Legends.  And Epimetheus married Pandora (arguably an Eve figure) and had Pyrrha, the wife of Deucalion.

It may be interesting to note that being the Grandfather of the Flood Survivor gives basis to identify Iapetos with Methuselah, who's name means "His death shall bring" making an interesting connection for the mortality association.

The Flood connection is a good place to get into how many Creationists (including myself), and even some purely Secular scholars doing comparative mythology like Robert Graves see this name as being derived from Yaphet/Japheth.  Greek mythology is very garbled and so a son of the Flood survivor became an ancestor.  Not unlike Rammah son of Kush becoming Rama with a son named Kusha in Hindu mythology. 

The secular scholars however tend to do so from a desire to late date as much of Genesis as they can and say Genesis took the name from the Greeks.  While Iapetos makes sense as an archaic Greek transliteration of Japheth, if it went the other way I wouldn't expect Japheth to be spelled with only three letters.

This can be a good time to look at how Japheth fits into typological themes of The Bible.

In Genesis 9:27.

 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

The word for Tents here is Ohel and is definitely used of the Mishkan/Holy Tabernacle elsewhere, but also of the Sukkots of the Feast of Tabernacles.   This can be seen as anticipating Romans 9-11 and Galatians talk of Gentiles being grafted unto Israel.  (I've seen a KJV only pastor use Genesis 10 to say "Gentiles" Biblically refers only to descendants of Japheth)  That is good, I love the Adoption theme of The Bible.

The Problem is how many, including some in the Hebrew Roots movement tie that into British Israelism and Two House Theology.  Seeing Ephraim and the Northern Kingdom become intermingled beyond distinction with the descendants of Japheth.  Cimmerians linked to both Gomer and Omri, Scythians linked to both Magog and Israel, The Irish linked to Magog and Judah's son Zarah and later the House of David.  And all of Britam's identifications.  I do see some truth in plenty of that kind of stuff, but it also gets tied into Racist and Nationalist political agendas.

And many of these are expecting a Messiah Ben-Joseph.  Christ White has argued for The Antichrist claiming to be Messiah Ben-Joseph independent of the Lost Tribes aspect.  And I disagree with many aspects of his argument especially Jerusalem as Mystery Babylon, but have explored how that could tie into the Lost Tribes issue.

I have a growing hunch The Antichrist will be using much rhetoric taken from the Hebrew Roots movement.  That he'll talk about Nimrod the same way Rob Skiba does.  And that includes their reverence for The Book of Jasher, which paints Nimrod as Evil and says he fought a War with the Japhethites.  There may be other sources for this Japheth vs Nimrod mythology, I'm unsure.

I've said before I think there may be Decoy Antichrists, including the Terrible of The Nations who will rule Babylonia.  And that The Terrible of The Nations will be an enemy of The Antichrist, and probably who wounds him.

Of all the people who are types of Christ in The Hebrew Bible, it's interesting how it was Joshua of all of them who shares his actual name.  The Shia Muslim reverence of Ali draws a lot on seeing Ali as the Joshua to Muhammad's Moses (even though logically Umar fits that role better).  Well in this un-Biblical Jasher mythology, Japheth becomes arguably the Joshua to Noah's Moses.

Now some Creationists talking about Iapetos as Japheth have claimed Iapetos makes no sense in Greek etymology at all.  And in fairness there are real Greek scholars who have questioned the etymology I discussed above.  But what I want to talk about is how that commonly accepted Etymolgoy for Iapetos can be more consistent with Japheth's Hebrew etymology then you might think.

Going back to Genesis 9:27, the use of Enlarge there is a known pun, as Japheth's name is derived from that Hebrew word, phathah.  But this verse is the only time the KJV translates it Enlarge.  It's also sometimes words like Entice or Beguile, where sometimes a sexual connotation is implied in the context.  And the Strongs definition suggests it could mean "to open".  So the idea of Piercing could come from it, especially as things get clouded through a change in language.

A Yot added at the beginning of a name is often a sign of being Yah theophoric but then contracted, like Jehoram becoming Joram. Yeshua itself is an example of a Yah theophoric being contracted to the point where the letter Yot is all that represents the Holy Name.  Now I don't think Japheth was a Yah theophoric name originally, but I think a future false Messiah deifying himself while going by that name could seek to re-imagine it as one.  Actually the word play in Genesis 9:27 can be interpreted as making Japheth a Yah thephoric now that I think about it.

Those who out of ignorance of how First Century Greek worked try to claim Iesous is really a pagan name.  May add that they feel a transliteration of a Yah theophoric name should have an Alpha after the Iota.  But in Greco-Rroman times all Semitic names beginning with Yot began with Iota-Eta.  And that included Japheth in the Septuagint. But this rule wasn't a factor in more archaic times when the spelling of Iapetos was standardized.  And given the many Semtic via Phonecian influences on Greek, I wonder if Iasus might derive from a more ancient Greek form of Yeshua?

So I can easily imagine a false Messiah Ben-Joseph etymologically connecting himself to Japheth.  And interpreting the name Iapetos to mean either "Yah pierced" or "Yah Piercer".  And either of those proposed meanings could have opposite proposed interpretations depending on if he identifies himself with Yahuah or rejects the name of Yahuah.  "Pierced by Yah" or "Yah is pierced".  And "Yah the Piercer" or "the Piercer of Yah". 

And the Hebrew Gemetria value of the Hebrew spelling of Japheth being 490 he could argue a Biblical Numerical significance for, being 70 times 7.  I've suggested before that the Antichrist might claim to be the Messiah the 70 weeks points to.

And so I feel I have made my case.  What's below is just a supplemental epilogue and not part of the main thesis. 

The Beast of The Earth from the Koran.

My attitude towards Islamic Antichrist/Mahdi theories has been long and complicated.

One factor is I used to say that if the Beast out of the Sea does claim to be the Islamic Mahdi, that I doubted the second assumption of The False Prophet aka the Beast out of The Earth claiming to be the Islamic Isa/Jesus would be correct.

Then I changed my mind on that as I learned more.  I showed from Scripture that the False Prophet being a Counterfeit Jesus does make sense independent of reading Islamic eschatology into it.  But now, I've again noticed something others talking about Islamic Eschatology miss.

The Koran, which doesn't mention The Mahdi, does mention a Beast of The Earth, it actually calls it that, but doesn't depict this Beast as Evil, it's depicted as good.

And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the unjust), we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with assurance in Our Signs.
— Qur'an, sura 27 (An-Naml), ayat 82

 And from a Hadith, though it's considered weak.

Narrated Abu Hurairah: that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "A beast will emerge from the earth. With it shall be the ring of Sulaiman (Solomon) and the staff of Musa (Moses). It will brighten the face of the believer, and stamp the nose of the disbeliever with the ring, such that when the people gather to eat, it will be said to this one: 'O believer! and to that one: 'O disbeliever!'"
— Jami' Al-Tirmidhi; English: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3187; Arabic: Book 47, Hadith 3490

Could this Brightening the Faces have some connection to the Mark of The Beast in the Forehead?

Many Christian commentators think The False Prophet will claim to be the Prophet like Unto Moses.  This beast claiming to have the Staff of Moses could fit that.  The New Testament tells us that Prophet is Jesus.  But many even claiming to be Christians want to give that title to someone else, like Muslims arguing it was Muhammad.  And those who want to make Moses one of the Two Witnesses say this Prophecy is about a second coming of Moses.  I haven't seen it yet but it wouldn't surprise me if some Jews think that will be fulfilled by Elijah.

Since The Mahdi was added to Islamic Eschatology later.  One could argue that the demonic forces behind The Koran originally just intended Isa to be the Antichrist and this Beast the False Prophet.

But maybe it's possible for a Muslin today to try and argue this Beast in this Sura was a symbol of Isa, just as the New Testament Apocalypse Symbolized Jesus as the Arnion (usually translated Lamb but could be Goat or Ram).  And indeed The Beast out of The Earth has Horns like an Arnion.  And Jesus did Descend into the Heart of The Earth.  Contrary to what most Muslims think The Koran doesn't contradict Jesus dying on The Cross but affirms it.

Having The Ring of Solomon could be a sign of being an Heir to Solomon and thus being Messiah Ben-David.  But in this extra Biblical Lore about Solomon (it's not unique to Islam) Solomon used this Ring/Seal to perform Magick and control Demons/Shedim/Jinn.  The Ring is also said to have the Divine Name in-graved on it.  And I would guess it's normally depicted as being worn on the Right Hand.

This is perhaps a good time to remember that the number 666 was linked to Solomon, and the Hexagram has been linked to the Seal of Solomon, which many have sought to connect to the Number of The Beast.  And in one Legend the Ring of Solomon is thrown into the Sea to be returned to Solomon later by a Sea Animal.

What if the Ring of Solomon here is going to be used like a Ring a King would give to a Regent?

More importantly, there is a reason the Ring of Solomon and Seal of Solomon are treated as synonyms when you study this lore.  Because a King's Seal was often on his Ring which he would use to place his Seal on documents and so forth, but he might also give the Ring to someone else to give them authority to seal things in his name.  Revelation is definitely drawing on this imagery in Chapter 7 with the 144,000.  And The Mark is frequently viewed as Satan's inferior copy of that.

The Hebrew word chowtham is often translated either Signet or Seal.  There is no Bible verse directly telling us Solomon had one.  But the first one mentioned is Judah's in Genesis 38:18.  Jeremiah 22:24 tells us it's often kept on the Right Hand.  1 Kings 21:18 tells us a royal one was used by the Northern Kingdom at least.  The use of this word in Exodus 28:36 and 39:30 I've considered passages a False Messiah could use to justify the Mark of The Beast system as being part of The Torah, (along with the Tefflin verses).  The Hebrew word translated "engravings" in those verses, pittuwach, is very likely the Hebrew equivalent of the word translated "Mark" in Revelation.  Though another candidate would be miqla'ath which is possibly used as a synonym for that word the only time it appears, in 1 Kings 6-7.

Again, my take on studying these False Prophecies is that I think Satan makes all of them as potential seeds for The Antichrist.  But that doesn't mean for certain that this false Prophecy is what The Antichrist will wind up using.

The Ark of The Covenant

This post is a follow up of sorts to my The Mercy Seat is Not a Throne post.  I stand by all my main points made there, but I want to talk about some other issues related to The Ark I've studied since then, some of which may provide new context to what I discussed there.  And some of that material will be retreaded here.

This is partly about how I've become more skeptical of my past support of it being in Aksum.

1: Contents of The Ark

Hebrews 9:4 indicated that in addition to The Tablets, The Ark also contained the Rod of Aaron, and the Jar of Manna.  This is often viewed as a contradiction because of 1 Kings 8:9.

There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when Yahuah made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.

II Chronicles 5:10 says the same thing.  However these verses are set at the consecration of Solomon's Temple, after The Ark had been captured for awhile by The Philistines.  They may have taken the other objects in there but didn't see any value in broken stone tablets.

Hebrews 9 is referring to the Time of Moses. Exodus 16:33-34 says the Pot of Manna was placed before Yahuah and before the Testimony.  That could be consistent with in the same container, The Ark.  Numbers 17:10 says the same about Aaron's Rod.

Deuteronomy 31:25-26 adds a Scroll, presumably the first Torah Scroll, though one that timeline wise wouldn't have included Deuteronomy, into the Ark.  Why would Hebrews 9 leave that out?  Hebrews hardly contradicts more being in there, it's likely the writer was more drawing on verses set at an earlier point in the timeline of the wandering.

2. Was it in The Temple in the days of Hezekiah?

In Kings the last clear reference to The Ark is during the reign of Solomon.   In Chronicles this is also true save one verse from the Reign of Josiah which implies it had already left but that it might be possible to get it back..... More on that later.

But 2 Kings 19:15 is often cited as proof that it was there in the time of Hezekiah, because he "prayed before Yahuah, and said, O Yahuah God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubim".  And they assume this term must always refer to the Cherubim on The Mercy Seat.

But Solomon's Temple had some things The Tabernacle didn't.  One of those was it's own larger pair of Cherubim in the of The Holy of Holies, placed there already before The Ark was brought into it.  This is recorded in 1 Kings 6 starting in verse 23 (The Ark was brought to The Temple in chapter 8) and 2 Chronicles 3 starting in verse 10 (The Ark was brought there in chapter 5).

And it also could just be a poetic title of Yahuah based on his dwelling between the actual living Cherubim in his Heavenly Throne Room.

So it could have been there at that time.  But we have no direct proof it was.

3. Could Shishak have taken it?

Once one accepts there is no proof of it still being there later. It becomes easy to conclude the most logical option is Shishak took it.  The movie Raiders of The Lost Ark is based on this assumption.  And as I said before a belief it could be in Egypt might be key to some End Times deceptions.

On my Revised Chronology blog I talk about Shishak a lot, to some degree I've changed my mind about him over it's history.  In one post (at the time I'm first writing this the most recent on the Shishak tag is dated November 4th 2016 though I've edited it since then) I pointed out overlooked aspects of the Chronicles account that showed no battle was fought, Rehoboam was convinced by a Prophet to willingly hand over tribute.

To me that makes it unlikely The Ark (or anything else in The Holy Place) was removed then, Rehoboam would have stripped The Temple of all the purely decorative Gold.  But they wouldn't have handed over The Ark.  The Prophet's words were obeyed to avoid something that tragic.

4. What do I think of 2 Maccabees?

If that story is true The Ark was hidden in a cave on Mt Sinai/Horeb.  Which I've argued recently could be in Yemen but I'm not going all in on that.  I certainly view it as in Arabia, east of the Gulf of Aqaba.  But I've grown more skeptical of Jabal el Laws.

However I have argued against giving credence to the Deutercanonical books.  So I don't think that's what happened.

5. Where do I think The Ark is?

The Bible tells us, in the Book named for the premise that it is Revealing mysteries to us.  In The Book of Revelation chapter 11, after the 7th Trumpet is sounded in it's very last verse.

And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Now I know the counter argument, "The Tabernacle was modeled after The Temple in Heaven, so this is just what The Ark copied".  But you see what makes The Ark different is it's the one thing that wasn't an exact replica, it's there in place of the Four Living Cherubim.

This is the fate of The Ark being reveled to The World at the time The Beast is setting up his deception which I think may include a counterfeit.  Michael Rood who supports the Ron Wyatt theory I debunked, sees The Ark as possibly relevant to the Covenant of Daniel 9.  If there is an end times significance to the 70th Week, I think he's right but for the wrong reason.

5a. When did it leave Earth for Heaven?

Ezekiel 10 describes when Yahuah's divine presence left Solomon's Temple shortly before the fall to Nebuchadnezzar., and it's been noted how that presence never returned to The Second.  Though The New Testament supports it having some Holy Spirit presence till Pentecost, via John 4.  I think what only The First Temple had was The Word/Logos, while the second had only the Spirit.

The account of it's leaving makes reference to the Cherubim.  Maybe Yahuah took The Ark with him?

6. What about Jeremiah 3:16?

And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith Yahuah, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of Yahuah: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

My Mercy Seat post refuted seeing The Mercy Seat in verse 17.

But I also saw recently someone argue that because no one could enter the Holy of Holies in Ancient Israel, even the beginning of the condition described as ending here hasn't happened yet.  That is a massive abuse of the text, the intent here is clearly to allude to the Pilgrimage Festivals.  Under the New Testament we no longer need to go to Jerusalem or Shiloh or Bethel to observe those Feasts, because now WE are God's Temple and Tabernacle.  Wherever we gather He is there.  So I agree with the face value reading that this means the purpose of the Ark is served, it has one last function when the 7th Trumpet sounds and that is it.

7. Were there two Ark of the Covenants?

The last and most shocking issue I shall cover.

In Exodus it is clear that the first Tablets, which God made directly and which were broken.  Were placed in The Ark made of Gold that has The Mercy Seat as it's lid.  And that Ark was made by Bazael.

Deuteronomy 10 says God had Moses on his own make another Ark of only Wood and place the second set of Tablets inside them.  Some see this as a contradiction and evidence of the Documentary Hypothesis.  But it's perfectly consistent if one considers that God wanted a second humbler Ark to be made for some reason.

The Ark with the Broken Tablets is the only one with a "Mercy Seat". And thus the one associated with the Yom Kippur Sin Offering in Leviticus 16.  That Ark had the broken Tablets, therefor the Atonement in question can be viewed as the Atonement for the breaking of that Covenant.

Deuteronomy 10 is a reference back to when the Second Set of Tablets were first made around Exodus 33-34, so it's not saying this Ark wasn't made till near the end of the wandering.  Interestingly at that same time Exodus describes a separate Tent of Meeting outside the Camp when the Mishkan hasn't been made yet.  Numbers 11 and 12 also seem to refer to this tent outside The Camp.  Could it be a humbler Tabernacle for a humbler Ark?  In 1 Chronicles 17:5 Yahuah says he went from Tent to Tent and from one Mishkan to another.

This Link discuses the possibly of there being more then one Tent of Meeting.

Attempts to figure this mystery out by saying something like the Ark of Yahuah is the Golden one and the Ark of God is the Wooden one won't bear out, both are used interchangeably of the Ark the Philistines captured.  Still 1 Samuel 14:18 says Ark of God, viewing that as the Wooden Ark perhaps works best with how in general the Golden Ark is depicted as never leaving Kirijath-Jearim during this time.

Rabbinic tradition actually says there were two Arks.  Rashi's assessment that the Wooden one was the only one used in battle except when The Philsitines took it as a punishment I'm not sure will bear out. Though it might agree with the theory that the Wooden Ark became the Drum of Thunder of The Lemba tribe.

In my post on Bethel The House of God I attempted to explain why Judges 20:26-27 placed The Ark in Bethel when other passages say it was in Shiloh all that time.  If there were two Arks then we have a possibly simpler answer.  In this passage it is called the Ark of the Covenant of God.

Aven(Also rendered On) and Bethaven are used in The Bible of two locations.  On/Heliopolis in Egypt.  And seemingly a place near Bethel in Joshua 7:2, but also seems to be used as a synonym for Bethel in Hosea and Amos after Bethel became home to Jeroboam's Idol.  Samuel 14:18-23 possibly also links The Ark of God with Bethaven.

I recently argued that Zion, Which is The City of David is Bethlehem, not Jebus as popularly assumed.  One area where my argument gets difficult is the time frame from when David Brings The Ark to Zion after becoming sole ruler, to Solomon placing it is his Temple.  There being Two Arks could solve some of that.

Now I return to that verse from the time of Josiah.  2 Chronicles 35:3.

"Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; it shall not be a burden upon your shoulders: serve now Yahuah your God, and his people Israel"

I notice that he didn't say "did Build for it".  Maybe the Ark in question here was never previously in Solomon's Temple?

I think the Ark of Gold with The Mercy Seat as it's Lid is what had those other objects placed in it.  And that it was kept in The Tabernacle with the other Holy Relics built for The Tabernacle.  And as such it was at Shiloh all through The Judges period, and then got taken by The Philistines and wound up at Kirithjearim.  When it was separate from The Tabernacle of Meeting, the Tabernacle had no Ark while it was at Nob and Gibeon.

I think the Ark of Wood was in Bethel all through the Judges period and still so down into the Reign of Saul and even the start of David's Reign.

During the reigns of David and the start of Solomon's reign I'm not always sure which Ark is where.  He originally brought the Ark from Kirithjearim to Zion.

The Ark of Gold was the one Solomon originally placed in The Temple.  And perhaps the other was placed in the Tabernacle of David in Zion when he moved the Daughter of Pharaoh out of there.  And later that Wooden Ark was the one mentioned in 2 Chronicles 35.

7a. Which one do I think was taken to Heaven?

Very likely both.

If one is still on Earth it's the Wooden lesser one.  But it might have had a Counterfeit Mercy Seat, designed to look like a Throne placed on it.  Maybe it's in Aksum, and had been on Tana Kirikos and at Elephantine.

England and Edessa

On another blog the other day I did a post theorizing that the early traditions of Mary Magdalene going to Ephesus and the later ones taking her to southern France are perhaps explained by the first Christians of Lyon coming from Ephesus.

Since making that, I decided to look into traditions about the early Briton Church again, which as usual lead me to Simon Zelotes, the only one of the Twelve that I think could have come to Britain.  Of other traditions about where he went, I totally reject ones making him the same as Simon the Half Brother of Jesus, or the Simon who was the second Bishop of Jerusalem.  For reasons explained in my post on the Brothers and Sisters of Jesus.  Other aspects of that post may be relevant later.

He's said to have spent some time in Egypt but no claims that Egypt is where he died.  The same Disciple being linked to both Briton and Egypt could be interesting in light of my England and Egypt post.  (My calling this post England and Edsessa is kinda misleading since it's mostly about pre Anglo-Saxon Britons, but I wanted to repeat that previous double E phonetic effect.)

What's most interesting is Simon's link to Edessa, many traditions seem to also pair him with Jude//Thadeus, who is even more strongly linked to Edessa.  The associations with Aremnia and Iberia of the Caucus could have to do with Moses of Khorene treating Agbar of Edessa as part of Armenia's history.  And them being said to go to Persia may have to do with Edessa being a Parthian client kingdom during much of the first century.

The key thing is that as soon as I realized Simon Zelotes who I'd long knew was sometimes said to come to Britannia had also been associated with Edessa.  I immediately thought of how King Abgar the IX and/or X of Edessa is theorized to be who the Liber Pontificals actually meant by King Lucius of Britain.

This is more complicated then the Ephesus to Lyon connection for three reasons.

1. That a group of Christians came to Lyon from Ephesus in the Second Century is a known fact independent of thinking the development of traditions about Mary Magdelene had anything to do with it.  While here I admittedly have little to go on to prove anyone ever came from Edessa/Osroene to Britain during the time frame in question.

2. I don't necessarily think this migration is the sole or even primary origin of Briton Christianity, as the Ephesus to Lyon connection seems to be.  Tertulian and I think also Irenaus have quotes showing Christians were in Britain already before the time of Abgar IX.  And I still think Aristobulus of Romans 16 came to Britain as there are no alternate traditions for him.

3. Simon Zelotes like all of the Twelve I think did more traveling around then Mary Magdalene did, who traditions take only to Ephesus and much later France.  So maybe he individually did go to both places, (especially since he's said to have come to Britannia twice, in the early 40s and in 60), while I'm certain Mary was never actually in France.  But there are some reasons in the New Testament to think the Twelve went mainly to places with a very strong Jewish presence, which Edessa had in the first century, but Britannia did not.  Acts 2:9-11 mentions Mesopotamians and Arabians (Osroene was an Arabian kingdom in Mesopotamia) present at Pentecost, but not Britain or Gaul.  I think Paul lead the way West while the Twelve focused mainly on the East (I've already shown that Peter didn't go to Rome). I'm interested in theories of Paul coming to Britain but haven't looked that deep into it yet, the main book on it is pretty expensive.

Much of ancient Osroene was in modern Syria (but all of it East/North of the Euphrates).  But it had chunks of Iraq and modern Turkey, including Edessa itself and the city possibly responsible for the Lucius in Britain scribal Error, Birtha aka Birecik.

Bede added to the Lucius of Britain story that under him the whole country converted and remained Christian at least until the Diocletian Persecution. Elsewhere that persecution is not known to have had any notable incidents in Britain, in fact it seems it wasn't enforced in The West much at all.  But major focal points of much of it were in Turkey and in the East.  Logically, this may have been a time when many Christians in the East migrated West.

Another figure controversially associated with both Turkey and Britain is Empress Helena, but in this case it's her beginning not end that is being disputed.  The source for her being born in Nicodemia is not till the 6th Century, and seems to be based on her and Constantine's later connections to Nicodemia.  So I'm inclined to doubt she was born there.  But the problem with the much later traditions of her being born a Briton princess is that Constantius Chlorus didn't come to Britain until within a year before he died there and Constantine was already an adult.

I think maybe an overlooked clue to Helena's origin is her name.  Before her the only royal families Helena would have been a dynastic name for are Osroene and Adiabene, who intermarried with each other.  Helen of Adiabene married Abgar V of Edessa after her first husband died.  I think the two later kings of Osroene called Bar Ezad were sons of Helena's son Izates II of Adiabene probably by a daughter of Abgar.  So just as mythical Welsh genealogies make Empress Helena a descendant of Lucius of Britain, I think she may really have been a descendant of Lucius Abgar of Birecik.

Regardless of Constantine's ancestry, his descendants I think include many monarchs of the British Isles right down to the present.... but first.

Both the other wife of Constantius, and the only wife of Constanine who is ancestral to his successors, Fausta, were daughters of Eutropia.  A woman of seemingly noble origin in Roman Syria.  And so I think very likely to descend from the Near Eastern Roman aristocracy that descended from Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene and thus from the Seleucid Dynasty.  And also from daughters of the Ptolemaic Dynasty like Cleopatra Thea, Tryphenea and Cleopatra Selene.  So this post is again further backing for making British Royalty descendants of Egyptian Royalty.

Flavia Maxima Constantia, was a granddaughter of Constantine, and a descendant of both daughters of Eutropia.  She married the Western Emperor Gratian.  They are in mainstream history presumed to have had no children, but they were married for long enough, and there's a lot of time that Constantia isn't mentioned.  How she died at only 21 max isn't known, maybe she died in child birth.  If Gratian had any "legitimate" children it was by her, he died before he could even have consummated his second marriage.

Welsh traditions say that Magnus Maximus was married to a daughter of Gratian named either Helena or Ellen.  Welsh genealogies sometimes say he had two wives, one named Helena and one Ellen, one a daughter of Gratian and the other of a mysterious Eudaf.  Eudaf is a name used in other welsh texts to refer to Octavian Caesar Augustus, whether the name actually comes from Octavian or Augustus is hard to tell, but this is why the Eudaf who is a father in law of Maximus is sometimes given as a King Octavius of Britain.  Gratian's full name as Emperor was Flavius Gratainus Augustus, so I think his daughter was the only wife of Magnus Maximus.

Welsh genealogies put Magnus Maximus in the ancestry of a lot of people.  There may be a route to put him in the ancestry of the Kings of Gwynedd from whom came the Medieval princes of Wales from whom came The Tudors.  But I want to focus on the Scottish connection here.

Rigrawst was the wife of King Brychan of Brycheiniog.  Born 468 AD, she was the daughter of Gwrtheyrn ap Gwidol (Vortigern) and Severa Ferch Mascsen, the daughter of Magnus Maximus. [ Brian Daniel Starr, The Life of Saint Brychan: King of Brycheiniog and Family (Google eBook) (Brian Daniel Starr, 2008) page 59.]  Brychan himself may through his mother descended from Maximus's daughter Gratiana who is said to have married Tudwall of Galloway.

Dyfnwal Hen was a King of Strathclyde.  The Bonedd Gwŷr y Gogledd, a later genealogy of northern kings gives a modified version of Dyfnwal's family tree.^{[Bromwich, pp. 256–257]} Here, he is the son of Idnyued and the grandson of Magnus Maximus.  There are also genealogies making Dyfnwal an ancestor of Gabran mac Domangairt, father of Aeden mac Gabran, from whom descends most later royalty of Scotland, from Malcolm and Duncan of Macbeth (and possibly Macbeth himself) down to the Davids and Alexanders, then to Robert The Bruce (through his great grandmother Isobel of Huntingdon) and eventually the Stuarts including James I ancestor of all Kings of Britain since.  Brychan I've also seen listed as an ancestor of Gabran.  Malcom III of Scotland also had a daughter who was the mother of Empress Matilda and thus Grandmother of the Plantagenet Kings of England, another Daughter of Malcolm's was Mary who married Eustace III of Boulogne.

I did a post in the past on Adiabene where I theorized that Izates II or Monobaz II or both could have married Half-Sisters of Jesus.  I also have a post on Arthruain Legend and Grail Romances where I draw on that post and my Half Brothers of Jesus post and theorize that King Kalafes of Grail Legend may be based on Abgar of Edessa.  And maybe Bron was actually Izatez or Monobaz.  A daughter of Kalafes married a son of Bron who inherited his Kingdom.  I've already suggested that the Davidic Exilarchs of the Jewish Community in Mesopotamia could also descent from Abgar and Izates.  And also the Bagratid Dynasty. 

I don't think Joseph of Arimathea actually came to Britain.  But some things about the Grail legend are geographically contradictory.  For example Sarras is said to be both an island they stopped at on the way to Britain and "on the road from Jerusalem to the Euphrates and Babylon", which makes me wonder if it could be meant to be Sura, which was linked by a roman road to Palmyra in antiquity.

If Josephus is correct that the Tadmor of Solomon was Palmyra, then maybe it's allegorically what the Grail lore meant by the "Ship of Solomon", while also bringing in Celtic Pagan ideas.  When Wikipedia attempts to cast doubt on this identification, it says the Tadmor of 1 Kings 9:18 was built in Judea, that is demonstrably wrong because that verse clearly says Tadmor and Baalath were built "In the Wilderness" a term that refers to the deserts of Arabia, Jordan and Syria.  The "in the Land" phrase just means within what was was promised to Abraham which extended all the way to the Euphrates.  We know from Assyrian inscriptions that Palmyra was called Tadmor/Tadmar.

According to the Vulgate Queste del Saint Graal and Estoire del Saint Graal, Galahad is of the Lineage of Solomon via his descent from the Fisher Kings, and that is why the "Ship of Solomon" is important.  The Grail saga ends with Galahad and the Grail being taken to heaven at Sarras, and then Sir Bors lives on to tell the tale.

If Sarras is Sura then Corbenic could be identified with a city of Osroene or Adiabene.  And Castle Mortal would be another city of the same area.

The traditional timeline for King Arthur is 516-537 based on the Annals Cambrie, but Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Brute Tyslo place his death in 542.  The Exilarch at that time was Mar Ahunai, but he never operated publicly due to the fall out of his predecessor Mar Zutra II's failed rebellion (496-502 AD).  Mar Zutra II also had a son, Mar Zutra III, who became head of an academy.

The Bagratid descent would at this time be represented by the father, or grandfather or maybe even great-grandfather of Guaram I, the first Prince of Iberia.  This Guaram was the son of a Solomon son of Dahn son of Isaac son of Aser.

But perhaps the real forgotten inspiration for this was that via Empress Helena the descendants of the Agbars of Edessa becomes kings in the British Isles.

Update Nov 16 2018: Pelegius and the East.

Pulegius of the Pelegian heresy was a Briton, he lived in the late 4th and early 5th Century.  What's often over looked is how connected the Pelegian Hersey (which is today Amriniasm)  and the Nestorian controversy were.  Pelegius got a lot of his ideas from Rufinus the Syrian, and Celestine was a follower of Pelegius who's association with Nestorius was used against him by Cyril of Alexandria.

However the key difference between the Pelegians of the Latin West and the Nesotrians & other descendants of the Antiochene School in the East was that Pelegius seems to have rejected Universal Salvation while Theodore of Mopsuestia affirmed it, as did Isaac of Nineveh.  Nisibis and Edessa both specifically become home to successor schools to Antioch.

This article isn't mine but seems to be by people who support the Augustinian view of Original Sin way more then I do, interesting information comes up in the comments section as well.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/09/05/original-sin-and-ephesus-carthages-influence-on-the-east/

A post I made on Cyril and Nestorius.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-incarnation-of-logos-and-divine.html

And one I made on Pelegius.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/04/pelagius-was-in-error-but-it-wasnt-free.html

The False doctrine of Two Adams

I've talked about the Gap Theory before on this Blog.  Starting with my Fall of Satan post.  Where I discussed it's ancient's precedents.  But the key difference between the Ancient and Medieval versions, and the more Pseudo-Scientific version that emerged in the late 18th Century.  Is where the Gap is.

The idea of a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 you won't find in any pre-modern concepts.  Instead the Gap was usually placed between Genesis 2:3 and 2:4.  It's tied to the idea that the Adam of Genesis 1 and the Adam of Genesis 2 were not the same Adam.

Sometimes there is an attempt to gain New Testament support for such a doctrine by quoting when Paul called Jesus the Last Adam, saying the first Adam created was the last to enter our world.  However Paul was just talking about typology here, Jesus is another Adam because as in Adam all die, so in Jesus all shall live again.

In Kaballah and Gnosticism and other mystical traditions.  The Genesis 1 Adam is often called something like Adam Kadmon.  He might be a sort of Cosmic Man, or an ancestor of the gods like Izanagi.  Philo of Alexandria linked Adam Kadmon to the Logos.  But there may also be versions where he's just the progenitor of what we would now call a Pre-Adamic race.  Adam Kadmon is also sometimes defined as being the pre-incarnate Messiah.

There are two main philosophical ideas that are important to understanding the Creation of Adam, being made in God's Image, and being made from the Dust of the Earth.  But when you make the Adam of Genesis 1 and the Adam of Genesis 2 separate, those two ideas no longer refer to the same creation.  Genesis 1's Adam is the Image of God, and Genesis 2's is made from the dust of the earth, with the word for earth being Adamah.  This is how the Genesis 1 Adam can become a Cosmic Man, or tie into a Platonic idea that our world is just in inferior replication of a Spiritual realm.

This two Adam theology can also be analogized to Egyptian mythology.  Where the Genesis 1 Adam could be identified with Atum, who's name has a phonetic similarity to Adam, and who has some Cosmic Man traits with the Sun being one of his eyes.  And every soul was believed to come from his Ka.  While the Genesis 2 Adam could be identified with Geb/Keb/Seb, who's name has a similar meaning to Adam, Earth.  And who had a son named Seth and another son who was murdered by his brother.

Today the standard Young Earth Creationist approach to explaining how the allegedly separate Creation accounts fit together is to call Genesis 2 starting in verse 4 a more detailed account of part of what happened on day 6.  I kind of lean toward that still, but have considered that the day refereed to in Genesis 2:4 could be the Eight Day.   But I will never consider any compromise that has death before Adam Sinned in Genesis 3.

This dual Adam theory can also play a role in false belief systems where Jesus does have a Pre-Existence but is a created being, like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Origen.  It may not always be brought up in such systems, but the door is there to say that the Genesis 1 Adam is Jesus.  And that's the main reason I'm uncomfortable with making Genesis 2 the eight day, because it leaves that door open.  But I would never use that Adam was created "male and female" in Genesis 1 as an argument against that, since I have argued Jesus has a Feminine aspect.

Yet on the other hand I tend to oppose the Pre-Exstence of Human Souls in general as much as I support the Pre-Existence of Jesus.  So I also wouldn't like saying Genesis 1 was the creation of Adams' Soul and Genesis 2 of his body.  That can also lead to Gnosticism.  So that's a second reason to not go with the 8th Day theory.

The idea that Genesis 2 starting in verse 4 is the Eight Day of creation, is one I'd consider only in the context of how that might fit Traducianism. The view that Adam's was the only Soul/Spirit directly Created by God from scratch, just as obviously his Body was the only one directly created by God from scratch.  And that other souls are formed from the Souls of their parents, just as their bodies are, basically that Souls reproduce like bodies do.  And Eve was cloned from Adam.  A view I'm kind of leaning towards at the moment.

When studying these issues you'll find the word "Creationism" used with a different meaning, referring not to belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.  But to belief that each individual Soul/Spirit is directly created by God from scratch at the conception or birth (or somewhere in-between) of every individual person.

But either way, Jesus individual Pre-Existence is because He is God, it's part of how He's distinct from other humans.  In John 1 The Word created everything, while in Genesis 1 Adam was the last thing created on Day Six.

I want now however to address those who think viewing most of Genesis 2 as more details on Day Six is somehow an absurd torturing of the text.

It makes sense when you understand that Genesis was mostly much earlier accounts edited together by Moses.  Genesis 25 records the Death and Burial of Abraham before the births of Jacob and Esau, even though the timeline based on math from this same chapter tells use they were born before before Abraham died.  Genesis isn't always strictly chronological.

Genesis 2:4 says "These are the generations of the Heavens and the Earth".  Occurrences in Genesis of "These are the generation of..." are often taken to indicate a change in the Pre-Mosiac source text, though I think they may not quite account for all of them.  There seems to be disagreement on if these verses should mark the end of the previous section or beginning of the next section.  Either way, we have one right here where it should be.

If you want to consider how these doctrines might play a role in the End Times deception.  The Two Beasts of Revelation may be an attempt to echo two Adams.  The second Beast comes from the Earth, and then gives life to the Image of the first Beast.  Either way, I have already considered how The Image of the Beast doctrine could tie into an attempt to make "The Antichrist" a counterfeit "Last Adam".  In my Which Beast is actually in control post, and my Can Sunday Worship be the Mark of the Beast post, where I explain that if you want to tie the Mark to a day of the Week, it should be the Sixth Day not the first.

Update December 7th 2017: The Image of God

In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul calls Christ the "Image of God".  That is an aspect of the Jesus as Genesis 1 Adam argument I wasn't aware of before.  And now it's enough to totally recalibrate how open I am to it.  And he says it again in Colossians 1:15.

However, Genesis 9:6 uses the phrase "Image of God" for the Adam who's blood is shed when you commit murder.  So that ties that title to the same Adam we descend from.  So what Paul is talking about is probably still just in the context of Jesus as the Son of Adam.

Update August 10th 2018: Genesis 5 also makes it difficult to separate the Genesis 1 Adam and Genesis 2 Adam.

And Psalm 8 clearly talks about the Dominion given to Adam in Genesis 1 and attributes it to Enosh Ben Adam from Genesis 4 and 5.