Charles Ryrie and Dispensational Confusion

Azeke

Junior Member
Oct 24, 2007
53
0
✟8,673.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The hope of the period shows it to be all prophetic kingdom! the Christ within was the mystery that Jesus spoke of as the kingdom within that comes without observation, the temple of the human body that Paul also teaches on in the Acts period, speaking none other than the things that the prophets, and Moses said should come.
 
Upvote 0

mark273

Member
Apr 18, 2012
216
0
✟7,947.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Where do you find anyone before Paul ever teaching that a person is saved by grace?

You seem to believe that unless the word "grace" is used, then grace has not been proclaimed. That is a strange requirement. As you have said, anytime God saves anyone it is by grace. Anytime in the Bible when someone talks about how God saves people and what they need to do to be saved, it is always by grace. You believe that. I don't need to tell you that. So anytime God offers to save someone in the Bible and tells them about it, he is talking about being saved by grace. So of course people before Paul taught that salvation was by grace. There can never be another way.

I never said that Paul was the first to preach to the Gentiles. The gospel which Peter preached to the Jews was the same one which was preached to the Jews (see Acts 10:37). At Galatians 1 Paul speaks of the gospel which he preached to those in the churches which he founded and he says that he received that gospel from the Lord Jesus for the express purpose to preach it among the Gentiles:

[/INDENT]Paul called the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles "the preaching of the Cross" and Peter's semon on the day of Pentecost will be searched in vain for any mention of the "purpose" of the lord Jesus' death upon the Cross or any mention of the "word of reconciliation."

If Peter was given the commission to preach the "word of reconciliation" and the fact that "Christ died for our sins" at Pentecost then why didn't he?

In Peter's sermon he told them who Jesus is, what they had done wrong, and how they might be reconciled to God. We don't know what other words he said. He did not specifically say that Jesus died for our/their sins. He did not specifically mention the word "reconciliation". But that word is also not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

So I guess Paul once again is in error when he says in Romans 10:

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Paul is talking about the gospel which he preaches and which people believe in order to be saved. Here the focus is on the resurrection with no mention of the death of Christ. To me it is better to say that it is all important. But that no single telling can say it all. Conversion is not about information, it is about reconciliation of a relationship. We come to a person and grow in our understanding of that person and that relationship. Jesus is the good news.
 
Upvote 0

JerryShugart

Senior Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,106
20
77
✟1,370.00
Faith
Christian
You seem to believe that unless the word "grace" is used, then grace has not been proclaimed. That is a strange requirement.
I do not know about you, but I certainly knew of the teaching that Christ died and was resurrected and was Israel´s Messiah and the Son of God. However, I did not understand that anyone was saved by grace and the source of that grace until I understood what Paul wrote here:
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).
It is a fact that those who heard Paul preach the gospel of grace KNEW that they were saved by grace (Col.1:6) but you have given no evidence that those who heard Peter preach on the day Of Pentecost were aware that salvation came by grace, much less the source of that grace.
So I guess Paul once again is in error when he says in Romans 10:
Paul´s words there were addressed to those who were already saved.
So of course people before Paul taught that salvation was by grace.
If that is true then give me just one example of anyone doing that BEFORE Paul. At Galatians 1 Paul speaks of the gospel which he preached to those in the churches which he founded and he says that he received that gospel from the Lord Jesus for the express purpose to preach it among the Gentiles:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles" (Gal.1:11-12; 15-16).
We can understand that the gospel of which Paul is speaking is strictly for the Gentiles by his remarks later in the same epistle:
"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal.2:2).
If there were only "one" gospel then there would be absolutely no reason to specify that the gospel that he is speaking of is the one "which I preach among the Gentiles."

If the gospel he preached among the Gentiles was the same gospel which he preached among the Jews then why would he need to go to Jerusalem in order to consider its relationship to the gospel which he had preached earlier in the company of some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29)? Of course there would be no reason for him to do that if the gospel which he earlier preached with other apostles was the same one that he was preaching to the Gentiles.

Perhaps this time yu will actually address what I said about this.

In His grace,

Jerry
 
Upvote 0

mark273

Member
Apr 18, 2012
216
0
✟7,947.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
"If the gospel he preached among the Gentiles was the same gospel which he preached among the Jews then why would he need to go to Jerusalem in order to consider its relationship to the gospel which he had preached earlier in the company of some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29)? Of course there would be no reason for him to do that if the gospel which he earlier preached with other apostles was the same one that he was preaching to the Gentiles.

He did not go to Jerusalem to address the relationship between his gospel and theirs, but as to the question of whether the gentiles had to follow the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. Peter's gospel that he was preaching in Acts 2 and 3 said nothing about following the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. When they taught the Samaritans in Acts 8 there was nothing about keeping the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. Peter said that at the beginning they simply believed in Jesus.

Now why don't you address Romans 10:9-10 where Paul states his gospel in the most gospel oriented book in his letters and doesn't mention the death of Christ or why he died.
 
Upvote 0

JerryShugart

Senior Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,106
20
77
✟1,370.00
Faith
Christian
He did not go to Jerusalem to address the relationship between his gospel and theirs, but as to the question of whether the gentiles had to follow the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus.
Here is one of the things which Paul did when he went to Jerusalem:

Galatians 2:2: "It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain."

If the gospel he preached among the Gentiles was the same gospel which he preached among the Jews then why would he submit that gospel to the other Apostles since all of them already knew the contents of the gospel which he had preached earlier in the company of some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29)? Of course there would be no reason for him to do that if the gospel which he earlier preached with other apostles was the same one that he was preaching to the Gentiles.
gospel that he was preaching in Acts 2 and 3 said nothing about following the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus.
I never said that it did. On the other hand, the church at Jerusalem did continue to be zealous of the Law (Acts 21:20).
they taught the Samaritans in Acts 8 there was nothing about keeping the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. Peter said that at the beginning they simply believed in Jesus.
Again, I never said that following the Law had anything to do with receiving salvation.
why don't you address Romans 10:9-10 where Paul states his gospel in the most gospel oriented book in his letters and doesn't mention the death of Christ or why he died.
Where did Peter ever preach that on the day of Pentecost? Of course here Paul refers to the death of Christ because he says the following:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Ro.10:9).​

Do you deny that some were being saved when they believed the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son Of God (see 1 John 5:1-5)?

Do you deny that some were saved when they believed the "good news" that Christ died for our sins?

If your answer is "yes" then you should realize that some men were saved by the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, while others were saved by the "good news" that Christ died for our sins.

Since the word "gospel" means "good news" then it is evident that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period because some men were saved by believing a gospel while others were saved when they believed another gospel.

In His grace,

Jerry
 
Upvote 0

Danoh

Newbie
Oct 11, 2011
3,064
310
✟40,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
He did not go to Jerusalem to address the relationship between his gospel and theirs, but as to the question of whether the gentiles had to follow the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. Peter's gospel that he was preaching in Acts 2 and 3 said nothing about following the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. When they taught the Samaritans in Acts 8 there was nothing about keeping the Mosaic law in addition to believing in Jesus. Peter said that at the beginning they simply believed in Jesus.

Now why don't you address Romans 10:9-10 where Paul states his gospel in the most gospel oriented book in his letters and doesn't mention the death of Christ or why he died.

Paul declares to the Galatians, confused as they now were, having allowed someone to put them under the Law, that he went up to Jerusamlem - by revelation, by the way - and that, to communicate unto them that had been pillars, at Jerusalem, that gospel which he preached among the Gentiles.

It is apparant, both from the passages Jerry has cited, as well as from Acts 10, and 11, and 15, etc., that the assembly at Jerusalem - "the circumcision which believed" - were to, and had, per God's Covenant with the House of Israel," remained under the Law.

Not for righteousness, but, as with us, without the Law, because of Christ's righteousness, Rom. 8:10.

Said righteousness of which -Christ having also fulfilled all the righteousness which is of Israel's Law under Moses - is the very basis, in their gospel, for how Israel will be able to keep the Law, in the kingdom said Law will go forth out of.

The issues confused are sometimes between the gospel of their salvation and its santification - its functional life - and ours - and that, because Christ is the foundation of both.


Danoh
Eph. 4:16
 
Upvote 0

mark273

Member
Apr 18, 2012
216
0
✟7,947.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Where did Peter ever preach that on the day of Pentecost? Of course here Paul refers to the death of Christ because he says the following:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Ro.10:9).​

Do you deny that some were being saved when they believed the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son Of God (see 1 John 5:1-5)?

Do you deny that some were saved when they believed the "good news" that Christ died for our sins?

If your answer is "yes" then you should realize that some men were saved by the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, while others were saved by the "good news" that Christ died for our sins.

Since the word "gospel" means "good news" then it is evident that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period because some men were saved by believing a gospel while others were saved when they believed another gospel.

In all of these words you continue to assert that there are/were two gospels with no evidence. You did not deal with Romans 10:9-10. Peter did preach what Paul said there, that the people needed to repent and accept Christ as the messiah. Your key thing was that Paul's gospel always contains the message of Christ's death and our need to believe that he died for our sins.

This exercise has been instructive but I am ready to get off the bus. You and Danoh have convinced me that mid-Acts dispensationalism has no Biblical foundation whatsoever. It has been interesting, but having just finished teaching one modular class I will begin teaching another on Monday, and I need to focus more on that than on this. So thanks. I feel like I have benefited from the sharpening and clarifying, although I have probably not been as helpful to any of you. May the Lord bless.

Mark
 
Upvote 0

JerryShugart

Senior Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,106
20
77
✟1,370.00
Faith
Christian
You and Danoh have convinced me that mid-Acts dispensationalism has no Biblical foundation whatsoever.
Of course you just ignored what I said about some being saved by the"good news" that the Lord Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (1 Jn.5:1-5) while other people were saved by the "good news" that Christ died for our sins.

Common sense dictates that the "good news" in both instances were different gospel messages so therefore it follows that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.

I can understand why you want no part of this argument.

At the same time I wish you the best in all of your service for the Lord.

In His grace,

Jerry
 
Upvote 0

Danoh

Newbie
Oct 11, 2011
3,064
310
✟40,528.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Of course you just ignored what I said about some being saved by the"good news" that the Lord Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (1 Jn.5:1-5) while other people were saved by the "good news" that Christ died for our sins.

Common sense dictates that the "good news" in both instances were different gospel messages so therefore it follows that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.

I can understand why you want no part of this argument.

At the same time I wish you the best in all of your service for the Lord.

In His grace,

Jerry

It might be "common sense" from within our collective - the Mid-Acts Perspective.

And that is partly the issue.

In the sense that, common sense is ever dependent upon what is considered, or defined, as common sense within any particular group's perspective as to how things work.

Outside our camp it sounds to others as if we are saying that two things which - to them, given their perspective - declare one and the same thing - the very two things which, to us, given our perspective, are not one and the same.

That's a fascinating thing about these things - in order to see them, you have to believe them. Something which these back and forth debates may not resolve as they tend to be on subjects at the expense of the overall foundation from which they need to be considered to begin with.

In the presence of mine enemies, wrote the Psalmst "I had fainted, unless I had believed to see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living," Psalm 27:13.

Moses and all the prophets had preached "the faith" - concerning the grace that would come upon Israel through one unto like their brethren.

John the Baptist preached the faith - that the Christ that Moses had preached would come to Israel - the Christ - was now in their midst.

He [Jesus] preached the faith - that He was the one Moses had written of.

Peter preached the faith - that He whom they had crucified had been the Christ. And that, He had risen - repent ye therefore, Israel, of having crucified Him, and when He returns He won't have cut you off out of His Kingdom.

All were speaking of the restoration of Israel's Earthly - then, and now - defiled - Kingdom, ths the need to gather out of said Kingdom all that offend.

None of that is the faith Paul preached - not only as to a gathering up, but from where - the earth - to where - an undefiled Heaven.

As a result, even Jewish and Islamic scholars, as blind as they are, at the same time, because they have not been bound down by the centuries of tradition that its non-Pauline Christians continue to both hold to and hand down as "the faith," over the Mystery that Paul alone preached, see the obvious gap between Peter and Paul's gospel. Which is why said scholars, in their own version of the ignorance Paul warned against in Romans 11:25-27 - which warning the Church both ignored and continues to ignore -conlcude Paul, not only the founder of Christianity, but a liar.

Even outside of that frame of reference, common sense, as Jerry has noted, dictates considering the above, at the very least, in light of Scripture, that the foundation - the faith - "the fellowship of the mystery" Paul alone had preached, believed through the Word, begin to be seen.

Danoh
Eph. 4:16
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
777
✟97,665.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think that what is meant is that it was Paul who first received these doctrines from God. Then through Paul the other Twelve learned these truths.

Jerry
Then That would make Paul a false prophet, or make Jesus a liar. Jesus is "the Last Word" from God, and brought no new formerly unwritten doctrines but came to fulfill what was already written by all the prophets from the beginning of creation and to reveal what was hidden in them, from the beginning, about Himself.


Paul received no new doctrines but had revelations of what was already written, which is the pattern for every believer and what
Paul also desired they would have.
The Church -the City of God/Mount Zion/Jerusalem above is not built on Paul, but on Jesus Christ the Chief Cornerstone and his chosen eyewitness, twelve Apostles
Paul was too late to be a foundation or an eyewitness, but Barnabas and John Mark and Luke taught him everything Jesus said and did, which the Holy Spirit confirmed to his heart and opened the understanding of them from the written, living oracles.

The Church in heaven above -New Jerusalem/Zion/The mother of all born again in Christ believers,-has twelve foundation stones:

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these;
Simon, who is called Peter,
Andrew
James [the son] of Zebedee,
John Philip,
Bartholomew;
Thomas,
Matthew the publican;
James [the son] of Alphaeus,
Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus
Simon the Canaanite
Matthias

These twelve are the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and Gospel.
Paul was just one of a long line of apostles set in the Church by the Holy Spirit, along with pastors and teachers, etc. Barnabas was called with Paul to be an apostle to the Gentiles, and there were many named in the NT as apostles of Jesus' Christ -even a woman named Junia; but there are only twelve eyewitness foundational Apostles of the New Jerusalem, which has twelve gates named after the twelve tribes of Israel, also, and that New Jerusalem is the City of God above.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,493
27,114
74
Lousianna
✟1,001,611.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I have often heard the name Charles Ryrie, but I have never heard him mentioned as the authoritative voice on the subject. There can be no doubt that he is the best known modern teacher on the subject. But if you really want to understand dispensationalism, read the books written in the nineteenth century by J. N. Darby and his close associate, William Kelly.

I studied under Dr. Ryrie. He was an excellent writer and for his era was as clear on the topic as ant and was the most cited classic dispensationsalist. Darby and Kelley are also highly regarded proponents of dispensationalism in the era prior to Ryrie, Walvoord and Pentecost.

Hal Lindsey's books launched a popular revival of the view, but Ryrie, Walvoord and Pentecost were the most referenced theologians of the post 1970s.

I had Walvoord for eschatology. He was encyclopedic in his knowledge.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I studied under Dr. Ryrie. He was an excellent writer and for his era was as clear on the topic as ant and was the most cited classic dispensationsalist. Darby and Kelley are also highly regarded proponents of dispensationalism in the era prior to Ryrie, Walvoord and Pentecost.

Hal Lindsey's books launched a popular revival of the view, but Ryrie, Walvoord and Pentecost were the most referenced theologians of the post 1970s.

I had Walvoord for eschatology. He was encyclopedic in his knowledge.

Walvord closely followed Pentecost, and Pentecost sort of followed the classic dispensationalists, but made certain "corrections." Unfortunately, his "corrections" were not corrections at all, but errors.

His erroneous conclusions led him to completely miss the one end time individual that is mentioned in more prophetic passages than any other, namely, "the Assyrian." Since all famous teachers since his time have followed his scenario, not even one of them has even noticed the many explicitly stated end time prophecies about "the Assyrian." This, unfortunately, has included both Walvord and Ryrie.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
"The Assyrian" sounds like a Dexter villain.

I have no idea what a "Dexter villain" is, But "the Assyrian" is all over Old Testament prophecy, and in very explicit statements. I am frankly dumbfounded that anyone could miss him without simply assuming that all the prophecies spoke only of Sennacherib. But Sennacherib unquestionably did not fulfill many of them.

If you are interested, I will post a review of these many explicitly stated prophecies, so you can consider them for yourself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Sure, sounds interesting.

One of the best known prophecies in all of scripture is Micah 5:2.; “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.” This prophecy is so well known because it is part of the so-called Christmas story. When the “wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.’” Then “Herod the king” “gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people” and “inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.” In answer they quoted Micah 5:2. (Matthew 2:1-6)

But it seems amazing that so few prophetic scholars are aware of the rest of this prophecy. In the context of this verse we read:

“Now gather yourself in troops, O daughter of troops; He has laid siege against us; They will strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek. ‘But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.’ Therefore He shall give them up, Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth; Then the remnant of His brethren Shall return to the children of Israel. (Micah 5:1-3) Before we read of where Christ was to be born, we read that “they will strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek” (verse 1) Then, in verse 3, we read that “Therefore He shall give them up.” So this Old Testament prophecy clearly foretold the rejection of Christ by Judah, and of its consequence; the rejection of Judah by their God. But it also defined how long this rejection of Judah will last. It will last, “Until the time that she who is in labor has given birth.” (verse 3)

This is an obvious reference to the last chapter of Isaiah, where we read,

“Before she was in labor, she gave birth; Before her pain came, She delivered a male child. Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion was in labor, She gave birth to her children.” (Isaiah 66:7-8)

After “she who is in labor has given birth,” “Then the remnant of His brethren Shall return to the children of Israel.” (Micah 5:3) From this we see that the subject matter of this prophecy extends all the way from the birth and rejection of Christ to the future time of restoration for Israel. Indeed, the next verse of Micah 5 speaks of the majesty and greatness of the time when Judah’s rejection has ended, saying, “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. And this One shall be peace.” (Micah 5:4-5) But this is followed by a passage that almost no one seems to have noticed. I can personally testify that I knew of this passage long before I even began to realize its significance.

“When the Assyrian comes into our land, And when he treads in our palaces, Then we will raise against him Seven shepherds and eight princely men. They shall waste with the sword the land of Assyria, And the land of Nimrod at its entrances; Thus He shall deliver us from the Assyrian, When he comes into our land And when he treads within our borders.” (Micah 5:5-6)

This passage should cause every serious student of Bible prophecy to sit up and take notice. Here we have a very simple statement of coming events. There is nothing in it that is hard to understand. Nothing in it requires deep interpretation.1 But there is no way to even imagine that it has been fulfilled. This prophecy clearly refers to the future, but is totally missed in every system of prophetic interpretation that is widely accepted today. Something is clearly wrong.

Who is this person called “the Assyrian”? There are a number of prophecies about him. But like this one, they are almost universally missed. I believe this is because almost everyone assumes they only refer to Sennacherib, the Assyrian king who attacked Judea in the time of Hezekiah. But Micah 5:5-6 cannot refer to Sennacherib.

In 2 Kings 18:14-16, Hezekiah surrendered to Sennacherib. In the following chapter, (2 Kings 19) Sennacherib sent his army to Jerusalem anyway, under a commander called “the Rabshakeh.” Hezekiah sent a message to Isaiah, saying, “This day is a day of trouble, and rebuke, and blasphemy; for the children have come to birth, but there is no strength to bring them forth.” (2 Kings 19:3) We thus see that Hezekiah had no strength to resist the mighty Assyrian army, much less “seven shepherds, and eight principal men.” And neither Judah nor Israel has ever invaded Assyria.

Sennacherib attacked Judah during the righteous reign of king Hezekiah, who “trusted in the LORD God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him. For he held fast to the LORD; he did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the LORD had commanded Moses.” (2 Kings 18:5-6) Nor was it only Hezekiah that was faithful, for “Also the hand of God was on Judah to give them singleness of heart to obey the command of the king and the leaders, at the word of the LORD.” (2 Chronicles 30:12) But “after these deeds of faithfulness, Sennacherib king of Assyria came and entered Judah; he encamped against the fortified cities, thinking to win them over to himself.” (2 Chronicles 32:1) Hezekiah cried out to the Lord, who answered him, “I will defend this city, to save it For My own sake and for My servant David's sake.” (Isaiah 37:35)

But in Isaiah 10:6, the Lord says of the king of Assyria that “I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets.” 2

Both Hezekiah and his people had been righteous and the Lord promised to save them from Sennacherib. But in the day described in Isaiah 10 the nation will have been ungodly and He will send Assyria to punish them. The first Assyrian was an enemy of God, while the second will actually be His agent.

But this latter day Assyrian does not intend to serve God, “nor does his heart think so.” (Isaiah 10:7) He will therefore be punished “when the LORD has performed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem.” (verse 12) This clearly refers to the future, for the Lord's “work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem” will not be finished until all prophecy concerning them has been fulfilled. Again, we read in the twentieth verse of this chapter, “And it shall come to pass in that day that the remnant of Israel, And such as have escaped of the house of Jacob, Will never again depend on him who defeated them, But will depend on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.” This is a clear reference to the last days, for even up to our own time Israel has still not learned to “depend on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.”

1 The only way to make this prophecy difficult to interpret is to question the translation. But about 80% of all English translations render these two verses essentially as above. The Hebrew word translated when in this passage is kiy. (Strong’s transliteration - word number 3588 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary) In certain contexts, this word can also be translated if or should. This alternate translation is favored by some who find it inconceivable that a future Assyrian will again come “into our land” and tread “in our palaces” or “within our borders.” They interpret this statement as a boast in what Messiah would do if such a thing were to happen. But if this were the Holy Spirit’s meaning in these words, this would be the only place in the entire Bible where He even suggested such a concept. If, on the other hand, the intended meaning is that this will happen, this is only one of a number of similar prophecies. This article examines many unfulfilled details in the prophecies about an Assyrian invasion. Since these details have not been fulfilled, the prophecies containing them remain to be fulfilled to the future.

2 Some might think this refers to Assyria’s successful attack on Israel, but verse in 11 this evil king says, “Shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols?” This shows that at the time referred to in this prophecy the attack on Samaria (the capitol of ancient Israel) will have already taken place, while the attack on Jerusalem (the capitol of Judah) is still future.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Sure, sounds interesting.

In Isaiah 14, immediately after saying the Assyrian would be destroyed, (verses 24-27) the Lord added, “do not rejoice, all you of Philistia, Because the rod that struck you is broken; For out of the serpent's roots will come forth a viper, And its offspring will be a fiery flying serpent... Wail, O gate! Cry, O city! All you of Philistia are dissolved; For smoke will come from the north, And no one will be alone in his appointed times.” (verses 29-31) In stating that “out of the serpent's roots will come forth a viper” and that “its offspring will be a fiery flying serpent,” this passage clearly sets forth two separate attacks, one in the past (relative to the time referred to) and one in the future. These two attacks are separated in time by an unspecified number of generations, as the second attacker is the “offspring” of the first.

Some assume that the words “the rod that struck you is broken” in this passage refer to the death of Judah’s king Ahaz. This is because the preceding verse (Isaiah 14:28) says “This is the burden which came in the year that King Ahaz died.” But there are two reasons this cannot be correct. First, Ahaz could never be called “the rod that struck”Philistia. Indeed, the very opposite was true. We read in 2 Chronicles 28:18-19 that “The Philistines also had invaded the cities of the lowland and of the South of Judah, and had taken Beth Shemesh, Aijalon, Gederoth, Sochoh with its villages, Timnah with its villages, and Gimzo with its villages; and they dwelt there. For the Lord brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel, for he had encouraged moral decline in Judah and had been continually unfaithful to the Lord.” The last king of Judea that had defeated the Philistines was Uzzaiah, the grandfather of Ahaz. (see 2 Chronicles 26:6-7)

But there is another reason “the rod that struck” Philistia cannot be Ahaz. The second attack in this prophecy is referred to as “smoke” that “will come from the north.” Judea, the land of Ahaz, was east of Philistia, not north of it. The significance of this detail will become plain in the next section of this study when we notice the prophecies about “the king of the North.”

Shortly after this prophecy was given, Sennacherib attacked the land of the Philistines. Some might think this was the second attack mentioned in this prophecy. But this would require that the first attack be one that had been made by either Tiglath-Pileser III or Sargon II. Each of these previous Assyrian kings had been an ancestor of Sennacherib. Each of them had conquered Philistia. And both of them were dead. But the words “the rod that struck you is broken” could not realistically be applied to either of them. The power of Assyria had not been “broken” when either of these kings had died. On the other hand, both Isaiah 37:35 and 2 Kings 19:35 tell of a most remarkable destruction of Sennacherib’s army by “the angel of the Lord.” The words “the rod that struck you is broken” clearly fit this defeat. These facts make it clear that Sennacherib is the first attacker in this prophecy, not the second one. So the second one has to be future.

In the first chapter of Nahum “one Who plots evil against the LORD, A wicked counselor,” (verse 11) comes forth from Nineveh, 3 the ancient capitol of Assyria. (Nahum 2:8 and 3:7) In the next to the last verse of the prophecy, this “wicked counselor” is expressly called the “king of Assyria.” (Nahum 3:18) The Lord declares that He will make “an utter end” of this invasion, adding that “affliction will not rise up a second time.” (Nahum 1:9) He then tells His people that “though I have afflicted you, I will afflict you no more.” (verse 12) The Divine history and many prophecies clearly show that Judah’s affliction did not end at the destruction of Sennacherib. The Assyrian invasion was only the beginning of her great and long affliction, which has not yet ended. Indeed, their greatest affliction is still future.

Both the severity and the long duration of this affliction are stressed in the fifth through the tenth chapters of Isaiah. The twenty-fifth verse of the fifth chapter tells us, “Therefore the anger of the LORD is aroused against His people; He has stretched out His hand against them And stricken them.” Then follow the words; “For all this His anger is not turned away, But His hand is stretched out still.” These last words are repeated over and over in the following chapters. (Isaiah 9:12, 9:17, 9:21, and 10:4) The significance of this doleful refrain finally appears in Isaiah 10:24-25: “Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: ‘O My people, who dwell in Zion, do not be afraid of the Assyrian. He shall strike you with a rod and lift up his staff against you, in the manner of Egypt. For yet a very little while and the indignation will cease, as will My anger in their destruction.’”

The Lord's indignation against His people who dwell “in Zion,” that is, “Jerusalem,” (verse 32) will continue until “the Assyrian” is destroyed. When this takes place, however, the indignation will cease and His anger will finally be “turned away.” How fitting it is that the first of the gentile conquerors of God's people should also be the last; that Judah's thousands of years of suffering should finally be ended in the destruction of their first great oppressor.

We have already noticed the description of the Assyrian’s attack in Isaiah 10. This account continues through verse 32, ending with this remarkable description of the Assyrian’s approach on Jerusalem:

“He has come to Aiath, He has passed Migron; At Michmash he has attended to his equipment. They have gone along the ridge, They have taken up lodging at Geba. Ramah is afraid, Gibeah of Saul has fled. Lift up your voice, O daughter of Gallim! Cause it to be heard as far as Laish; O poor Anathoth! Madmenah has fled, The inhabitants of Gebim seek refuge. As yet he will remain at Nob that day; He will shake his fist at the mount of the daughter of Zion, The hill of Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 10:28-32)

The following details show the daily progress of this attack.

Day 1: “At Michmash he has attended to his equipment.”
Day 2: “They have taken up lodging at Geba.”
Day 3: “As yet he will remain at Nob that day.”
Day 4: “He will shake his fist at the mount of the daughter of Zion, The hill of Jerusalem.”

Some assume this refers to Sennacherib’s advance on Jerusalem, but that cannot be correct. The advance on Jerusalem described in this prophecy is from the north. But Isaiah 36:2, 2 Kings 18:17, and 2 Chronicles 32:9 all say Sennacherib’s forces came to Jerusalem from Lachish, which was southwest of Jerusalem. Archeologists have found extensive evidence of Assyrian presence in this southern region, but not in any part of ancient Judea north of Jerusalem. That is, not along the path described in Isaiah 10:28-32. 4

Others assume this describes an army approaching Armageddon. But this path leads away from Armageddon, not toward it.

This passage describes a defeat of ten cities in only four days. Even by modern standards, this is remarkable progress for an advancing army. There will be no strength to resist his advance, for “he shall come against princes as though mortar, As the potter treads clay.” (Isaiah 41:25)

Sennacherib boasted that he had conquered 46 of Hezekiah’s fortified cities, with their neighboring small towns, by the use of siege ramps and battering rams, by boring holes and making breaches, as well as by relentlessly attacking with foot soldiers. Such a campaign would clearly take a long time. So it could not be the swift advance described in this prophecy.

Sennacherib left this boast on each of seven monuments
known to modern scholars. 5 The best known of these is a prism shaped monument. It is often called “The Oriental Institute Prism” because it is held by the Oriental Institute. As this institute is part of the University of Chicago, the monument is also called “The Chicago Prism.” But the Oriental Institute simply calls it the “Clay Prism of Sennacherib.”

This monument (and each of the others) lists the cities Sennacherib conquered in this campaign. These lists clearly show that as he invaded this area he came along the seacoast, not inland through the mountains.

This fact is so well established that A. T. Olmstead quoted Isaiah 10:28-32 in his monumental 650 page “History of Assyria,” commenting on how badly Isaiah blew this prophecy; because this was not the path Sennacherib followed. 6 Of course, he failed to realize that Isaiah was not talking about Sennacherib.

Finally, it would seem the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls would have known the route Sennacherib followed. But they plainly did not think Sennacherib followed this route, for one of them quoted this exact passage, (Isaiah 10:28-32) commenting that it referred to “the Last Days.” 7

This ends our discussion of this character as expressly called “the Assyrian” in the Holy Scriptures. But we are far from finished with the prophecies about him.

3 We often hear of the region of ancient Nineveh in the news by its modern name of Mosul. This major center of the current fighting in Iraq is the home of the world’s largest surviving Assyrian community.

4 The accuracy of this statement was personally confirmed to me in private conversation by Dr. Ibrham E’phal, the director of Antiquities at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. This man is recognized as the world’s foremost authority on the archeology of ancient Israel.

5 These seven monuments are listed on page 10 and translated on page 129 of “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah : new studies,” by William R. Gallagher, Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1999. This authoritative book clearly presents the current state of historical scholarship on this subject. Working from a purely logical basis, it demonstrates the error in many objections to the historical reliability of Biblical accounts of this campaign. It devotes well over a hundred pages to these accounts, but doesn’t even mention any portion of Isaiah 10:28-32.

6 “History of Assyria,” by A. T. Olmstead, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951, pgs. 301 and 302.

7 From the commentary on Isaiah in “The Dead Sea Scrolls, a New Translation,” by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, New York: 1996, pg. 210. Scholars believe these scrolls were written between the first and third centuries B.C.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Sure, sounds interesting.

I said that the scriptures speak more of "thje Assyrian" than of any other end time individual. But to understand the fullness of this, I need to add two more posts with my reasons for saying that other scriptures also speak of this same individual.

The King of the North is the king of the revived northern splinter of the empire of Alexander the Great, that is, the Seleucid empire, in Daniel 11:40-45. The third verse of this chapter says that “a mighty king” would arise. We then read that “when he has arisen, his kingdom shall be broken up and divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not among his posterity nor according to his dominion with which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be uprooted, even for others besides these.” (Daniel 11:4) The next twenty-seven verses (Daniel 11:5-32) describe a long series of wars between “the king of the North” and “the king of the South.” This account covers a number of generations, mentioning events which took place over a period of approximately 130 years. Every act of “the king of the North” in this account was actually committed by one of the Seleucids, a family that ruled out of Antioch in Syria. Every act of “the king of the South” was actually committed by one of the Ptolemies, a family that ruled out of Alexandria in Egypt.

The Ptolemies ruled only over Egypt, but the Seleucids, the kings of the North, ruled over a vast empire. If you compare a map of the ancient Selucid Empire with a map of the previous Assyrian Empire, you will see that aside from a few sections at the edges, these two empires covered the same area. 8 (The region of today’s Syria and Iraq.) From this we understand that the prophetic character called “the Assyrian” is the same individual as the character called “the King of the North.”

It is remarkable that many otherwise competent students of prophecy miss the plain testimony of this passage. They recognize that in the first twenty-seven verses “the king of the North” in each generation is the current ruler of the Seleucid empire. But then they say that in the last part of the chapter (the part that remains to be fulfilled) the meaning of this term changes. In the future portion of this prophecy (verses 40-45) they interpret this term to mean “Gog,” the king of Russia who attacks Israel in Ezekiel 38 and 39. Why would the Holy Spirit use a full twenty-seven verses to identify “the king of the North,” only to have the meaning change when He came to the application? This idea rebels against reason. But it is not only unreasonable, it twists the entire fabric of prophecy into a hopeless muddle.

There are significant differences between the attacks of “Gog” and “the king of the North.” First, these attackers will be destroyed in different places. The Lord tells Gog “‘You shall fall upon the mountains of Israel, you and all your troops and the peoples who are with you; I will give you to birds of prey of every sort and to the beasts of the field to be devoured. You shall fall on the open field; for I have spoken,’ says the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 39:3-5) Gog will fall “upon the mountains of Israel” and “upon the open field.” But these are only general. Specific detail is also given. “It will come to pass in that day that I will give Gog a burial place there in Israel, the valley of those who pass by east of the sea; and it will obstruct travelers, because there they will bury Gog and all his multitude. Therefore they will call it the Valley of Hamon Gog.” (Ezekiel 39:11) Gog will be buried in “the valley of those who pass by east of the sea.” This cannot be the place where “the northern army” is destroyed, for its “stench will come up” from “a barren and desolate land” between “the eastern sea” and “the western sea.” (Joel 2:20) A place in Israel between “the eastern sea” and “the western sea” and also “east of the sea” 9 would have to be on the Mediterranean Sea coast. But the coast of the Mediterranean between “the eastern sea” and “the western sea” is a fertile plain. No part of this plain is “barren and desolate.”

Also, the attack in Daniel 11 ushers in “a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time.” (Daniel 12:1) But the attack in Ezekiel 38 and 39 ushers in a time when “‘I will not hide My face from them anymore; for I shall have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel,’ says the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 39:29) Again, this “time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time.” (Daniel 12:1) corresponds exactly with the “great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be” we read about in Matthew 24:21. This great tribulation will come upon “those who are in Judea.” (Matthew 24:16) But Gog will attack “My people Israel,”(Ezekiel 38:14-16) not Judah. Some would consider this nit-picking about words, but in the Bible, every word is significant. This is particularly true in regard to end time prophecy. Every detail is significant. Every change in wording is significant. Even so, “the North,” the realm of “the king of the North,” is a different term than “the far north,” from which “Gog” will come. (Ezekiel 38:15) This is highlighted by the fact that in Daniel 11:44 the attacker is troubled by “tidings,” not only “out of the east,” but also “out of the north.” This implies that there is another nation further north than that of “the king of the North.”

Finally, “the land of Egypt shall not escape” from “the king of the North,” and “the Libyans and the Ethiopians” are listed among those he subdues. (Daniel 11:42-43) But we are not told that “Gog” will invade Egypt, and “Ethiopia and Libya” are listed among among his allies. (Ezekiel 38:5) All this makes it plain that “Gog” and “the king of the North” are two different prophetic characters.

Returning now to Daniel 11, it is important to remember that when Alexander the Great died, his four generals divided his kingdom “toward the four winds of heaven,” as we read in Daniel 11:4. Two of these generals were Seleucus and Ptolemy, the first kings of these warring families. At the time of the division, Ptolemy took the southern portion of the kingdom and Seleucus got the eastern portion. But soon after, Seleucus also took over the northern portion and moved his throne there. When we remember this, we realize that “the king of the North” is not just the king of some northern land. He is the king of a particular northern land, that is, the northern splinter of Alexander’s kingdom.

In Daniel 11:36-39 we read of a wilful king who will arise. His wickedness is punished by a two pronged attack. “At the time of the end the king of the South shall attack him; and the king of the North shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter the countries, overwhelm them, and pass through.” (Daniel 11:40) But “the king of the South” quickly drops out of the picture, and the rest of the account deals only with “the king of the North.” “He shall also enter the Glorious Land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape from his hand: Edom, Moab, and the prominent people of Ammon. He shall stretch out his hand against the countries, and the land of Egypt shall not escape. He shall have power over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; also the Libyans and Ethiopians shall follow at his heels. But news from the east and the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go out with great fury to destroy and annihilate many. And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and no one will help him.” (Daniel 11:41-45) This passage begins with “the king of the North” entering “the Glorious land,” and ends with him “between the seas and the glorious holy mountain.” This is the same area as the one “the Assyrian” will attack. As this takes place “at the time of the end”(verse 40), we realize that this attack takes place in the same general time as the attack by “the Assyrian.”

But now we must concentrate on two other details of this account. In verse 40 we see the wilful king being attacked by “the king of the South” and “the king of the North,” evidently at the same time. But then “the king of the North” subdues many other countries, including “the land of Egypt” and “the Libyans and Ethiopians.” With reference to these details we now need to notice two other prophecies about “the Assyrian.” The first of these is in Isaiah 7.

“The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.” And it shall come to pass in that day That the Lord will whistle for the fly That is in the farthest part of the rivers of Egypt, And for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. They will come, and all of them will rest In the desolate valleys and in the clefts of the rocks, And on all thorns and in all pastures. In the same day the Lord will shave with a hired razor, With those from beyond the River, with the king of Assyria, The head and the hair of the legs, And will also remove the beard.” (Isaiah 7:17-20) In verse 13 this prophecy had been specifically addressed to “the house of David,” so this prophecy specifically states that “the king of Assyria” will come against the land ruled by “the house of David,” that is, the land of Judea, which is now called Israel. But attached to this explicit prophecy is a very interesting detail. This attack will be accompanied by swarms from “Egypt” and “Assyria.” While the swarms in the prophecy are only swarms of insects, it seems obvious from the context that this is typical language. That the real meaning is swarms of soldiers, so many that they resemble swarms of insects. But they come from both of these distant lands at the same time, just as we read of “the king of the North” in Daniel 11:40.

But now we go to Isaiah 20 and read: “the Lord spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, ‘Go, and remove the sackcloth from your body, and take your sandals off your feet.’ And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. Then the Lord said, ‘Just as My servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder against Egypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as prisoners and the Ethiopians as captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.’” (Isaiah 20:2-4) So we now read that “the king of Assyria” will “lead away” as “captives” both “the Egyptians” and “the Ethiopians.” This is exactly what “the king of the North” does in Daniel 11:43, although the passage in Isaiah does not add that “The king of Assyria” will also lead away the Libyans as prisoners.

Thus we see that these two attackers, that is, “the Assyrian” and “the king of the North” are identified as future rulers over the same geographic area. They will both attack at approximately the same time. They will also both attack Judea, which is now called Israel. And they will both do this at the same time that Egypt attacks. And both of them will also attack Egypt and Ethiopia. In view of this remarkable number of similarities, is it reasonable to doubt that these two prophetic designations represent the same future individual?

8 Since the Seleucids ruled out of Antioch in Syria, they are sometimes called the kings of Syria. While this is technically correct, referring to them in this way masks the true identity of “the Assyrian.”

9 Some translations, including the New Century Version, God’s Word to the Nations, and the New Living Translation, read “east of the Dead Sea” instead of “east of the sea.” This is based on a conclusion that the Hebrew text implies the Dead Sea, even though it is not named. Only a few scholars have come to this conclusion. But if correct, this is further proof that these places are different. For a valley east of the Dead Sea could not be between “the eastern sea” and “the western sea.”

Further, In Daniel 8 the prophet saw a male goat, which “had a notable horn between his eyes.” (verse 5) But “the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven.” (verse 8) Daniel was then told that “the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.” (verses 21-22) As we have already noticed, four kingdoms arose out of the empire of Alexander the Great, the first of the great Grecian kings. “And out of one of them came a little horn which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Glorious Land.” (verse 9) The detail that this little horn came “out of one of” the four kingdoms shows that it can not represent either the Roman leader or the Russian one; for Alexander’s empire did not include Rome or any part of Russia. But Seleucus, the first of the Seleucid kings, that is, the first “king of the North,” was one of the four that rose out of Alexander's empire. So we see that this attacker will rise from a geographic area that includes the areas ruled by both “the Assyrian” and “the king of the North.”

We are specifically told these things will happen “in the latter time of their kingdom, When the transgressors have reached their fullness.” (verse 23) So we know this is an end time prophecy. That is, that this prophecy applies to the same general time period as those about “the Assyrian” and “the king of the North.”We are also told that this will happen “in the latter time of the indignation.” (verse 19) Other translations render this as “at the final period of the indignation,” (NASB) “at the latter end of the indignation,” (RSV) and “in the last end of the indignation.” (KJV) Comparing this with Isaiah 10:25, which we have already examined, we again recognize “the Assyrian,” for “the indignation” will cease in his destruction.

Finally, we are specifically told that this evil attacker “shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people.” So we know that he will attack the same area as that attacked by “the Assyrian” and “the king of the North.” So again, is it reasonable to doubt that this prophetic designation also represents the same future individual as “the Assyrian” and “the king of the North?”
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Sure, sounds interesting.

In Daniel 9:27. “the prince who is to come.”“shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.” But then “on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.” It is important to noticed the change in actors that occurs in this prophecy. In the first part of Daniel 9:27 the actor is “he,” clearly meaning “the prince who is to come.” But then the actor changes to “one.” From this we see that at this point another character is introduced. This is more than just a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of the basic structure of language. The “one who makes desolate” is not the same person as “the prince who is to come.” He is a different character.

According to Daniel 9:27, this “one who makes desolate” shall come “on the wing of abominations.” We read in Jeremiah 10:22, “Behold, the noise of the report has come, And a great commotion out of the north country, To make the cities of Judah desolate, a den of jackals.” This attack from the north will come “Because of the evil of” the doings of the “men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem.” (Jeremiah 4:4, see verses 6, 7, 10, and 14)

Remember that the Lord said of the Assyrian, “I will send him against an ungodly nation, And against the people of My wrath.” (Isaiah 10:6) In Daniel 8:12 it is “Because of transgression” that “an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices.” The transgression mentioned in these passages is not just some kind of general evil, but a specific outrage. In Daniel 8:13 this outrage is called “the transgression of desolation,” and “both the sanctuary and the host” are given “to be trampled under foot.”

Our Lord spoke of this in Matthew 24:15-21. “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.”

This is repeated in Mark 13:14-19. Can any serious student of prophecy doubt that the outrage which brings down the “one who makes desolate” is when “the man of sin... the son of perdition” “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God”? (2 Thessalonians 2:4)

So we see that “the Assyrian,” “the king of the North,” the male goat’s “little horn,” and the “one who makes desolate,” all represent the same individual. This can further be seen in the details of his destruction. The prophecy about the “one who makes desolate” does not include his end, because the subject of that prophecy is God’s discipline of His guilty people, not their eventual deliverance. But as “the king of the North,” he “shall come to his end, and no one will help him.” (Daniel 11:45) “But I will remove far from you the northern army, And will drive him away into a barren and desolate land, With his face toward the eastern sea And his back toward the western sea; His stench will come up, And his foul odor will rise, Because he has done monstrous things.” (Joel 2:20) As the male goat's little horn, he “shall be broken without human means.” (Daniel 8:25) As “the Assyrian,” he will be beaten down “through the voice of the LORD.” (Isaiah 30:31) And finally, “Assyria shall fall by a sword not of man, And a sword not of mankind shall devour him. But he shall flee from the sword, And his young men shall become forced labor.” 10 (Isaiah 31:8) When we realize this, we realize that this neglected character is the central (human) figure of end time Bible prophecy, occupying more space than any other two characters combined.

10 We should note in passing that although Sennacherib's army was destroyed without human means and he returned home, (2 Kings 19:35-36) neither scripture nor any ancient monument or record says anything about his young men having been made slaves.

Note:

The material in these four posts is borrowed freely from my book, Keys to Bible Prophecy," concerning which Dr. Ed Hindson, Assistant Chancellor of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia and Dean of the prestigious Tim LaHaye School of Prophecy, said “‘Keys to Bible Prophecy’ is one of the most interesting and insightful studies available today. This fascinating book is must reading for anyone interested in what the Bible says about the future.” The material is entirely my own responsibility. I did not copy it from anyone. But although I have expanded on their concepts, I learned the basics of all this from the dispensational writers of the nineteenth century, Mainly J. N. Darby and William Kelly.
 
Upvote 0