One of the arguments that evangelicals use for viewing Isaiah 17 as a prophecy of the future destruction of Damascus is that it predicts the TOTAL destruction of the city. And because Damascus was not TOTALLY destroyed by the Assyrians and was in fact quickly re-inhabited, therefore the prophecy remains unfulfilled. So the key to a future fulfillment is that whoever attacks Damascus must raze it to the ground and do a better job of destruction than did the Assyrians over 2500 years ago (which was a very thorough job of destruction). But what if this doesn’t happen? On what grounds will evangelicals triumphantly claim “Isaiah 17 has finally been fulfilled!” ??? To do a better job than the Assyrians, who overran the entire city with ground troops, razed virtually all buildings to the ground, and ejected all of its citizens, would take a very sustained ground campaign, or perhaps the dropping of numerous nuclear warheads. A few hundred Tomahawk missiles simply won’t do the job.
I realize I am stepping out of evangelical apocalyptic orthodoxy here, but the more I think about this sordid business run by Barack-Bandar-Bibi, the more I am inclined to think that Isaiah 17 is being used simply to pull American evangelicals into support of the USA/Babylon global foreign policy agenda. I am strongly considering the possibility that what I wrote in my book back in 2005 was simply WRONG, and Isaiah 17 has already been fulfilled. But I am open to dialogue…
As you consider this, and as you consider offering your thoughts, please remember my primary question: On what grounds will supporters of an end-times fulfillment of Isaiah 17 claim, “It has finally been fulfilled!” ?
Here’s the link to my original published work on Isaiah 17 from my book “Red Moon Rising”:
And here is a good analysis of the Syrian business from a non-MSM news source:
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew 5:9