Posted on 09/05/2013 9:47:05 AM PDT by Gamecock
With the increasing possibility of US military action against Syria and the Assad regime, it should come as no surprise that the prophecy pundits have been hard at work.
Since the ancient city of Damascus figures prominently in the news, the pundits run to their concordances and find those biblical texts where the city is mentioned. Given their view that many of the prophecies in the Old Testament have yet to be fulfilled (and were not fulfilled in the history of Israel, or with the coming of Jesus Christ) they go to great lengths and demonstrate even greater ingenuity, I might add, to explain how the Bible's mention of Damascus (Isaiah17) must be a reference to the current (and latest) political crisis in the region.
One pundit writes (Damascus, Syria and Isaiah 17),
One of most intriguing Bible prophecies in the end times has to do with Isaiah 17. The prophecies in Isaiah 17 point to the end times destruction of Damascus, Syria. The Bible states that the destruction of Damascus will be so great that the city will be nothing but a "ruinous heap" after the fulfillment of the ancient prophecy. This is noteworthy because presently the city is recognized as the world's longest constantly inhabited city. The utter destruction of Damascus will be an event that only the sovereign Lord could have predicted, yet he warns in Isaiah 17 that Damascus does have a date with destiny in the near prophetic future.
He goes on to say,
Another thing to note about Damascus is that it is also "home" to many of the world's leading terrorist masterminds. With such groups as Hamas and Hezbollah among others making their home in Damascus, it is easy to see that if a wide ranging conflict broke out between Israel and these terrorist groups that Isaiah 17 could easily be destroyed. Syria has made many recent "defense pacts" with the terrorists as well as Lebanon where the groups also operate. Syria has threatened to "get involved" in the next round of fighting.
Sounds plausible at first hearing, right? But there is a major problem with the pundit's interpretation. The critical biblical text (Isaiah 17, specifically verse 1) is not speaking of the end times. Rather, this is an oracle of YHWH spoken against the ancient city of Damascus (Aram) through the prophet Isaiah. The people of Israel (in open disobedience to the covenant they had made with YHWH) had made an alliance with Aram, seeking a pagan nation's help against the dreaded Assyrians. God, however, commanded that his people be faithful to their covenant with him, and look for their deliverance as coming through the righteous branch (a future son of David and a royal messiah). The Damascus of Isaiah's day was in fact destroyed in 732 B. C. (during the time of Isaiah) by the Assyrians. The prophecy has already been fulfilled.
No doubt, these prophecy pundits mean well. But their modus operandi of finding some mention in the Bible of any contemporary place or region in the Middle East currently in conflict (and in the news), and then turning that passage into an "end-times" prophecy, is to distort the plain teaching of God's word.
If the crisis with Syria escalates, I'm sure there will be more of this to come. Hey, we don't have Saddam Hussein to kick around any more. Bashar-Al-Assad will do just fine, until this crisis passes, and a new ominous Arab political leader comes on the scene to take his place.
God often makes such promises and then through His mercy backs away. You’ll see this all through Scripture. See for yourself.
Not much worst can happen, but the Assyrians showing up outside your city walls.
There's nothing in the Bible that says prophecies can't be fulfilled multiple times, right? For example, Christians are persecuted and killed every day.
5.56mm
We are promised that Christians will be persecuted until he returns.
I suspect we are about to see many fall away over the next couple of years.
Apparently Lee N. Field comes down on your side in the following post. If I’m not mistaken he is some sort of a Preterist-Postmill combo, and very outspoken on it, if he is indeed Preterist, in the prophetic vacuum that Preterists are in he is naturally going to dismiss what’s happening in Syria as having any prophetic significance.
It would also be interesting to know how many that have sided with you on this thread are indeed Preterists. How about you? What is your position eschatologically?
One’s position on the millennial reign of Rev. 20 has a lot to do with how they interpret such things as middle east events, and their world view.
Surely you know it is considered polite to ping someone when you mention their name in a post!
As to your question I have partial-preterist leanings and am a soft Amillennialist.
What I AM NOT is a premil-dispy.
My intention was actually to include Lee N. Fields, an oversight, I apologize for that.
I appreciate revealing your preterist “leanings,” it is thus no wonder you would not see the situation in Syria as having prophetic end time significance. I note you also seem to be pretty opposed to dispensational premill, I am a historic premill, so I am about half with you on that, not the premill.
In my view, preterism is a far worse error, whether in combo with Amill or Postmill.
Apparently Lee N. Field comes down on your side in the following post. If I’m not mistaken he is some sort of a Preterist-Postmill combo, and very outspoken on it, if he is indeed Preterist, in the prophetic vacuum that Preterists are in he is naturally going to dismiss what’s happening in Syria as having any prophetic significance.
Yeah, you might actually ping me on that.
See my FR page for a fuller treatment of my position. What I care about and why, I have tried to lay out there. (Some of the links have gone dead over time. I'll have to take some time, RSN, to fix them.)
Eschatological categories morph over time. I am not a post-millenial, in the modern sense. One's eschatological position should not be arrived at because it is "optimistic" vs. "pessimistic", but on what one holds the scripture to teach.
It would also be interesting to know how many that have sided with you on this thread are indeed Preterists. How about you? What is your position eschatologically?
Everybody slings that term around. Do you know what a preterist is? Are you able to distinguish the types of preterist? There is a sort of preterist that is absolutely beyond the pale. Not everyone is that sort. They're (best I can tell) fairly rare. I have not encountered on in the flesh.
I am not a preterist in any sense you're probably thinking. I am most certainly not the sort of preterist who thinks all prophecy was fulfilled when the Romans besieged and took Jerusalem in 70AD. I don't think John's Apocalypse was written about the fall of Jerusalem, or early.
There certainly is prophecy in the NT (and OT if you follow Meredith Kline's argument) about Jerusalem's fall. It is a significant event, in a redemptive historical sense, being the final and decisive end of the old covenant cultic order.
One’s position on the millennial reign of Rev. 20 has a lot to do with how they interpret such things as middle east events, and their world view.
You know, you might want to actually read Augustine's chapter on the millennium in his City of God. It might surprise you, if all you know of it is what the pop eschatological pundits have said.
I live in Alaska, Lee, we have a lot of people up here who devoutly read their Bibles, they have never heard of such theoretical systems as Preterist, Amill, Postmill. I have asked them how they see the tribulation section of Revelation, the second coming, first resurrection, and the millennial reign of Christ in chapters 19 & 20. Without fail, everyone of them see them as having not happened yet, future events. It is the way the Revelation naturally reads to them.
Which convinces me that Preterist Amill, with its placing of the whole of Revelation in the past, the first resurrection spiritualized, not future, in the past, followed by the tribulation just prior to 70AD, followed by a figurative millennial reign of Jesus Christ which they claim they are in now, followed by the second coming of Christ to take place AFTER the millennial reign which we are supposed to be in now, is nothing more than a theory one has to read into the Revelation.
Ordinary believers unaware of a theory they are supposed to be reading into the narrative, NEVER come up with Preterist or Amill interpretations. As to Postmill, when I explain it to them, they shake their heads in amazement that any one would believe such a thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.