Isaiah 17

[Devonmcknight68]

Is Isaiah 17 referring to the end end times? I have heard people say that the fall of Damascus is a sign we are in the end times but when you read Isaiah it doesn't say anything specific about being in the end times. Is there maybe some verses from other books I'm missing? Or are people just assuming that it speaks of the end times.

17 The burden against Damascus.
“Behold, Damascus will cease from beinga city,
And it will be a ruinous heap.
2 The cities of Aroer are forsaken;[a]
They will be for flocks
Which lie down, and no one will make them afraid.
3 The fortress also will cease from Ephraim,
The kingdom from Damascus,
And the remnant of Syria;
They will be as the glory of the children of Israel,”
Says the Lord of hosts.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Nobody can say for sure this refers to the end times, the main point seems to be Damascus hasn't become an uninhabited heap, ceasing to be in prior history, but there was also a prior history where Aram, that is Damascus, was defeated by Assyria, and Israel very bruised. It's striking and terrible, what's happening in Syria, and, just the other day, I heard a pastor talking about how Damascus is already becoming a heap, terrible damage as we speak. But, in fact, that all of Isaiah 17 is end times nobody can honestly say, despite everybody and their brother saying we're seeing Isaiah 17. Could be, but I don't see where this is absolute, in scripture. It does make one wonder that a nuclear event would put a lid on Damascus ever being again, but that just more speculation. I've always been very skeptical, this constant need to stuff the news into a scripture context, with its long history of being errant, even much indulged in over generations, too many YouTube "prophets" finding Gog and Magog, every time Mr. Putin opens his mouth or drops a bomb, or any time some Iranian starts mouthing off.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The kingdom of Damascus was destroyed by the Assyrians, never to rise again. It's entire population was killed or deported. People try to project this into the future based on how they choose to read one or two words. Here's how it reads in the Septuagint.

The word against Damascus. Behold, Damascus shall be lifted from cities, and will be for a downfall; abandoned for ever, to [be] a fold and resting-place for flocks, and there shall be none to go after them. And she shall no longer be a strong place for Ephraim to flee to, and there shall no longer be a kingdom in Damascus, or a remnant of Syrians; for thou art no better than the children of Israel, [even] than their glory; thus saith the Lord of hosts. Isaiah 17:-3​

One thing you will notice about that prophecy is that it pertains to the destruction of Israel as well (verse 4). Damascus was destroyed in 732 BC and Israel was destroyed in 722 BC, by Assyria in both cases.

Notice also in verse 2 that Damascus' destruction would prevent Ephraim (another word for Israel) from being able to flee there for safety.

 

[JesusIsAll]

The kingdom of Damascus was destroyed by the Assyrians, never to rise again. It's entire population was killed or deported. People try to project this into the future based on how they choose to read one or two words. Here's how it reads in the Septuagint.

The word against Damascus. Behold, Damascus shall be lifted from cities, and will be for a downfall; abandoned for ever, to [be] a fold and resting-place for flocks, and there shall be none to go after them. And she shall no longer be a strong place for Ephraim to flee to, and there shall no longer be a kingdom in Damascus, or a remnant of Syrians; for thou art no better than the children of Israel, [even] than their glory; thus saith the Lord of hosts. Isaiah 17:-3​

One thing you will notice about that prophecy is that it pertains to the destruction of Israel as well (verse 4). Damascus was destroyed in 732 BC and Israel was destroyed in 722 BC, by Assyria in both cases.

Notice also in verse 2 that Damascus' destruction would prevent Ephraim (another word for Israel) from being able to flee there for safety.

Though the city is explicitly referred to, "Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap." We do still have a Damascus, that city never having yet ceased from being a city, I heard somebody say the oldest, continuously inhabited city on earth, though never bothered to fact-check this.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Though the city is explicitly referred to, "Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap." We do still have a Damascus, that city never having yet ceased from being a city, I heard somebody say the oldest, continuously inhabited city on earth, though never bothered to fact-check this.

Damascus was a city-kingdom. Notice in verse 3 that it says that there will no longer be a kingdom in Damascus. The entire kingdom was killed or deported. It ceased to exist. A city or kingdom is it's subjects, not necessarily it's buildings. Just depends on how you want to interpret. There are some quotes from the king who destroyed Damascus in which he claimed to have utterly destroyed the cities of Damascus like Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Damascus was a city-kingdom. Notice in verse 3 that it says that there will no longer be a kingdom in Damascus. The entire kingdom was killed or deported. It ceased to exist. A city or kingdom is it's subjects, not necessarily it's buildings. Just depends on how you want to interpret. There are some quotes from the king who destroyed Damascus in which he claimed to have utterly destroyed the cities of Damascus like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Sorry, not Sodom and Gomorrah, but the flood. Tiglath-pileser said this in his Annals:

“I took 800 people together with their property, their cattle (and) their sheep as spoil. I took 750 captives of the cities of Kurussa (and) Sama (as well as) 550 captives from the city of Metuna as spoil. I destroyed 591 cities from the 16 districts of Damascus like ruins from the Flood.”

Brent A. Strawn, Sarah C. Melville, Kyle Greenwood, and Scott Noegelm “Neo-Assyrian and Syro-Palestinian Texts II,” Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation (Blackwell Sourcebooks in Ancient History), ed. Mark W. Chavalas (Wiley-Blackwell, 2005), 333​

 

[JesusIsAll]

Damascus was a city-kingdom. Notice in verse 3 that it says that there will no longer be a kingdom in Damascus. The entire kingdom was killed or deported. It ceased to exist. A city or kingdom is it's subjects, not necessarily it's buildings. Just depends on how you want to interpret. There are some quotes from the king who destroyed Damascus in which he claimed to have utterly destroyed the cities of Damascus like Sodom and Gomorrah.

People have different rules of interpretation. I'll die, thrown in with those who always, always seek literal and ordinary meanings, unless the opposite is called for in the context. So, it's the city Damascus in what is a clear statement such to me, until proven it's not, the road I always go down, and neither can find a reason to believe the scripture intent is that the city is only temporarily abolished, without saying so, this reading something into scripture not there, and also when Isaiah is replete with end times and other future prophetic content, of generations forth. It also seems to me that scripture is intended for those down the generations, that God's word is replete with messages to far flung generations, really wonder what the point would be, if we're just being left military history, circa 700 BC. This is just one of many reasons the likes of Preterism makes no sense, given the Lord makes a habit of the Bible saying something to future generations through Bible prophets, that He isn't just recounting history, especially pertaining to the end times and the coming reign of the Lord. And sometimes it's only one verse, or half a verse, that reaches into far time. In any case, I'll always start that the Bible means what it says, because God is not the author of confusion, giving us confusing statements to assign our own values to, if He says city, in this instance, I'm inclined that He means city.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

People have different rules of interpretation. I'll die, thrown in with those who always, always seek literal and ordinary meanings, unless the opposite is called for in the context. So, it's the city Damascus in what is a clear statement such to me, until proven it's not, the road I always go down, and neither can find a reason to believe the scripture intent is that the city is only temporarily abolished, without saying so, this reading something into scripture not there, and also when Isaiah is replete with end times and other future prophetic content, of generations forth. It also seems to me that scripture is intended for those down the generations, that God's word is replete with messages to far flung generations, really wonder what the point would be, if we're just being left military history, circa 700 BC. This is just one of many reasons the likes of Preterism makes no sense, given the Lord makes a habit of the Bible saying something to future generations through Bible prophets, that He isn't just recounting history, especially pertaining to the end times and the coming reign of the Lord. And sometimes it's only one verse, or half a verse, that reaches into far time. In any case, I'll always start that the Bible means what it says, because God is not the author of confusion, giving us confusing statements to assign our own values to, if He says city, in this instance, I'm inclined that He means city.

This is why I don't argue about prophecy.

 

[JesusIsAll]

This is why I don't argue about prophecy.

Yes, it's quite futile, for instance, for a Preterist and a futurist to have a conversation, or a symbologist and a literalist. The two people are not on the same page, may as well almost be speaking in unknown tongues to each other.

I made some threads quite awhile ago, but gave up on looking for some expansion of the prophetic topics, when the responses were mainly that the scripture doesn't say what it says, when I was, in fact, trying to find a discussion of nuances in things the likes of John Walvoord and many other scholars already forged agreement on, not intending to defend the fundamental basis, reinvent the wheel.

You don't get discussions most places on the web. But I've never sought to bicker, just stopped making such threads, as I was only looking for some depth of view from others, things to consider others may have seen who see the same foundations, not be told the scripture doesn't mean what it says, or whatever. It was amusing. I actually remember one guy, when trying to talk about Ezekiel's temple, plainly state he had never read the scripture of eight chapters, scripture I'd spent years, off and on, looking at. The guy comes back an hour or two later, a sudden expert from some utter crackpot website he found, telling me I had it all wrong. Welcome to the forum world.