The Assyrian

[Biblewriter]

The Bible contains numerous prophecies about an individual it calls "The Assyrian." Yet there is not even one well known teacher on prophecy that seems to have even noticed him.

To begin a discussion of this individual, I would like to direct attention to Micah 5:5-6:

"And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders."

The preceeding verses plainly show that the man called "this man" is out Lord Jesus. But who is the one called "the Assyrian"? There can be no question whatsoever that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, for when the ancient Assyrian kings invaded Israel and Judah, there was no power at all to resist them, much less "seven shepherds, and eight principal men." And Israel has never invaded Assyria.

Biblewriter

 

[livingwithgrace]

behold you have put forth expressions, that are a mans meat,
.
Micah 4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be estalblished, in the top of the mountains,and it shall be exalted above all hills and people shall flow unto it.


as for this little book there is the beuty of Revelation, words that are like music. thank -you Biblewriter for directing me to those words.

the 'assyrian' that is mentioned is of the beasts that are in Revelation that make war with the Lamb. But have no fear , these beasts are allready defeated and will return to their respective deserts and later cast into the sea of fire and the raging waters will toss and turn them for avery long time b/c they have put forth their evil doctrines and deceived many with their,perverted minds. One beast another, dragon and a serpent and the devil all make love to the Queen of Harlots, for her head shines above all others.

 

[Biblewriter]

The Bible contains numerous prophecies about an individual it calls "The Assyrian." Yet there is not even one well known teacher on prophecy that seems to have even noticed him.
Biblewriter

I would now like you to notice isaiah 14:24-31:

"The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders. This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? In the year that king Ahaz died was this burden. Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent. And the firstborn of the poor shall feed, and the needy shall lie down in safety: and I will kill thy root with famine, and he shall slay thy remnant. Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none shall be alone in his appointed times."


Here we see that, Immediately after announcing the destruction of the Assyrian, the Holy Spirit, speaking through the prophet Isaiah, Tells Palestina (the modern Philistines) not to rejoice "because the rod of him that smote thee is broken." Why? "for out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent...and he shall slay thy remnant."

In the words that this future destroyer would come "out of the serpent's root" and that "his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent." We see a second attacker which is a descendant of the first one. The number of generations separating these two attackers is not specified, but this future attacker "shall slay thy remnant."


Biblewriter

 

[livingwithgrace]

good am Biblewriter,

having fun? i woke up this am and dabbled my mind abit in the the books of Joel, Micah , and Daniel for 1/2 hour or so just to freshin up some.

This forum is very new to me and i'm having lots of fun here in these clouds.
However i wanted to say that, i see that your are a curious and read student. It may not surprise you , for me to say the same.
i have spent much time combing the the scriptures, but penning the exactness, times and dates, and personna to a T , has not been to me ,that important.

i gather from all i've read, that there are many crossovers, and i do realize that too make commitments to the exactness of what was said can render a person a fool if he/she doesn't have the facts straight
.
one thing for sure is the Assyrian is of the beasts, and according to the magnitude of how he is written into the Text by the prophets, he's a big mother. now is he the ram or the goat, quite possibly, i'll leave it alone for now. All said and done , i am intrigued to have found this cloud of people and it's really giving me some pleasure to see others in the mix, even though the opinion poll is very strong, know what i mean?

Sometimes, i feel the need to say a whole lot , but my fingers are attached to my heart and my heart is attached to OUr Father, so i don't even know what's in store some days except to say that, there are lots of stiff breezes blowing, however, pesonally i feel a calm before the storm.

These clouds are passing over the 'big summit' soon, but i believe that the clouds will be so dark above the summit that we won't see nor even hear much. LOLOLOL

i would be not so free to try a pen modern day Phiistine and Gaza, also mentioned ,somewhere or other, physical locations with those maps so easily.
i'm more inclined to let the map unfold, acccording to financial and political heavy weights influence, and cultural habits and lifestyes . .
i value much more my general feeling and spirit that is in the world. And hear as to what the Spirit is saying over my self. so i'll just put the ____________. there..LOL

 

[livingwithgrace]

looking for the fig tree passage , there is much more on the Assyrian you know. Do you have that Bible.com wherein in you just put in the word, and up pops all the correlations. i have it on my computor in Canada, but not here, atleast i don't think i ido . this techno stuff??????? eeeegads, but i;m trying....lolol

Hosea 11: 5
he appears everywhere b/c hi s origins are of the land of India and all those idolators.
and of course one king runs into another , nations of under the same roof.

 

[Hedgehog]

I believe this is all fulfilled.
The yoke was the law, that yoke has been broken. The assyrian is symbolic of satan, or some would say the antichrist. I have a little different beliefs about the antichrist thing, so I wont go into that, but I guess I could sum it up by saying , I believe the yoke of the law represented the yoke/bondage of sin that mankind has without accepting a savior.The law, middle wall of partition between Jew and gentiles represents the partition between God and mankind...... and all of this has been done, shown thru the rudiments of the world..yoke broken.. revealed thru the Holy Spirit...salvation plan made "plain".

I have no idea what the seven shepherds, and eight principal men would be but Im in a phase of rereading scripture and taking into account the symbolic meanings of things.. typology.. its VERY interesting. I dont throw the baby out with the bathwater and disreguard the actual context.. with out the original context typology has no meaning anyways.. but I do take into consideration like knowing that the "sword" is the word of God.
The land symbolically being... I dont know???????........ the place where Gods chosen are?
Symbolically-about the "land", Im not exactly sure what I belief to be the truth yet... I feel like there was a physical ( Israel) , a spiritual ( the body, or the church most people would call it) and a eternal( heaven, or where ever we spend eternity).

So I would more read the first scripture reference as Jesus bringing peace.... notice it says the assyrian shall come into OUR land ( this was spoken to Israel who was Gods chosen at the time) but they lay waste the land of Assyria ( take note: with " the sword")......... SO, I would take it in as being about the time period where " Gods chosen" was under the law, Gods place where His people dwelt at the time was Israel ( ethnic Israel at the time), so "The assyrian", came into "the land" ( where the chosen dwelt), that land is at the same time " assyria"( a negative ,bad place) also... because MOST of Israel was unsaved, believing that works made you righteous, as opposed to faith making you righteous.
Im sure I lost you, but I believe ALOT of the negative references in the OT were pertaining to ( symbolically) Israel itself... most were unsaved, they didnt have the holy spirit to reveal truth to them, and they fell hook line and sinker for the false doctrine that works could make you righteous.... a doctrine from satan.. or the assyrian.
Which I believe they brought on themselves at Mount Sinai when they asked not to hear God again, and made the golden calf. I believe the Savior coming was put on hold right there, they asked not to hear God again... and they got what they asked for.
He would have gathered them many times like hen gathers her chicks it says... but they would not.

Anyways- so God Himself, had set up a people," Israel" to know Him etc... it was His place.. where He worked etc...it became very corrupt... still His people, still where He worked.. but very corrupted, by satan. Hence, why they( all of ethnic Israel) was also symbolically " Assyria". His chosen people grouping was now corrupt.
That "land" , ethnic Israel, was laid waste by "the sword", the word of God, when Jesus came, died, and the Holy Spirit came and revealed...... THE TRUTH!!!! ( faithful people are the "Israel of God" and whether you have Hebrew blood or not, if you have no faith you are none of mine)

God...... even though the people had asked not to hear from them... STILL symbolically told them, thru the law, Moses law(not Gods law, not Jesus law), what the plan of salvation was, what He was going to do.... but the people could not "read between the lines", they came to fully rely on the "exacts" of it. Doing it all in a literal sense. Not knowing that sacrificing was really hinting to them that a savior would come and be a sacrifice for them. Not knowing that " the temple" hinting towards a grouping of people who were saved by faith, Gods real " chosen"... no, instead they didnt even follow the law they knew.
Instead they changed even that into so many more laws... example " Do not seethe a kid in its mothers milk".... changed into dont eat meat and milk together, dont cook them together, do not eat them on the same plate, do not eat them with in a certain amount of time or they may mix in your stomache.
Didnt they know that the "kid" was Jesus? Didnt they know that His "mothers milk", was the hinting at all this that would take place ( the law).... which was symbolic of what was to come? His "mother" being remnant Israel- the people who "gave birth" to Him. The "milk" being the Word/scripture that God fed them at that time- "milk" because it wasnt all spoken plainly, wasnt all understood- it wasn "meat" like we know today.
The "Milk"(the foreshadowing that the law gave- trying to tell them what was going on spiritually) that was fed to the remnant Israel( faithful) while they were yet TRAPPED (held captive)amongst an earthly worldly group of ethnic people, most of whom did not know Him? Or that he was to come and save them from the law and their sins?
They in fact did not know this, well most didnt, how could they, they didnt have the Holy Spirit freely given at that time.
We do now ( Praise God), so we can see and understand what this all meant.

Just like now- we can go back and read thru the OT and see what God was hinting at when He did many things physically ( so people would have a reference point, and be able to understand the gospel message), and had wrote all this that was going to happen- what DID happen.

The Assyrian(satan) came into the land( the group of Gods chosen) he(satan) succeeded in blinding them all and made them think works(good behavior and temple service) would make them righteous and worthy of having eternal life.
Assyria( the whole grouping of Israel) was laid waste, by the sword( word of God) when the Holy Spirit came and revealed that in fact ethnic Israel was really no good, no faithful people and they didnt understand the gosple message and didnt know Jesus would come like He did, and that He would die.

He( Jesus) delivered us ( faithful people, which at the time was mostly Israel since that was who He was working with, though some gentiles had joined in) from " the assyrian ( satan) when he was come into the "land" ( Gods chosen, ethnic Israel at the time).

"Mountain" has to do symbolically with salvation.
His(satan) yoke( the law and what it made them believe) DID depart already. The burden( the law, the curse of the law) DID depart already. The burden, was all that the law entailed. It was something to "burden" the people and make them have things to follow from morning till night.A constant thing.
and for that( following the law) they got nothing basically. It was in vain. All their works amounted to nothing ( at the time). They did not have access into the "temple"... the temple that we are today. Which is why Jesus led captivity captive when he was dead for 3 days. He was leading the people( the faithful people of all times past) into the temple.To apply the blood. The sacrifice that was made for them now.
It says ( in the NT) that abraham knows and he is glad.Abraham knows of the REAL temple now because Jesus led him there when He( Jesus) was dead in the sepulchre.

This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth:

Jesus says He was waiting for this very hour. The hour of the cross and His death.Is the biggest thing that has ever taken place.The only thing thats ever mattered.

because the rod of him that smote thee is broken:

The rod was satans rod, its satan who "smote thee", and its been broken.

and the needy shall lie down in safety:

we're in safety now We know the Truth. We know the gospel. There is nothing being taught to us daily like Jews had ( and still have about some of the law) that tells us that we have to follow many laws, and sacrifice in the temple to be cleansed etc... We know the truth of it.

nd I will kill thy root with famine,

The root was faith. Faith was killed with famine.. not a food famine, but a famine of the truth of God.It was so clouded over for a long time, with that dang " works will make us righteous" line of thinking.

 

[TrevorL]

Howdy Biblewriter,

Greetings. After quoting Micah 5:5-6 "And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land ..."

"The preceeding verses plainly show that the man called "this man" is out Lord Jesus. But who is the one called "the Assyrian"? There can be no question whatsoever that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, for when the ancient Assyrian kings invaded Israel and Judah, there was no power at all to resist them, much less "seven shepherds, and eight principal men." And Israel has never invaded Assyria."

I agree with what you say above. I believe that this speaks of a latter-day "Assyrian". The subject of the Assyrian is a Bible theme representing mankind and the kingdoms of men in rebellion against God, and in antagonism against God's people. The beginning of this antagonism is shown in Genesis 10:8-11, and the two influences are developed and contrasted in Genesis 11 and Genesis 12:1-3 where the ultimate blessing of all nations in Christ is depicted.

The Assyrian was the dominant power in the Middle East in the days of the prophets Micah and Isaiah, and the kings Ahaz and Hezekiah. There was a tentative fulfilment of Micah 5:5 and Isaiah 14:24-28 when the Assyrian was destroyed outside the walls of Jerusalem after the intercessory prayer of Hezekiah. There is much in Isaiah that speaks of Christ in his sufferings and final subduing the nations using the events surrounding Hezekiah as a pattern. These historical events help us to appreciate what will be accomplished in the future, and many of the personal lessons given to Hezekiah and his contemporaries should be heeded by us if we want to be associated with Christ in his sufferings and rejoice with him in the day of his glory.

After the destruction of the Assyrian, the mantle of the Assyrian fell to Babylon. Daniel 2 depicts the various phases of the kingdoms of men, Assyria-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and then divided Rome. These are then destroyed by the stone power that initially strikes the image on the feet corresponding to the divided Roman stage, comprising of weak and strong elements as we have today.

Daniel 2 is expanded in Daniel chapters 4, 7, 8 and these give the reason why the latter-day power is called the Assyrian. The latter-day invasion of Israel will be from the north, headed up by a military power. I parallel Micah 5:5 and Isaiah 14:24-27 with Ezekiel 38, Daniel 11:40-45 and Revelation 16:13-16. My personal view taken from Ezekiel 38 is that the latter-day Assyrian power is the nations represented by the Roman Empire, Western and Eastern Europe headed up in this invasion by Russia as the dominant military power. This invasion is initially resisted by Israel, some Arabs and the British powers, but the Assyrian power is initially successful. It is then that Christ intervenes and destroys the Assyrian. The saints, described as "seven shepherds, and eight princes of men" in conjunction with Israel will then subdue the nations with the end result depicted in Isaiah 2:1-4.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Biblewriter]

The Bible contains numerous prophecies about an individual it calls "The Assyrian." Yet there is not even one well known teacher on prophecy that seems to have even noticed him.
Biblewriter

In continuance of this discussion, I would direct your atteention to Isaiah 10:24-32.

"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction. And the LORD of hosts shall stir up a scourge for him according to the slaughter of Midian at the rock of Oreb: and as his rod was upon the sea, so shall he lift it up after the manner of Egypt. And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing.

"He is come to Aiath, he is passed to Migron; at Michmash he hath laid up his carriages: They are gone over the passage: they have taken up their lodging at Geba; Ramah is afraid; Gibeah of Saul is fled. Lift up thy voice, O daughter of Gallim: cause it to be heard unto Laish, O poor Anathoth. Madmenah is removed; the inhabitants of Gebim gather themselves to flee. As yet shall he remain at Nob that day: he shall shake his hand against the mount of the daughter of Zion, the hill of Jerusalem."

Here we read that "the indignation shall cease, and [God's] anger" in the destruction of the Assyrians. While this may have had a partial fulfilment in the destruction of Sennacherib, yet the last part of this prophecy (the part I have divided as a separate paragraph) has not even been partially fulfilled.

This fact is so clear historically that historians have been known to use it to mock Isaiah, telling how he "blew it" here. But Isaiah only "blew" this if he was talking about Sennacherib. The towns mentioned in this sequence are all in the portion of ancient Judeah north of Jerusalem, along the north-south mountainous ridge that divides ancient Judeah east to west. But The monuments left by Sennacherib show that he invaded Judeah along the coastline, nowhere near the towns in this sequence. Isaiah 36:2 clearly states that Sennacherib's troops came to Jerusalem from Lachish, which is south of Jerusalem. There is abundant archeological evidence of the Assyrian presence in southern Judeah (the area around Lachish) but no evidence of Assyrian presence has ever been found in the areas of the towns mentioned in the sequence above.

So we have a clearly stated prophgecy describing the path by which the Assyrian will approach Jerusalem. Yet this is not the path Sennacherib (or any other invader) followed. Now if the Bible is the word of God, we know that anything and everything it says will happen, will most assuredly happen. Since this has not happened, we are forced to conclude that this is a prophecy that remains to be fulfilled in the future.

This conclusion is strongly reinforced by several passages earlier in this same chapter. In Isaiah 10:5-6 we read: "O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets." Yet 2 Kings 18:5-6 tells us that Hezekiah, the king Sennacherib attacked, was one of the most godly kings Judea ever had. And 2 Chronicles 30:12 tells us that Judeah followed Hezekiah with "one heart." So at the time of Sennacherib, Judeah could not have been called "an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath."

Again, Isaiah 10:12 tells us that the Assyrian will be punished "when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem;" and verses 20and 21 tell us, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God." The Lord has even yet not "performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem," and the house of Jacob has still not returned unto "the mighty God."

Biblewriter

 

[MbiaJc]

Howdy Biblewriter,

Greetings. After quoting Micah 5:5-6 "And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land ..." I agree with what you say above. I believe that this speaks of a latter-day "Assyrian". The subject of the Assyrian is a Bible theme representing mankind and the kingdoms of men in rebellion against God, and in antagonism against God's people. The beginning of this antagonism is shown in Genesis 10:8-11, and the two influences are developed and contrasted in Genesis 11 and Genesis 12:1-3 where the ultimate blessing of all nations in Christ is depicted.

The Assyrian was the dominant power in the Middle East in the days of the prophets Micah and Isaiah, and the kings Ahaz and Hezekiah. There was a tentative fulfilment of Micah 5:5 and Isaiah 14:24-28 when the Assyrian was destroyed outside the walls of Jerusalem after the intercessory prayer of Hezekiah. There is much in Isaiah that speaks of Christ in his sufferings and final subduing the nations using the events surrounding Hezekiah as a pattern. These historical events help us to appreciate what will be accomplished in the future, and many of the personal lessons given to Hezekiah and his contemporaries should be heeded by us if we want to be associated with Christ in his sufferings and rejoice with him in the day of his glory.

After the destruction of the Assyrian, the mantle of the Assyrian fell to Babylon. Daniel 2 depicts the various phases of the kingdoms of men, Assyria-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and then divided Rome. These are then destroyed by the stone power that initially strikes the image on the feet corresponding to the divided Roman stage, comprising of weak and strong elements as we have today.

Daniel 2 is expanded in Daniel chapters 4, 7, 8 and these give the reason why the latter-day power is called the Assyrian. The latter-day invasion of Israel will be from the north, headed up by a military power. I parallel Micah 5:5 and Isaiah 14:24-27 with Ezekiel 38, Daniel 11:40-45 and Revelation 16:13-16. My personal view taken from Ezekiel 38 is that the latter-day Assyrian power is the nations represented by the Roman Empire, Western and Eastern Europe headed up in this invasion by Russia as the dominant military power. This invasion is initially resisted by Israel, some Arabs and the British powers, but the Assyrian power is initially successful. It is then that Christ intervenes and destroys the Assyrian. The saints, described as "seven shepherds, and eight princes of men" in conjunction with Israel will then subdue the nations with the end result depicted in Isaiah 2:1-4.

Kind regards
Trevor

Yes the mantle was handed down to Babylon=(the Chaldeans=Iraq), the king of Babylon=Iraq still has three and one half years to rule over the nations that was put under his yoke for 70yrs. The man of sin, the lawless one will
come out of Iraq=The one that was and is not yet is, is the eitht which is of the seven. For the king of Babylon=Iraq is the king of the notrh of Daniel 11.

 

[vinsight4u]

e

 

[vinsight4u]

e

 

[Biblewriter]

The Bible contains numerous prophecies about an individual it calls "The Assyrian." Yet there is not even one well known teacher on prophecy that seems to have even noticed him.
Biblewriter

In Daniel 11:2-4 we read:"And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those."

Here we see clearly spelled out that there would be (after Daniel's time) three more kings in Persia. These would be followed by a fourth, who would enter into a contest with "the realm of Grecia." This happened exactly as prophesied. The fourth king was Darius. Then we see a mighty king who would stand up, but his kingdom "shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity." This happened, exactly as prophesied, to the mighty king Alexander the great, the Grecian king who defeated Darius.

We need to notice that it says that the great king's kingdom "shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven." Immediately after this the prophecy launches into a 27 verse long description of a series of wars that would take place between "the king of the South" and "the king of the North." The context of the previous verses clearly shows that these terms refer to the southern and northern fragments of the kingdom that "shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven."

MAny years ago, when I was studying ancient history, I found that modern historians use this 27 verse passage as one of their major (but not nearly their only) source for the history of the Ptolemaic and the Selucid dynasties. Indeed, unbelieving historians consider their very accuracy as proof that the book of Daniel could not have been written until after thse events took place. In this account, every act attributed to "the king of the South" was actually comitted by one of the Ptolaemic kings. And every act attributed to "the king of the North" was actually comitted by one of the Selucid kings.

(Some in this forum imagine that this statement is not correct. But I have personally studied this history in great detail and know of a certainty that every detail of this passage was fulfilled precisely as written. I do not intend to continue this debate here, and will ignore all posts to the conrtrary. This is my final answer to those who disagree.)

At the end of this passage we read: "And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed." Daniel 11:33-35

This is a general description of a condition that would continue "many days." How accurately this was fulllfilled is beyond question. The first part of Daniel 11 was future at the time it was written, but was fulfilled in ancient times. But the rest has not yet happened. We are not left to imagine where the break occurs. The Holy Spirit specifically told us (in verse 35) that the condition described in verses 33 and 34 would continue "even to the time of the end."

Then we read, "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain." Daniel 11:36-39

This evil individual is simply called "the king." It is clear that there has never been a king that fits this description. But this is not a problem, because it comes after the words "even to the time of the end." But who is he? Our first hint comes in the simple words "the king." Today, if an employee of a corporation is talking about his corporation and simply says "the president," it is plain that he means the president of that corporation. If an American is talking about politics and simply says "the president," it is plain that he means the president of the United States. If an Englishman simply says "the Prime Minister," it is plain that he is talking about the Prime Minister of Great Briton. Even so, when a Jew simply says, "the king," the normal meaning would be the king of Judah. Judah has now returned to its ancient homeland and calls itself Israel. It is entirely possible that a king could rise up in that nation. But even if this did not happen, the concept of a "Prime Minister," as opposed to a king, did not exist in ancient times. So the ancient Hebrews could not have understood such a distinction.

Our second hint as to the identity of this evil individual is found in the words "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers." Some have imagined that he must be descended from a nation that worshipped many gods, because in the Hebrew the word God in this passage is plural. But this is the standard form of the word God wherever it occurrs in the Hebrew scriptures. This is the word used, for instance, in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."

The term, "the God of his fathers," is not just a generic reference to a god worshiped in past generations. Some form of this term is used of the God of Israel fifty-eight times in the Old Testament. When the Lord sent Moses to the children of Israel He told him "Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." (Exodus 3:15) But if "the gods of his fathers" were the correct translation of this verse, this would be the only place the Holy Spirit used this formula in speaking of false gods.

So it is only reasonable to conclude that in refering to "the God of his fathers," the Holy Spirit was indicating the this evil king would be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That is, that he would be the king of revived Judah, which is now called Israel.

Finally, verses 40 to 45 of this most interesting chapter renew the previous description of the contest between "the king of the South" and "the king of the North." They attack "the King," evidently at the same time, and then "the king of the North" sweeps through all except Edom, Moab, and Ammon (These three make up most of modern Jordan) and conquers "the king of the South."

This becomes most interesting when we remember that, in each generation referred to, "the king of the South" was the Ptolaemic king (that is, the king of Egypt) And "the king of the North" was the Selucid king. The Selucids ruled out of Antioch in Syria, but refering to him as the Syrian king masks his true identity. If we compare a map of the ancient Selucid empire with a map of the much older Assyrian empire, we see that they covered the same area. Except for a few areas aroubd the fringes, these two ancient empires covered the same region. Thus we see that "the king of the North" and "the Assyrian" are the same individual. So I conclude that "the king of the North" is another name for "the Assyrian," and that the point of Daniel 11 is to tell us that "the Assyrian" will again overrun Judah, which is now called Israel.

Biblewriter

 

[vinsight4u]

e

 

[vinsight4u]

e

 

[Biblewriter]

The Bible contains numerous prophecies about an individual it calls "The Assyrian." Yet there is not even one well known teacher on prophecy that seems to have even noticed him.

In Isaiah 7:17-25 we read:

"The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard. And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land. And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns. With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns. And on all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle."

In my opinion, the most interesting part of this prophecy is the words "in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes."

While the language is symbolic, this clearly speaks of simultaneous invasions from Assyria and Egypt. Now from both secular and Biblical history, we know that both Assyria and Egypt invaded ancient Judea. But there has never been a time when both nations invaded Judea at the same time. This is of particular interest in comparison with Daniel 11:40, which we examined in my last posting in this thread. There we read that "at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over."

So, remembering that the ancient "king of the North" ruled over the same area as the ancient Assyrian, we now have two separate references to this individual attacking at the same time as "the king of the South," or Egypt. This strongly reinforces the conclusion that "the king of the North" and "the Assyrian" are the same individual. But there is one more prophecy that enlarges on this concept.

In Daniel 8, the prophet saw a vision of a ram with two horns and an he goat with only one great horn. The he goat defeated by the ram, and then his great horn was broken. Four came up in its place, and then a little horn came forth "out of one of them." (Daniel 8:9)

In the inspired interpretation of this vision, Daniel was specifically told that the ram with the two horns was "the kings of Media and Persia," (verse 20) the goat was "the king of Grecia," and the great horn between its eyes "is the first king."

(Now some in this forum have insisted that the words "the king of Grecia" are not a correct translation, but this is not just the opion of a few translators. Essentially every translation of this passage (every one I have checked) renders it the same way. The fact that thw word can have other meanings is not revelant. In translating, context is everything. And in the context of this sentence, the word plainly means the king of a particular country. And the only specific country this word can refer to is Greece.)

The inspired interpretation says of the four horns, that "four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power."

The parallel between these words and the actual events of history is beyond dispute. Alexander the great was the first king of the great Grecian empire. He conquered the king of Persia and then the rest of the known civilized ancient world. But when he died while still young, his kingdom was divided among his four generals.

(Again, some on this forum have insisted that the vision shows this battle taking place beside the river Ulai. They saythis could not mean Alexander the great because he conquered the king of Persia on the plains of Arbella, about a thousand miles from the river Ulai. But the vision does not say where the battle was to take place. At the time of the battle in the vision, the ram is refered to as "the ram which I had seen standing before the river." These words at least imply, if they do not directly state, that the ram was no longer "beside the river" at the time of the battle. Others have popinted out that Alexander was not the first king of Greece, but he was beyond question the first king of the great Grecian empire.)

But now the inspired interpretation turns to the little horn. We read in verse 23 that "in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up." Some have mistakenly insisted that everything in the vision refers to the last days because verse 17 says "Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision." But here we see a distinct jump in the very text of the interpretation. Up to this point, we have only an account of things that would happen at a time future to the prophet. But now we read, "in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full." Thus we see that the words after this point refer to "the time of the end," but the words before this point refer to an earlier time.

The point of this progressive prophecy, as in numerous other cases, is to identify the indiividual involved in the "end times" portion of the prophecy. The early part of the vision and of the interpretation clearly refer to Alexander the Great, his defeat of Persia, and the division of his kingdom. The rest remains to be fulfilled. But we find the point of this preliminary detail in the words from verse 9, "out of one of them came forth a little horn." This clearly indicates that the king represented by this little horn, (and by all the interpretation after the words "in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full") (verse 23) will come out of one of the four kingdoms that were to stand up "out of the nation." (verse 22)

This brings us to the reason this discussion is included in this thread. The end time character indicated by the little horn will come out of one of the four nations that came from the division of the kingdom of Alexander the great. This means he cannot represent either the Roman power or the Russian power, because Aaalexander' empire did not include either Rome or Russia. He is someone else. But who can he be? We have already seen that "the king of the North" came out of Alexander's empire. Indeed, he was one of the four nations mentioned in Daniel 8:22. We have also seen that the ancient "king of the North" ruled over the same area as the ancient Assyrian. Thus I conclude that the king represented by the little horn in Daniel 8 is the same individual as "the king of the North," and is also "the Assyrian."

This interpretation brings together and unifies the prophecies about "the Assyrian," "the king of the North," and the "little horn." When all these prophecies are seen to refer to the same individual, we understand that he is the central human character of end time prophecy. The Bible devotes more verses to him that to any other end time character.

But why does the Assyrian loom so large in end time prophecy? Isn't the beast a much larger character? It seems so to us only if we do not understand the point of end time prophecy. End time prophecy is not about what will happen to us. It is not about what will happen to the world. It is about what will happen to God's earthly people, the Jews, and to their homeland, ancient Judeah, which is now called israel. Thus, the largest character in end times prophecy is not whoever will terrorize the world. It is whoever will terrorize ancient Judeah, which is now called Israel. This person is the Assyrian.

There are also other prophecies about this end time character, but these comments have covered the bulk of the Biblical porophecies about him.

Biblewriter

 

[vinsight4u]

e

 

[Biblewriter]

Howdy Biblewriter,

Greetings. After quoting Micah 5:5-6 "And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land ..." I agree with what you say above. I believe that this speaks of a latter-day "Assyrian". The subject of the Assyrian is a Bible theme representing mankind and the kingdoms of men in rebellion against God, and in antagonism against God's people. The beginning of this antagonism is shown in Genesis 10:8-11, and the two influences are developed and contrasted in Genesis 11 and Genesis 12:1-3 where the ultimate blessing of all nations in Christ is depicted.

The Assyrian was the dominant power in the Middle East in the days of the prophets Micah and Isaiah, and the kings Ahaz and Hezekiah. There was a tentative fulfilment of Micah 5:5 and Isaiah 14:24-28 when the Assyrian was destroyed outside the walls of Jerusalem after the intercessory prayer of Hezekiah. There is much in Isaiah that speaks of Christ in his sufferings and final subduing the nations using the events surrounding Hezekiah as a pattern. These historical events help us to appreciate what will be accomplished in the future, and many of the personal lessons given to Hezekiah and his contemporaries should be heeded by us if we want to be associated with Christ in his sufferings and rejoice with him in the day of his glory.

After the destruction of the Assyrian, the mantle of the Assyrian fell to Babylon. Daniel 2 depicts the various phases of the kingdoms of men, Assyria-Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and then divided Rome. These are then destroyed by the stone power that initially strikes the image on the feet corresponding to the divided Roman stage, comprising of weak and strong elements as we have today.

Daniel 2 is expanded in Daniel chapters 4, 7, 8 and these give the reason why the latter-day power is called the Assyrian. The latter-day invasion of Israel will be from the north, headed up by a military power. I parallel Micah 5:5 and Isaiah 14:24-27 with Ezekiel 38, Daniel 11:40-45 and Revelation 16:13-16. My personal view taken from Ezekiel 38 is that the latter-day Assyrian power is the nations represented by the Roman Empire, Western and Eastern Europe headed up in this invasion by Russia as the dominant military power. This invasion is initially resisted by Israel, some Arabs and the British powers, but the Assyrian power is initially successful. It is then that Christ intervenes and destroys the Assyrian. The saints, described as "seven shepherds, and eight princes of men" in conjunction with Israel will then subdue the nations with the end result depicted in Isaiah 2:1-4.

Kind regards
Trevor

If this conclusion were correct, then most of the details of explicitly stated prophecies would be simply symbolic, rather that literal, as I firmly believe.

 

[Bible2]

In Micah 5:5, the Assyrian could refer to the
Antichrist, who will be defeated by Jesus at the
second coming (Isaiah 30:30-32) when the Antichrist
makes a final attack on Jerusalem right before the
second coming (Zechariah 14:2-4). The subsequent
successful fighting by the Jews in Zechariah 14:14
(cf. Zechariah 12:6-8) could be what Micah 5:5b-6 is
referring to.

In Isaiah 14:25 and Isaiah 10:24-32, the Assyrian
could be Sennacherib (cf. Isaiah 37:36-37). There is
no historical proof that Sennacherib didn't fulfill
Isaiah 10:28-32. His main army could have gone down
the coast while he led an expeditionary force quickly
down the ridge (leaving no archaeological markers) to
check out the approaches to Jerusalem and get a sense
of the best way to lay siege to it. Then he could have
shaken his fist at Jerusalem (Isaiah 10:32) and
rejoined his army along the coast. Later, while he was
besieging Lachish, he could have worried how long it
would take to besiege Jerusalem, and so sent some of
his forces to try to scare-talk Jerusalem into
surrender (2 Kings 18:17-37) so he wouldn't have to
actually return and lay siege to it. Note the
similarity of the actual boasting in 2 Kings 18:34-35
and that prophesied in Isaiah 10:9-11.

Isaiah 10:5-6 could have been fulfilled by Sennacherib
(Isaiah 36:1). 2 Kings 18:5-6 doesn't say that the
masses of Israel weren't hypocritical. 2 Chronicles
30:12 refers only to them keeping a single Passover
in the first year of Hezekiah's reign, not to how they
were generally after that. 2 Kings 18:13 didn't happen
until fourteen years later; they could have fallen into
gross hypocrisy by that time.

Isaiah 10:12,20-21 could have been fulfilled in
Isaiah 37:31-38.

Isaiah 7:17-25 is addressed to Ahaz (Isaiah 7:12), and
so the king of Assyria in Isaiah 7:17 could refer to
Tilgathpilneser (2 Chronicles 28:19-21, cf. 1 Chronicles
5:6). The "rivers of Egypt" (Isaiah 7:18) could mean
small rivers near the southern end of Philistia and
its border with Egypt, for the "river of Egypt" was a
small river at the southern border of Israel in the
land of the Philistines (Numbers 34:5, Joshua 15:4,47).
So Isaiah 7:18 could refer to the invasion of Judah by
both the Philistines and Tilgathpilneser (2 Chronicles
28:18-21).

Isaiah 14:28-29 could refer to Palestina (the ancient
Philistines) possibly being smitten by Tilgathpilneser
king of Assyria in the time of Ahaz (2 Chronicles
28:18-21). Palestina could then have been smitten again
later by a subsequent king of Assyria, such as
Sennacherib in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:13),
the son of Ahaz (2 Kings 18:1).

Daniel 11:31,36 (cf. 2 Thessalonian 2:4) has yet to
be fulfilled, per Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:15.
And Daniel 11:21-45 is all referring to the same
individual, the Antichrist. A defeat of Israel (and
Egypt) happens in Daniel 11:15-16, shortly before the
Antichrist arises in Daniel 11:21. This defeat of
Israel (and Egypt) could come at the hands of
a huge Iraqi Army, built up by the U.S. to invade Iran
instead. Shortly after the leader of the Iraqi Army
disappears from the scene (Daniel 11:19), the
Antichrist (who could be an Arab) could arise as "the
little horn" (Daniel 7:8, 8:9) out of Tyre, Lebanon
(Ezekiel 28:2, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4) and be given
control of a three-nation Arab Baathist confederation
of Iraq, Syria (including "Palestine", i.e. a defeated
Israel) and Egypt, which had been put together by the
Iraqi Army leader, who could have been a Baathist (in
Daniel 11:17, the Hebrew word translated as "daughter"
is "bath").

 

[Biblewriter]

In Micah 5:5, the Assyrian could refer to the
Antichrist, who will be defeated by Jesus at the
second coming (Isaiah 30:30-32) when the Antichrist
makes a final attack on Jerusalem right before the
second coming (Zechariah 14:2-4). The subsequent
successful fighting by the Jews in Zechariah 14:14
(cf. Zechariah 12:6-8) could be what Micah 5:5b-6 is
referring to.

In Isaiah 14:25 and Isaiah 10:24-32, the Assyrian
could be Sennacherib (cf. Isaiah 37:36-37). There is
no historical proof that Sennacherib didn't fulfill
Isaiah 10:28-32. His main army could have gone down
the coast while he led an expeditionary force quickly
down the ridge (leaving no archaeological markers) to
check out the approaches to Jerusalem and get a sense
of the best way to lay siege to it. Then he could have
shaken his fist at Jerusalem (Isaiah 10:32) and
rejoined his army along the coast. Later, while he was
besieging Lachish, he could have worried how long it
would take to besiege Jerusalem, and so sent some of
his forces to try to scare-talk Jerusalem into
surrender (2 Kings 18:17-37) so he wouldn't have to
actually return and lay siege to it. Note the
similarity of the actual boasting in 2 Kings 18:34-35
and that prophesied in Isaiah 10:9-11.

Isaiah 10:5-6 could have been fulfilled by Sennacherib
(Isaiah 36:1). 2 Kings 18:5-6 doesn't say that the
masses of Israel weren't hypocritical. 2 Chronicles
30:12 refers only to them keeping a single Passover
in the first year of Hezekiah's reign, not to how they
were generally after that. 2 Kings 18:13 didn't happen
until fourteen years later; they could have fallen into
gross hypocrisy by that time.

Isaiah 10:12,20-21 could have been fulfilled in
Isaiah 37:31-38.

Isaiah 7:17-25 is addressed to Ahaz (Isaiah 7:12), and
so the king of Assyria in Isaiah 7:17 could refer to
Tilgathpilneser (2 Chronicles 28:19-21, cf. 1 Chronicles
5:6). The "rivers of Egypt" (Isaiah 7:18) could mean
small rivers near the southern end of Philistia and
its border with Egypt, for the "river of Egypt" was a
small river at the southern border of Israel in the
land of the Philistines (Numbers 34:5, Joshua 15:4,47).
So Isaiah 7:18 could refer to the invasion of Judah by
both the Philistines and Tilgathpilneser (2 Chronicles
28:18-21).

Isaiah 14:28-29 could refer to Palestina (the ancient
Philistines) possibly being smitten by Tilgathpilneser
king of Assyria in the time of Ahaz (2 Chronicles
28:18-21). Palestina could then have been smitten again
later by a subsequent king of Assyria, such as
Sennacherib in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:13),
the son of Ahaz (2 Kings 18:1).

Daniel 11:31,36 (cf. 2 Thessalonian 2:4) has yet to
be fulfilled, per Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:15.
And Daniel 11:21-45 is all referring to the same
individual, the Antichrist. A defeat of Israel (and
Egypt) happens in Daniel 11:15-16, shortly before the
Antichrist arises in Daniel 11:21. This defeat of
Israel (and Egypt) could come in 2010 at the hands of
a huge Iraqi Army, built up by the U.S. to invade Iran
instead. Shortly after the leader of the Iraqi Army
disappears from the scene (Daniel 11:19), the
Antichrist (who could be an Arab) could arise as "the
little horn" (Daniel 7:8, 8:9) out of Tyre, Lebanon
(Ezekiel 28:2, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4) and be given
control of a three-nation Arab Baathist confederation
of Iraq, Syria (including "Palestine", i.e. a defeated
Israel) and Egypt, which had been put together by the
Iraqi Army leader, who could have been a Baathist (in
Daniel 11:17, the Hebrew word translated as "daughter"
is "bath").

Imagining ancient events for which there is no historical or scriptural evidence is nothing short of silly. Whether you accept it or not, the historical records clearly indicate that Sennacherib did not fulfill numerous details of Isaiah 10. This is not disparaging the prophetic scriptures, it is only pointing out that this prophecy has to refer to someone else.

But imagining future scenarios that would fulfill your interpretations of prophecy goes beyond being silly. It is actually wrongdoing. "Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

There is not even one scripture that even hints at an idea that "the Antichrist" is "the Assyrian." These are two completely different future individuals.

 

[Bible2]

There's no historical or scriptural proof that every
last detail of Isaiah 10:5-34 wasn't fulfilled during
Sennacherib's invasion in Isaiah chapters 36-37, just
as there's no scripture which requires that the
Assyrian in Micah 5:5 and Isaiah 30:31 isn't the
Antichrist.

If one interprets Proverbs 30:6 to mean that we can't
say anything that isn't expressly stated by the Bible,
then saying that Sennacherib's invasion didn't fulfill
Isaiah 10:5-34, or saying that the Assyrian in Micah
5:5 and Isaiah 30:31 isn't the Antichrist, would be
adding to the Bible no less than saying that
Sennacherib's invasion could have fulfilled Isaiah
10:5-34, or saying that the Assyrian in Micah 5:5 and
Isaiah 30:31 could be the Antichrist.

But, of course, Proverbs 30:6 doesn't mean that we
can't say anything that isn't expressly stated by the
Bible, or otherwise all we could do is speak to each
other with scripture quotations. Proverbs 30:6 means
that we can't add to the Bible in the sense of quoting
or publishing any part of it with our own additions
so that they are made to appear as if they were part
of the original, inspired text.