The Assyrian

[Biblewriter]

Well, the study of the Assyrian is a very interesting topic and I am going to try to give some time to it. I noticed he had a prophetic connection to Lebanon.

Eze 31:3 Behold, the Assyrian [was] a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs.

I understand the symbolism of trees in scripture. This was directed to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who is the king of the south. Do you have any insight on this prophecy?

Eze 31:2 Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness?

I am going to make an observation about this text in Ez 31 that may or may not be relevant to our understanding of the Assyrian in end time prophecy. If we believe God addresses Satan through men he controls, then Ez 31 must be an instance where he is doing it.

4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field.
5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth.
6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.
7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

I do have a fair understanding of the doctrine of Satan and I think I know how God is going to deal with him in the end times, but that is a subject for a different thread. The point is here that the king of Egypt is like the Assyrian and there is a connection made with the Assyrian to both Lebanon and Eden, the garden of God, and by extension, to all nations of the world.

It seems obvious to me from verse 18 of Ezekiel 31,

"To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword. This is Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord GOD."

that the previous description is of the fall of the apparently invincible Assyrian Empire, being used as a warning to Pharaoh that God can (and will) do the same to him.

And yes, I agree that God on occasion speaks to Satan through some of the men he possesses or influences, and I think this may be one of those cases.

 

[Biblewriter]

biblewriter
This is what I meant to convey what we agree on, we don’t disagree wholly on who the Antichrist is. I missed or forgot that you said he will not become ruler of the whole world.

Many assume that the great desolator of Judah is the Antichrist. Some think this desolator is the Roman leader, some associate him with other figures. I agree with you that the desolator is the end time Selucid ruler, and also the end time "Assyrian." But this does not make the desolator "the Antichrist."

I have already pointed out that Daniel 8:12 explicitly says that this desolator comes "because of transgression." I believe that the transgression referred to here is Judah's recognition of the Antichrist as their Messiah.

The first beast in Rev 13 is the Antichrist who is “given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation” (7). He will be given authority over the whole world but only have nominal rule over all people and direct rule over the his nation and the ten horns. Would you agree with this assessment?

This is the scripture I was referring to which appears to say his power is universal when examined in English, but which is not absolute in Greek. The Greek language had two words for all, pas, which is the equivalent of our word all, and hapas, which meant absolutely all. We often use the word all in a general sense, as in "all over the place." the Greek word pas had this general sense. When we mean absolutely all, we have to add the word absolutely to the word all. But the Greeks had a different word for that, hapas. The sentence in the Bible that you are referring to, and all similar sentences about "the beast," used the Greek word pas, not hapas.

Symbol of the Antichrist in Revelation is given in 13:2

“”The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion.”

The dominate feature of this beast is he comes from the Grecian Empire (leopard). Checking Daniel’s prophecies on the horns, the little horn comes from the Seleucid division of Alexander’s divided empire after his death. The area where the Seleucid division was is now Syria, the nation of the Antichrist.

Syria was also part of the Medo-Persia Empire (bear) and the Babylon Empire before it (lion). Syria was also part of the Roman Empire as evident by its iron teeth (Dn 7:7b).

I am aware that most modern interpreters associate this first beast of Revelation with "the Antichrist." But I reject this as baseless. I believe that the Antichrist is the great false Messiah, and as such absolutely has to be Jewish. For the Orthodox Jews, though blinded to many prophesies, know that the Messiah is one of themselves. It would thus be impossible for a non-jew to ever convince them that he is their Messiah.

But "the beast" of Revelation is the ruler of the revived Roman Empire. He is "the prince that shall come" whose people destroyed "the city and the sanctuary" after Messiah was "cut off." (Daniel 9:26)

I believe that the first beast of revelation is this same beast, and that the second beast of Revelation 13 is the "Antichrist." Many say this cannot be true, because he tells men to worship the first beast, but they forget that Jesus, the true messiah, told men to worship the Father. So in imitation the true Messiah, the false messiah tells men to worship another, "the beast."

I believe that "the beast," "Antichrist," and Satan form an anti-trinity. "The beast" stands in opposition to the Father. Antichrist stands in opposition to the Son. And Satan himself stands in opposition to the Hily Spirit.

 

[Biblewriter]

We know from Ezekiel that Gog will bring his bands with him, the Assyrian will be among the people to fight in the valley of Jehoshaphat (war of Armageddon will consist of all the nations coming against Israel according to Joel). The heavenly armies of Israel will definitely be able to raise up seven shepherds and eight principle men.

The time of Jacob's trouble will see him delivered!!

Go forth Yah, you mighty King!!

Many lump all the various end time battles in scripture into one and call it "the war of Armageddon." But actually, there are six specific wars or campaigns detailed in end time prophecy. (not counting the great upheavals described typically in the early chapters of the Revelation)

The first of these is the attack on Judah (which is now called Israel) by "the Assyrian," who will be joined in this project by many of the surrounding nations.

The other five all take place after Messiah comes. The first one is when he destroys the nations gathered against Jerusalem in the valley of Jehoshaphat.

The second is a general campaign Against Edom, laying it desolate like Sodom and Gomorrah all the way from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea.

The third is when the whole world, led by "the beast," comes to Armageddon to resist Messiah, after which He calls all Israel home. But when they come home he purges out all the rebels from among them.

The fourth is when Messiah arms the few righteous Israelites (Yes the change of name from Judah to Israel is intentional.) and sends them out to take vengeance on those nations that had tried to annihilate their brethren.

And the last is when the whole world makes a second attempt to resist him and comes down a second time, this time led by Gog. (They repeat this attempt a thousand years later- but that is another time.)

The scriptural basis for the first war I mentioned above is in the opening posts of this thread. The scriptural basis for the rest of what I said here can be found in the opening posts of my thread titled "What Happens When Messiah Comes." To find that thread, click on my name above and find "show all statistics." Click there and find "show all threads started by Biblewriter." Then click on the thread titled "What Happens When Messiah Comes."

 

[kotel]

I have already pointed out that Daniel 8:12 explicitly says that this desolator comes "because of transgression." I believe that the transgression referred to here is Judah's recognition of the Antichrist as their Messiah.

Some of your interpretations clearly reflect your dependence on the KJB.

Dan 8:12 KJB
“And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.”

The transgression here is not Judah’s transgression against God for accepting the Antichrist as their Messiah, the “transgression” is the Antichrist coming against Judah by taking away the daily sacrifice and casting down the sanctuary (v. 11).

The NIV has “rebellion” instead of “transgression” which more accurately describes the actions of the Antichrist. “Rebellion” is the same word used in 2 Thess 2:2 in association with the Antichrist.

The KJB associates “transgression” with Judah in Daniel and associates the “falling away” in 2 Thess 2:3 with the church when the context of scripture points to the Antichrist in both and his rebellion against things of God. One of the many examples why I don’t rely on the KJB. I can understand why you apply this passage to Israel because “transgression” is a violation of a law, command etc.; sin. Contrary to what you may think, the context of this passage in Daniel is not what Israel does, rather what the Antichrist does.



I’m surprised you believe Jews will accept the Assyrian as their Messiah, there is no support for this view in the Bible. Their Messiah would have to be Jewish for their acceptance, no way would they accept a Gentile from Syria as their Messiah.

In the first half of the 7 year covenant the little horn as a military leader conquers three nations to form the revived Assyrian Empire. Mid way into the covenant the military leader is revealed as the Antichrist by proclaiming to be God in the third temple and ends sacrifices and offerings. Just how do expect the Jews to accept him as Messiah when he performs these detestable acts in their own temple in Jerusalem?

 

[Biblewriter]

Some of your interpretations clearly reflect your dependence on the KJB.

Dan 8:12 KJB
“And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.”

The transgression here is not Judah’s transgression against God for accepting the Antichrist as their Messiah, the “transgression” is the Antichrist coming against Judah by taking away the daily sacrifice and casting down the sanctuary (v. 11).

The NIV has “rebellion” instead of “transgression” which more accurately describes the actions of the Antichrist. “Rebellion” is the same word used in 2 Thess 2:2 in association with the Antichrist.

The KJB associates “transgression” with Judah in Daniel and associates the “falling away” in 2 Thess 2:3 with the church when the context of scripture points to the Antichrist in both and his rebellion against things of God. One of the many examples why I don’t rely on the KJB. I can understand why you apply this passage to Israel because “transgression” is a violation of a law, command etc.; sin. Contrary to what you may think, the context of this passage in Daniel is not what Israel does, rather what the Antichrist does.



I’m surprised you believe Jews will accept the Assyrian as their Messiah, there is no support for this view in the Bible. Their Messiah would have to be Jewish for their acceptance, no way would they accept a Gentile from Syria as their Messiah.

In the first half of the 7 year covenant the little horn as a military leader conquers three nations to form the revived Assyrian Empire. Mid way into the covenant the military leader is revealed as the Antichrist by proclaiming to be God in the third temple and ends sacrifices and offerings. Just how do expect the Jews to accept him as Messiah when he performs these detestable acts in their own temple in Jerusalem?

You are fixated on the notion that 'the Assyrian" is the "Antichrist." I never even suggested such an idea. I very clearly stated that the Antichrist has to be a Jew, for there is no other way that he could convince the Jews that he is their Messiah. And I also very clearly ststed that I interpret the scripture to mean that the Assyrian is allowed to attack Juseah as a punishment for their accepting the false claims of the Antichrist.

And no, I do not base my interpretations on the KJV I value the KJV and often use it, but I go to the original languages whenever there is a question.

 

[kotel]

Biblewriter

Daniel 9:26-27 (New International Version)
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off (crucified) and will have nothing.

The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

The above ruler cannot be General Titus of the Roman Army, he was not ruler at the time he destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and he did not confirm a covenant with many for 7 years.

The same ruler who destroys the city and the temple confirms the 7 year covenant and ends sacrifices and sets up the abomination. Who is this person?

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewriter

Daniel 9:26-27 (New International Version)
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off (crucified) and will have nothing.

The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

The above ruler cannot be General Titus of the Roman Army, he was not ruler at the time he destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and he did not confirm a covenant with many for 7 years.

The same ruler who destroys the city and the temple confirms the 7 year covenant and ends sacrifices and sets up the abomination. Who is this person?

The word ruler in this passage is a translation of the Hebrew word nagiyd. This word means a leader or commander. This Hebrew word (number 5057 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary) is used forty-four other times in the Old Testament.

This word was used seventeen times in reference to currently reigning kings of Israel or Judah. It was used of Saul in 1 Samuel 9:16, 10:1; of David in 1 Samuel 13:14, 25:30, 2 Samuel 5:2, 6:21, 7:8, 1 Chronicles 11:2, 17:7, 28:4, and Isaiah 55:4; of Solomon in 1 Kings 1:35 and 1 Chronicles 29:22; of Jeroboam in 1 Kings 14:7; of Baasha in 1 Kings 16:2; and of Hezekiah in 1 Kings 20:5; and of Messiah in Daniel 9:25.

(By the way, since some translations render this Hebrew word as prince in this passage, I would also note that in the entire Old testament, this Hebrew word is used only once in reference to a son of a king before he himself became king. In this place it was used of Abijah, but not to say that he was the king’s son, but that the king appointed him “as chief, to be leader among his brothers.” - 2 Chronicles 11:22)

In addition to these 18 places, this Hebrew word was used 26 times in regard to various leaders or commanders who were neither kings nor princes.

But this passage most certainly does not say that "The same ruler who destroys the city and the temple confirms the 7 year covenant and ends sacrifices and sets up the abomination."

It says that the city and the temple would be destroyed by "the people of the ruler that will come." This was unquestionable done by the Romans, and as you referred to, under the leadership of Titus. So "the ruler that will come" has to be a Roman. Since the city and the temple were destroyed by the Romans, this future ruler has to be a Roman, for the Romans were "the people" that destroyed "the city and the temple."

Since no Roman ruler has ever confirmed a 7 year covenant, this has to speak of a time that is still future.

But this is far afield from the subject of this thread.

 

[kotel]

But this passage most certainly does not say that "The same ruler who destroys the city and the temple confirms the 7 year covenant and ends sacrifices and sets up the abomination."

I flunked English yet I know the antecedent of "he" through out Dn 9:27 is the "ruler" who comes. It is the same person.

 

[Biblewriter]

I flunked English yet I know the antecedent of "he" through out Dn 9:27 is the "ruler" who comes. It is the same person.

Yes, the "he" in at least most of this passage is the "ruler" who comes.

But this "ruler" is nowhere said to be the one who destroys the city and the temple. It says that he is a ruler of the people that did this. But it does NOT say that he is their ruler at the time they do this.

 

[kotel]

Yes, the "he" in at least most of this passage is the "ruler" who comes.

But this "ruler" is nowhere said to be the one who destroys the city and the temple. It says that he is a ruler of the people that did this. But it does NOT say that he is their ruler at the time they do this.

Regardless of what you are told, you will find some way to wiggle your way out of it. No further discussion needed.

 

[Biblewriter]

Regardless of what you are told, you will find some way to wiggle your way out of it. No further discussion needed.

This is not "wiggling out of it."

This is the classic interpretation of this passage, used by almost every pre-tribber that I know about.

 

[Biblewriter]

Regardless of what you are told, you will find some way to wiggle your way out of it. No further discussion needed.

This is not "wiggling out of it."

This is the classic interpretation of this passage, used for the last 150 years by almost every pre-tribber that I know about.

 

[Bible2]

kotel posted in message #69 of this thread:

... Isaiah 10 and keep in mind a duel fulfillment in the historical
Sennacherib and the future Antichrist

Greetings.

The Antichrist may not say Isaiah 10:9-11, because it refers to
ancient cities and pagan idols which no longer exist. The Antichrist
may not fulfill Isaiah 10:28-32, because it refers to ancient towns
which no longer exist.

kotel posted in message #69 of this thread:

what Gog does in Eze. 38:23

The Gog/Magog event (Ezekiel chapters 38-39) won't happen until
after the millennium (Revelation 20:7-10).

kotel posted in message #69 of this thread:

Damascus is the city where the AC comes from

The Antichrist could come from Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2,
cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

kotel posted in message #69 of this thread:

“In that day” is the future day of the Lord

Isaiah 10:5-34 might not make any reference to the future day of
the Lord, but only to the ancient day (the time) of Sennacherib's
invasion of Judah (Isaiah chapters 36-37).

kotel posted in message #69 of this thread:

Verse 12 ...
This will not happen until the Lord returns

The Lord's work in Jerusalem in Isaiah 10:12 could have been
performed during Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, when Jerusalem
was made to trust solely upon the Lord for protection (Isaiah 37:1).

kotel posted in message #69 of this thread:

Verse 16 ...
the disease mentioned in Zec 14:12

Isaiah 10:16 may not refer to the future event of Zechariah 14:12,
but only to the ancient event of Isaiah 37:36.

kotel posted in message #69 of this thread:

Verse 20 ...
This did not happen after Sennacherib’s conquest of Israel

Isaiah 10:20 could have been fulfilled during Sennacherib's invasion
of Judah, when the remnant in Jerusalem was made to rely solely
upon the Lord for protection (Isaiah 37:1-4).

kotel posted in message #69 of this thread:

Verse 25
God’s anger against his people shall not cease until Israel is
restored in the Millennium

Isaiah 10:25 may refer only to God's indignation against hypocritical
Judah in the time of Sennacherib (Isaiah 10:5-6, 36:1).

kotel posted in message #69 of this thread:

Verses 33-34
Back to the future again and God’s wrath

Isaiah 10:33-34 may refer only to God's ancient wrath against the
army of Sennacherib (Isaiah 37:36).

 

[Biblewriter]

Greetings.

The Antichrist may not say Isaiah 10:9-11, because it refers to
ancient cities and pagan idols which no longer exist. The Antichrist
may not fulfill Isaiah 10:28-32, because it refers to ancient towns
which no longer exist.



The Gog/Magog event (Ezekiel chapters 38-39) won't happen until
after the millennium (Revelation 20:7-10).



The Antichrist could come from Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2,
cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4).



Isaiah 10:5-34 might not make any reference to the future day of
the Lord, but only to the ancient day (the time) of Sennacherib's
invasion of Judah (Isaiah chapters 36-37).



The Lord's work in Jerusalem in Isaiah 10:12 could have been
performed during Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, when Jerusalem
was made to trust solely upon the Lord for protection (Isaiah 37:1).



Isaiah 10:16 may not refer to the future event of Zechariah 14:12,
but only to the ancient event of Isaiah 37:36.



Isaiah 10:20 could have been fulfilled during Sennacherib's invasion
of Judah, when the remnant in Jerusalem was made to rely solely
upon the Lord for protection (Isaiah 37:1-4).



Isaiah 10:25 may refer only to God's indignation against hypocritical
Judah in the time of Sennacherib (Isaiah 10:5-6, 36:1).



Isaiah 10:33-34 may refer only to God's ancient wrath against the
army of Sennacherib (Isaiah 37:36).

The error of all this has been repeatedly demonstrated, both in this thread and in many others.
For this reason I am not going to bother to demonstrate the errors point-by-point, except to point out once again that the Antrichrist and the Assyrian are two distinct end time individuals, not two different names for the same end time individual.

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #95 of this thread:
The error of all this has been repeatedly demonstrated, both in this
thread and in many others.

Greetings.

Note that no error has been demonstrated.

Biblewriter:
the Antrichrist and the Assyrian are two distinct end time individuals

The Assyrian in Isaiah 30:31 and Micah 5:5-6 could be the Antichrist.