The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Davidpt]

How about before I answer any of your questions you actually answer each question I asked you first

True Debating isn‘t avoiding questions and then asking questions, how can I possibly debate if you ignore my questions?

We have debated many time in the past and I have answered every question you have ever asked me please give me the same curiosity

I have already indirectly answered some of your questions per what I have submitted throughout this thread. For example. Clearly, Jesus was on the mount of Olives numerous times several thousand years ago. No one is disputing that. But what does any of that have to do with what is recorded in verses 1-3, 5 and the remainder of verse 4? Plus I have already submitted how I interpret Zechariah 14:8 and why I interpret it like I do. As to Zechariah 12 you brought up. I have no real objections about any of that, therefore, I saw no need to respond to that. The topic of this thread is Zechariah 14 not not Zechariah 12. What are you specifically wanting me to address and answer when I see it being relevant that verses 1-3, 5, and the remainder of verse 4 have to be factored in before deciding how to interpret His feet shall stand upon the mount of Olives? Thus why, in the event I'm wrong and you are right, you then need to convincingly show the connection between His feet shall stand upon the mount of Olives with that of verses 1-3, 5.

Otherwise, we are not going to get anywhere per this discussion if what I see as relevant, you don't see as relevant. Which then begs the question, why not? What are you and some others afraid of per Zechariah 14? What are you not wanting to be brought to light? Can't do that if we ignore that there is a connection between verse 4 with that of verses 1-3, 5.

Verse 4 isn’t history, it’s prophecy---therefore, show how it fits verses 1-3 and 5 or your interpretation collapses. Ignoring context to isolate verse 4 is cherry picking, not interpretation. You can’t simply rewrite Zechariah 14, verse 4 must align with verses 1-3 and 5. Is sound hermeneutics not important to you?

 

[Marty fox]

I have already indirectly answered some of your questions per what I have submitted throughout this thread. For example. Clearly, Jesus was on the mount of Olives numerous times several thousand years ago. No one is disputing that. But what does any of that have to do with what is recorded in verses 1-3, 5 and the remainder of verse 4? Plus I have already submitted how I interpret Zechariah 14:8 and why I interpret it like I do. As to Zechariah 12 you brought up. I have no real objections about any of that, therefore, I saw no need to respond to that. The topic of this thread is Zechariah 14 not not Zechariah 12. What are you specifically wanting me to address and answer when I see it being relevant that verses 1-3, 5, and the remainder of verse 4 have to be factored in before deciding how to interpret His feet shall stand upon the mount of Olives? Thus why, in the event I'm wrong and you are right, you then need to convincingly show the connection between His feet shall stand upon the mount of Olives with that of verses 1-3, 5.

Otherwise, we are not going to get anywhere per this discussion if what I see as relevant, you don't see as relevant. Which then begs the question, why not? What are you and some others afraid of per Zechariah 14? What are you not wanting to be brought to light? Can't do that if we ignore that there is a connection between verse 4 with that of verses 1-3, 5.

Verse 4 isn’t history, it’s prophecy---therefore, show how it fits verses 1–3 and 5 or your interpretation collapses.

I didn’t read the whole thread I would just like you to answer the questions and then we will see how it’s relevant and I’m not afraid of anything.

When did each event happen? It’s shows when “in that day” was

 

[Marty fox]

Let me take a guess here. You need Jerusalem to also be meaning in the literal sense on account of verse 2 in Zechariah 14. Since you obviously take verse 2 to mean 70 AD. How can you not when you basically take a lot of things to mean 70 AD?

As if it makes sense that 2000 years ago one lone nation equaled all nations, thus the Roman nation. As if it makes sense that God then fought the Romans on behalf of the occupants of Jerusalem, unbelieving Jews in this case. And here is where it gets really funny per this scenario, as if it's not funny enough already. This indicates that the battle between God and the Romans, the Romans were the victors since they managed to destroy both the city and the temple. Plus slaughtered numerous occupants of the city while Roman casualties were minimal. Imagine that, God is fighting the Romans and can't even manage to destroy very many of them.

Except God is supposed to be defending these things according to verse 3. Yet, the all powerful God per this scenario got outsmarted and defeated by the Romans 2000 years ago. Let's just make God look less powerful than mere humans, is a nice look for Him, right? Since He obviously did not win the battle against the Romans if verse 2 and 3 pertain to those events.

I don't know who some of your teachers were/are that teach you absurd nonsense like this, but they are the last people any of you should be listening to if they have you so brainwashed that you naively believe verse 2 involved 70 AD somehow. How can anyone in their right mind take some of you serious about some of these things? Notice I said 'some of these things' not 'all of these things'. Just because you might be way off about some of these things in ch 14, that doesn't automatically mean you are way off pertaining to other chapters in Zechariah. Maybe some of it you are, maybe some of it you are not.

Take this passage, for example.

Zechariah 8:3 Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain.
4 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age.
5 And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof.

Can't picture this having already been fulfilled. But I'm betting you can.

I have no idea what you’re talking about here why do you think God fought the Romans and lost?

The Roman army was made up by many concurred nations that’s how they got so large

 

[Davidpt]

I didn’t read the whole thread I would just like you to answer the questions and then we will see how it’s relevant and I’m not afraid of anything.

When did each event happen? It’s shows when “in that day” was

That's a valid argument that you have not read the entire thread. I can certainly relate to that. In that case then, you deserve a little slack per my part. That aside for now---


IMO, and you of course are going to disagree you being somewhat Preterist and all. What one should be comparing to Zechariah 14:1,3-5 is not anything involving the first century, such as when Christ stood upon the mount of Olives numerous times before He went to the cross, but should be comparing it with Revelation 6 and the 6th seal, for instance. If the wrath of the Lamb is not the day of the Lord, then I give up, you all win. But since it is involving the day of the Lord as is Zechariah 14:1, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that first century events are not in view anywhere in all of Zechariah 14.

Clearly then, but maybe not to you nor to some others, Christ is bodily present per the the 6th seal at some point. Maybe not initially, but eventually He is. Which then agrees with Christ's bodily presence in Zechariah 14:4. Where verse 5 explains how that came to be--and and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. Which is also echoed in 1 Thessalonians 3:13 and Jude 1:14.

 

[Davidpt]

I have no idea what you’re talking about here why do you think God fought the Romans and lost?

I don't actually think that at all. How could I when I don't even take verse 2 and 3 to be involving the battle against Jerusalem in 70 AD to begin with. I'm just saying that would have to be the logical conclusion to arrive at if verses 2-3 are involving the war upon Jerusalem in the first century. I'm simply illustrating a point here. Maybe the following will help further clarify the point I was trying to make?

Get a clue, Marty. Quit being so doctrinally biased that you have to throw common sense out the window in order to make your view supposedly work.

Zechariah 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.


If this is pertaining to the first century and 70 AD, this means we have no choice but to take all of the following to mean these things.

all nations = The Romans in the first century

Jerusalem = the literal city of Jerusalem before and when it fell in 70 AD

Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations = fighting against the nation of Rome in the first century leading up to 70 AD


Yet it was unbelieving Jews that were being waged war with in the first century, not Romans. God was not waging war with Romans. He was using Romans to accomplish His will concerning the fate of the city and temple in the first century.

Clearly, verse 3 is meaning that God is fighting the nations that are coming against Jerusalem. In the first century unbelieving Jews were the ones being waged war with. And by having verse 2 and 3 meaning those events, this indicates that God went forth, and fought against the Romans on behalf of the occupants of Jerusalem, unbelieving Jews in this case. Yet you and I clearly know that history does not agree with that scenario.


But if we make verse 2 symbolize the fate of the NT church during great tribulation, verse 3 makes perfect sense in that case. The NT reveals great tribulation first, then wrath of the Lord afterwards. IOW, great tribulation followed by the day of the Lord, and not great tribulation equals the day of the Lord. And it's not like Zechariah 14 does not involve the day of the Lord. Unless you perhaps have verse 1 missing from your translation. And the NT reveals there is only one day of the Lord in the future, not numerous days of the Lord in the future that occur at different times.

The NT also reveals the day of the Lord comes as a thief in the night in the future. Not as a thief in the night in the future on multiple occasions at different times. But as a thief in the night only one time. The NT knows zero of numerous days of the Lord coming at different times in the future. It only knows of one. And clearly, no matter how you look at it, Zechariah 14:1 is involving the same NT age the NT is involving. Nothing in Zechariah 14 is meaning during OT times. Therefore, it is profoundly absurd the fact the NT does not support numerous days of the Lord in the future, but only supports one day of the Lord in the future, that the DOTL in Zechariah 14:1 is not the same day of the Lord meant in the NT.

 

[Davy]

You do realize that God the Father never could permanently dwell/live within man, except only temporarily. In other words, all who died, who lived "under the altar" of the OC., never had the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God Himself within them.
Did you forget that God the Father is a Spirit ONLY?
This is what the purpose of "the book of Remembrance" was for. Malachi 3:16-18.
See also Rev. 6:9-11. Maybe His Holy Spirit within you now, will help you to discern the connection.

You don't understand about that other realm of Spirit.

I never said anything different than what scripture literally says, of which I have posted: "Upon the baptism of Jesus, I understand the Trinity to be God the Father dwelling within God the Son as One, and TOGETHER spiritually they ARE the Holy Spirit within us." Now, by their presence within us, we ALSO are made to be holy!! Does that offend you? If you understand Dan. 9:24, it shouldn't!!

That's not your problem. Your problem is 'your' fake Hollywood fleshy interpretation of the written Scripture.

God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit, are separate expression of the One Godhead of three Persons. The Father did not die on the cross, The Son did. The Holy Spirit was not present with the Apostles during Christ's Ministry, still yet to be given. Old Testament Scripture shows The Father and The Son appearing separately in the Heavenly. Isaiah 9:6 calls The Son, "The mighty God", "The everlasting Father". The Son was never created; all things were created through The Son; The Son is the "express image of His person"; The Father ALSO HAS an outward Image likeness of man (Gen.1:26-27).

Before material creation came into existence, there was only the realm of Spirit, the Heavenly. God showed in Ezekiel 28 how the devil originally was created perfect in his ways, his job being to guard God's Throne. That was in the previous world, before the time of Adam and Eve, i.e., before... flesh creation of man.

There's so much... you just don't understand because of your fleshy carnal reasoning.

 

[Davy]

It is apparent to me that you have no idea of how it is that I am NOT speaking through the mind of my flesh, but rather through the Mind of Christ within me.
1 Corinthians 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

You will never fully understand The New Testament Books without first having covered The Old Testament Books. Your Bible study is very lacking, so your claims are without substance. You are one who is still in need of 'milk' instead of the "strong meat" (Heb.5).

 

[Marty fox]

That's a valid argument that you have not read the entire thread. I can certainly relate to that. In that case then, you deserve a little slack per my part. That aside for now---


IMO, and you of course are going to disagree you being somewhat Preterist and all. What one should be comparing to Zechariah 14:1,3-5 is not anything involving the first century, such as when Christ stood upon the mount of Olives numerous times before He went to the cross, but should be comparing it with Revelation 6 and the 6th seal, for instance. If the wrath of the Lamb is not the day of the Lord, then I give up, you all win. But since it is involving the day of the Lord as is Zechariah 14:1, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that first century events are not in view anywhere in all of Zechariah 14.

Clearly then, but maybe not to you nor to some others, Christ is bodily present per the the 6th seal at some point. Maybe not initially, but eventually He is. Which then agrees with Christ's bodily presence in Zechariah 14:4. Where verse 5 explains how that came to be--and and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. Which is also echoed in 1 Thessalonians 3:13 and Jude 1:14.

So the answer to my questions are?

You still haven’t answered them and keep rambling on

Im trying to clarify my point to you

 

[Davidpt]

Well, when was "that day"

Zechariah 14
10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on[b] me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.

When was a spirit of grace poured out?

When did people look at Jesus pierced on a cross and weep and mourn?

13
1 “On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.

When did a fountain open to cleanse people from sin and impurity?

7 “Awake, sword, against my shepherd,
against the man who is close to me!”
declares the Lord Almighty.
“Strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered,
and I will turn my hand against the little ones.

When was the Shepard struck and the sheep scatter?

14
A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city

When was Jerusalem sieged and plundered by the surrounding nations?

4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south

When did Jesus stand on the mount of Olives?

8 On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem, half of it east to the Dead Sea and half of it west to the Mediterranean Sea, in summer and in winter.

When did living water flow from Jerusalem to the nations?

"In that day" started at the first advent.

Until one realizes that these chapters in Zechariah talks about Literal Jerusalem and spiritual Jerusalem it will never make sense

Maybe this will satisfy you though I don't expect you to agree or to be objective about it nor intellectually honest about it and admit I raise valid points worthy of considering. But at least it shows I'm answering your questions.

So guess what, Marty? I fully agree that in that day began with the first advent 2000 years ago. But apparently, you are failing to grasp that in that day can span an era of time involving even thousands of years. Sure, in that day could have began 2000 years age, but by the time we get to Zechariah 14, in that day has shifted to the end of this age and what follows the end of this age. You are apparently stuck in limbo with a mindset that in that day can only be meaning 2000 years ago involving first century events.


If we begin with Zechariah 12:3, 'in that day’ begins with the first advent, unfolds through the second coming(Zechariah 14), and concludes with the millennium’s completion of God’s plan(Zechariah 14 as well).

Do some of you not realize that Zechariah 14 is the last chapter in Zechariah? How is it reasonable that the 2nd coming followed by what follows the 2nd coming is never in view anywhere in any of the chapters in Zechariah? Especially the last chapter. Do some of you disagree that the coming of Christ involves 2 advents? Of course you don't.

Clearly, God Himself spoke through these prophets, such as Zechariah. So first of all, it is absurd that God Himself never realized that the coming of Christ is going to involve 2 advents, therefore, prophets, such as Zechariah, never has the 2nd coming and what follows the 2nd coming in view at any time. That God only realized that 2 advents are necessary once Jesus came into the world but was rejected by a good majority of His own people. David was also a prophet of God. And clearly, God spoke through him as well. And clearly, God already knew 2 advents were necessary, and that Psalms 110 undeniably 100% proves it. As if Psalms 110:1 does not require a coming first followed by a leaving then a returning again. This of course was hidden in plain sight in the OT but revealed in the NT.,


That's the way some Dispies apparently reason some of these things. That God never realized 2 advents were necessary until Christ came first then was rejected by His own people. Except Amils, such as yourself, are not Dispies, yet at times you tend to reason some of these things in the same manner they do. Otherwise, why are some of you not accepting that Zechariah 14 has the final days of this age, the 2nd coming and what follows, in view, not first century events instead? The way some of you are reasoning some of these things is pathetic, comparable at times as to to how Dispies tend to reason these things, the fact you know good and well that God already realized before Jesus was even born, that His coming would require 2 advents. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that God through Zechariah in Zechariah 14 hid this in plain sight and then was revealed in the NT. The same way He did per Psalms 110.1.

 

[Davidpt]

Do you somehow not understand that the heavenly Jerusalem is written about in a different context than that as well in scripture? If the text is figurative, then it doesn't have to be talking about when the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven. It could be talking in the same kind of context as what we see here...

Hebrews 12:18 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest.....22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

This passage says we have come to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. Do you understand what that is saying? It's present tense. So, it's speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem in a different sense than we see in Revelation 21. What this passage is saying is that we have spiritually become citizens of the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem because of belonging to Jesus Christ. So, why can't Zechariah 14 be speaking in that sense rather than in the sense of when the new heavenly Jerusalem comes down from heaven? There's no reason why not. Even you don't take all of Zechariah 14 literally, right? That's not how you interpret verses 16 to 21. So, why can't verse 8 and/or verse 11 be figurative instead of literal as well?


I think it's absurd for you to think that these verses have to all be taken literally in a physical sense.

Zechariah 14:8 And in that day it shall be That living waters shall flow from Jerusalem, Half of them toward the eastern sea And half of them toward the western sea; In both summer and winter it shall occur.

Why can't this verse relate to this passage...

John 7:37 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. 38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” 39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Why can't the living waters referenced in Zechariah 14:8 represent the same thing as the "rivers of living water" that Jesus referenced, which represent the Holy Spirit?

Also, notice that Jesus indicated that He was referencing Scripture there. There are no scriptures which contain the exact words He used there, but I would say it's quite possible that He was referencing Zechariah 14:8 there while paraphrasing the verse rather than quoting it directly.


Who is doing that? Why can't verse 11 be talking about the heavenly Jerusalem being safely inhabited in the sense that we are currently in the heavenly Jerusalem spiritually right now and are safe from God's wrath because of that? Why do you assume that certain verses in Zechariah 14 have to be taken literally when you don't take verses 16 to 21 literally?

Zechariah 14:6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 ¶And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Now you need to explain why verse 10 mentions places and compass directions if it is meaning what you are taking it to mean. As if it makes sense that there is a south of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Then look at verse 8 as well. Can you not see that that verse is saying the following and has a whole that is divided into 2 halves?

And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of the living waters toward the former sea, and half of the living waters toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

half
chetsiy
khay-tsee'
from 'chatsah' (2673); the half or middle:--half, middle, mid(-night), midst, part, two parts.


Then take note of how this same Hebrew word is used elsewhere in the OT. I haven't looked at all those passages, but the ones I have looked at I don't see any hint of this Hebrew word ever being connected with the Holy Spirit.

Not to mention, you also need to explain verses 6 and 7 and how you are understanding verse 11 fit those verses.

But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light. Per my view could easily be describing conditions during the millennium, thus this 'one day' in question meaning the thousand years, thus the millennium. And you are somehow going to come up with something better in light of how you are interpreting verse 11? I take verse 11 to be meaning the NJ that comes down from God out of heaven per Revelation 21-22 and that it comes down to the region where Jerusalem is located.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Zechariah 14:6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 ¶And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Now you need to explain why verse 10 mentions places and compass directions if it is meaning what you are taking it to mean. As if it makes sense that there is a south of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Then look at verse 8 as well. Can you not see that that verse is saying the following and has a whole that is divided into 2 halves?

And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of the living waters toward the former sea, and half of the living waters toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

half
chetsiy
khay-tsee'
from 'chatsah' (2673); the half or middle:--half, middle, mid(-night), midst, part, two parts.


Then take note of how this same Hebrew word is used elsewhere in the OT. I haven't looked at all those passages, but the ones I have looked at I don't see any hint of this Hebrew word ever being connected with the Holy Spirit.

Not to mention, you also need to explain verses 6 and 7 and how you are understanding verse 11 fit those verses.

Since we're talking about symbolic text here, it's silly to try to apply rules that would only apply to literal text to those verses. If those verses are symbolic, then there's no reason to insist that the verses have to be logical in a literal sense as would be the case if it was literal text. But, before I address this post beyond saying that, can you do one thing for me? Can you acknowledge that Zechariah 14 is a very difficult passage to interpret and that it should not be used as part of the foundation of anyone's doctrine and that more straightforward passages than this one should form the foundation of one's doctrine instead?

Zechariah 14 can be interesting to talk about and try to determine how to make it fit with the rest of scripture, but that is a difficult thing to do. Especially if you take it literally or as applying only to earthly things. You know that and that's why you don't take verse 11 to be talking about the literal, earthly Jerusalem and why you don't take verses 16 to 21 literally in the sense that they are talking about literally keeping the feast of tabernacles, which would involve making animal sacrifices. And it's not talking about people having to literally go to Jerusalem to worship, which would contradict Jesus saying that God wants people to worship Him in spirit and in truth wherever they are rather than having to go to Jerusalem to worship (John 4:19-24).

If you can acknowledge that our understanding of Zechariah 14 should not be one of the main passages we use to support our understanding of Revelation 20, then I will address your points in the spirit of both of us trying to discover what Zechariah 14 is about rather than it just being another Amill vs. Premill debate.

 

[Marty fox]

Maybe this will satisfy you though I don't expect you to agree or to be objective about it nor intellectually honest about it and admit I raise valid points worthy of considering. But at least it shows I'm answering your questions.

So guess what, Marty? I fully agree that in that day began with the first advent 2000 years ago. But apparently, you are failing to grasp that in that day can span an era of time involving even thousands of years. Sure, in that day could have began 2000 years age, but by the time we get to Zechariah 14, in that day has shifted to the end of this age and what follows the end of this age. You are apparently stuck in limbo with a mindset that in that day can only be meaning 2000 years ago involving first century events.


If we begin with Zechariah 12:3, 'in that day’ begins with the first advent, unfolds through the second coming(Zechariah 14), and concludes with the millennium’s completion of God’s plan(Zechariah 14 as well).

Do some of you not realize that Zechariah 14 is the last chapter in Zechariah? How is it reasonable that the 2nd coming followed by what follows the 2nd coming is never in view anywhere in any of the chapters in Zechariah? Especially the last chapter. Do some of you disagree that the coming of Christ involves 2 advents? Of course you don't.

Clearly, God Himself spoke through these prophets, such as Zechariah. So first of all, it is absurd that God Himself never realized that the coming of Christ is going to involve 2 advents, therefore, prophets, such as Zechariah, never has the 2nd coming and what follows the 2nd coming in view at any time. That God only realized that 2 advents are necessary once Jesus came into the world but was rejected by a good majority of His own people. David was also a prophet of God. And clearly, God spoke through him as well. And clearly, God already knew 2 advents were necessary, and that Psalms 110 undeniably 100% proves it. As if Psalms 110:1 does not require a coming first followed by a leaving then a returning again. This of course was hidden in plain sight in the OT but revealed in the NT.,


That's the way some Dispies apparently reason some of these things. That God never realized 2 advents were necessary until Christ came first then was rejected by His own people. Except Amils, such as yourself, are not Dispies, yet at times you tend to reason some of these things in the same manner they do. Otherwise, why are some of you not accepting that Zechariah 14 has the final days of this age, the 2nd coming and what follows, in view, not first century events instead? The way some of you are reasoning some of these things is pathetic, comparable at times as to to how Dispies tend to reason these things, the fact you know good and well that God already realized before Jesus was even born, that His coming would require 2 advents. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that God through Zechariah in Zechariah 14 hid this in plain sight and then was revealed in the NT. The same way He did per Psalms 110.1.

I'm not sure why when I just need an answer to my question you confuse everything by rambling on about other things I have never said or even think?

Another question when is the end of the age?

These simple answerers I'm requesting from you matter to my original explanation to you

 

[Davidpt]

I'm not sure why when I just need an answer to my question you confuse everything by rambling on about other things I have never said or even think?

Another question when is the end of the age?

These simple answerers I'm requesting from you matter to my original explanation to you

Let's start over then. Re-ask those questions you are specifically demanding answers to. Don't send me back to a previous post of yours. Simply re-ask them and I will try one more time.

In the meantime you need to realize that the way I go about things might be vastly different than the way you go about things. Unlike you, I'm not trapped in a vaccuum mindset. When we get to Zechariah 14 you still have us in the first century though Zechariah doesn't. You can't even discern when the texts can't support your interpretations. You are an Amil and can't even discern that Zechariah 14:2 symbolizes great tribulation upon the NT church. You have it meaning the literal city of Jerusalem instead.

You have a lot in common with Pretribbers the fact both of you take it to mean the literal city of Jerusalam in the ME. And here I am a Premil, and that I don't take it to mean the literal city of Jerusalem in the ME. And have shown why more than one time now where you simply saw that as me just rambling on. And here I am doing it again. Oh well. I'm going to be me being me, not what someone else wants me to be. I have my way of going about things. You have your way of going about things. If you think you are perhaps setting a trap for me, bring it on. As if we are playing chess here and you have me check mated or something.

I have already indicated that I agree that in that day began during the first advent. I'm able to meet you somewhere in the middle but you are unable to meet me somewhere in the middle in return. It's either all your way or no way, apparently. And the reason for all that rambling you never requested was to show that there are other valid ways to interpret Zechariah 14 rather than only in a vacuum like you and some others are doing.

Plain and simple, Zechariah 14:2-3 involves something global and not local only. Seriously, who can't figure out that 'all nations' means something global? And that we cannot divorce verse 4 from verse 3 nor verse 5. It's called context. Maybe some of you should look that word up in the dictionary if you don't fully grasp what it means.

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Even this verse shows that this begins locally then eventually expands globally. Except Zechariah 14 is not meaning when it is local only. And verse 5 alone proves it since the following has never happened, in any sense, ---and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. But if it has already happened this indicates so has 1 Thessalonians 3:13 and Jude 1:14 already happened as well. Since a person would have to be doctrinally biased big time in order to not see all 3 accounts are obviously involving the same coming and the same saints coming with God. In Zechariah 14, God and LORD in that chapter is meaning Christ throughout. And guess what? So is 1 Thessalonians 3:13 and Jude 1:14 meaning Christ. But lets not interpret Scripture with Scripture. God forbid we do that since we might end up interpreting something correctly in that case.

 

[Marty fox]

Let's start over then. Re-ask those questions you are specifically demanding answers to. Don't send me back to a previous post of yours. Simply re-ask them and I will try one more time.

In the meantime you need to realize that the way I go about things might be vastly different than the way you go about things. Unlike you, I'm not trapped in a vaccuum mindset. When we get to Zechariah 14 you still have us in the first century though Zechariah doesn't. You can't even discern when the texts can't support your interpretations. You are an Amil and can't even discern that Zechariah 14:2 symbolizes great tribulation upon the NT church. You have it meaning the literal city of Jerusalem instead.

You have a lot in common with Pretribbers the fact both of you take it to mean the literal city of Jerusalam in the ME. And here I am a Premil, and that I don't take it to mean the literal city of Jerusalem in the ME. And have shown why more than one time now where you simply saw that as me just rambling on. And here I am doing it again. Oh well. I'm going to be me being me, not what someone else wants me to be. I have my way of going about things. You have your way of going about things. If you think you are perhaps setting a trap for me, bring it on. As if we are playing chess here and you have me check mated or something.

I have already indicated that I agree that in that day began during the first advent. I'm able to meet you somewhere in the middle but you are unable to meet me somewhere in the middle in return. It's either all your way or no way, apparently. And the reason for all that rambling you never requested was to show that there are other valid ways to interpret Zechariah 14 rather than only in a vacuum like you and some others are doing.

Dave, I have no idea why you are acting like this, all I have ever done was ask you questions, that's all! and you kept avoiding them.


Just like your response here, you avoided another question and said a bunch of stuff that I never said and don't even believe. I am not trying to set any trap for you I just wanted to show you through scripture what I think chapter 14 is talking about.

You want me to repost the questions when I already posted them and you replied to that same post and avoided them

 

[Davidpt]

Another question when is the end of the age?

Provide the passages pertaining to this so I can consider context first. Typically though, I take the end of the age to be when Christ bodily returns. Winch then leads to the beginning of a new era, the millennium. Except I, unlike most Premils, have the millennium being the first thousand years of th never ending NHNE. except it's not in it's completed final form until after the GWTJ some thousand years later. IOW, per my view the NHNE are a process that begins with the 2nd coming, thus is not instantaneous.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Provide the passages pertaining to this so I can consider context first. Typically though, I take the end of the age to be when Christ bodily returns. Winch then leads to the beginning of a new era, the millennium. Except I, unlike most Premils, have the millennium being the first thousand years of th never ending NHNE. except it's not in it's completed final form until after the GWTJ some thousand years later. IOW, per my view the NHNE are a process that begins with the 2nd coming, thus is not instantaneous.

What is your understanding of the following verse...

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Do you understand that the reference to "his promise" here is a reference to the promise of His coming (Christ's second coming) that Peter had referenced in verse 4? If so, then do you understand that he's saying what we should be looking for right now in direct relation to the fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming is "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness"? If so, then why do you have wickedness dwelling in the NHNE after Jesus comes for 1,000+ years? Peter indicated that righteousness dwells in the NHNE. It wouldn't make sense for him to say that if wickedness will also dwell there. It would make his statement pointless. So, he's clearly implying that only righteousness will dwell in the NHNE and that's what we look for in direct fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming. So, if it would take 1,000+ years before only righteousness dwells in the NHNE, how would that be a direct fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming?

 

[Marty fox]

Provide the passages pertaining to this so I can consider context first. Typically though, I take the end of the age to be when Christ bodily returns. Winch then leads to the beginning of a new era, the millennium. Except I, unlike most Premils, have the millennium being the first thousand years of th never ending NHNE. except it's not in it's completed final form until after the GWTJ some thousand years later. IOW, per my view the NHNE are a process that begins with the 2nd coming, thus is not instantaneous.

Paul in verse 11 shows us that he and we are living in the end age

1 Corinthians 10​

​

Old Testament Examples​

10 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.​

​

6 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. 7 And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” 8 Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; 9 nor let us [a]tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now [b]all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our [c]admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.​

​

12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to [d]bear it.​

​

​

​

​

 

[Marty fox]

Let's start over then. Re-ask those questions you are specifically demanding answers to. Don't send me back to a previous post of yours. Simply re-ask them and I will try one more time.

In the meantime you need to realize that the way I go about things might be vastly different than the way you go about things. Unlike you, I'm not trapped in a vaccuum mindset. When we get to Zechariah 14 you still have us in the first century though Zechariah doesn't. You can't even discern when the texts can't support your interpretations. You are an Amil and can't even discern that Zechariah 14:2 symbolizes great tribulation upon the NT church. You have it meaning the literal city of Jerusalem instead.

You have a lot in common with Pretribbers the fact both of you take it to mean the literal city of Jerusalam in the ME. And here I am a Premil, and that I don't take it to mean the literal city of Jerusalem in the ME. And have shown why more than one time now where you simply saw that as me just rambling on. And here I am doing it again. Oh well. I'm going to be me being me, not what someone else wants me to be. I have my way of going about things. You have your way of going about things. If you think you are perhaps setting a trap for me, bring it on. As if we are playing chess here and you have me check mated or something.

I have already indicated that I agree that in that day began during the first advent. I'm able to meet you somewhere in the middle but you are unable to meet me somewhere in the middle in return. It's either all your way or no way, apparently. And the reason for all that rambling you never requested was to show that there are other valid ways to interpret Zechariah 14 rather than only in a vacuum like you and some others are doing.

Plain and simple, Zechariah 14:2-3 involves something global and not local only. Seriously, who can't figure out that 'all nations' means something global? And that we cannot divorce verse 4 from verse 3 nor verse 5. It's called context. Maybe some of you should look that word up in the dictionary if you don't fully grasp what it means.

Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Even this verse shows that this begins locally then eventually expands globally. Except Zechariah 14 is not meaning when it is local only. And verse 5 alone proves it since the following has never happened, in any sense, ---and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. But if it has already happened this indicates so has 1 Thessalonians 3:13 and Jude 1:14 already happened as well. Since a person would have to be doctrinally biased big time in order to not see all 3 accounts are obviously involving the same coming and the same saints coming with God. In Zechariah 14, God and LORD in that chapter is meaning Christ throughout. And guess what? So is 1 Thessalonians 3:13 and Jude 1:14 meaning Christ. But lets not interpret Scripture with Scripture. God forbid we do that since we might end up interpreting something correctly in that case.

What I'm trying to show you is that Zechariah 12-14 was set in that day in the first century.

These three chapters talk about the literal city and the Holy City the new Jerusalem the church. That how the three chapters make sense.

It talks about the events of 70AD and also the protection of the church who escaped when God opened up a symbolic valley for them to escape before the great siege by Rome the great army made up of many nations.

That's why the three chapter speak of Jerusalem being destroyed and also safely protected in the same text.

That's why it keeps stating "in that day" and keeps bringing up events of the first advent.

 

[Davidpt]

What is your understanding of the following verse...

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Do you understand that the reference to "his promise" here is a reference to the promise of His coming (Christ's second coming) that Peter had referenced in verse 4? If so, then do you understand that he's saying what we should be looking for right now in direct relation to the fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming is "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness"? If so, then why do you have wickedness dwelling in the NHNE after Jesus comes for 1,000+ years? Peter indicated that righteousness dwells in the NHNE. It wouldn't make sense for him to say that if wickedness will also dwell there. It would make his statement pointless. So, he's clearly implying that only righteousness will dwell in the NHNE and that's what we look for in direct fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming. So, if it would take 1,000+ years before only righteousness dwells in the NHNE, how would that be a direct fulfillment of the promise of Christ's second coming?

Wherein dwelleth righteousness can simply mean every single thing is dealt with fairly and righteously. It could mean no more crooked courts , crooked judges, crooked cops, crooked lawyers, so on and so on. And if anyone steps over the line during the millennium, it would mean they are dealt with in a righteous manner.

Even if I ditched the millennium after the 2nd coming idea, I still wouldn't interpret Zechariah 14 any differently. It would just mean things I currently take to be involving an era of time with a beginning and an end, I would simply apply them to all eternity instead. Of course though I can't see some things in Zechariah 14 involving all of eternity.. For example, verses 17-19 and maybe verses 6-7..

Therefore, it makes no sense for me to change my position on the millennium to begin with. Because now I have created a real problem concerning the text. Now I have verses 17-19 meaning all throughout eternity and maybe verses 6-7 as well, which would be absurd to take those verses to be meaning all throughout eternity. But it wouldn't be nor is absurd to take verses 8-11 to be meaning throughout all of eternity. Actually, that is what I already take them to mean. Except per my view verses 8-11 are not fulfilled unto the 7th trumpet has been fulfilled. I already laid out some of my reasoning as to why in other posts. Don't recall offhand which posts, though.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wherein dwelleth righteousness can simply mean every single thing is dealt with fairly and righteously.

Please be serious. If you didn't have extreme Premil bias you would not be saying this. It means there will only be righteousness and no more wickedness. That is confirmed in Revelation 21:1-4 which says there will be no more death when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in. No more death implies no more wickedness.

It could mean no more crooked courts , crooked judges, crooked cops, crooked lawyers, so on and so on. And if anyone steps over the line during the millennium, it would mean they are dealt with in a righteous manner.

Do you actually believe the things you say on here or do you just hope that they somehow might be true?

Even if I ditched the millennium after the 2nd coming idea, I still wouldn't interpret Zechariah 14 any differently.

How am I supposed to believe that? How would you reconcile your interpretation of Zechariah 14 with the amillennial understanding of Revelation 20? How could sin and death continue after Jesus returns if you "ditched the millennium after the 2nd coming idea"?

It would just mean things I currently take to be involving an era of time with a beginning and an end, I would simply apply them to all eternity instead.

You just contradicted yourself. You just said you wouldn't interpret Zechariah 14 any differently, but what you're describing here is not how you currently interpret Zechariah 14.

Of course though I can't see some things in Zechariah 14 involving all of eternity.. For example, verses 17-19 and maybe verses 6-7..

Do you think you'll ever even offer a guess as to what verses 17-19 are about?

Therefore, it makes no sense for me to change my position on the millennium to begin with. Because now I have created a real problem concerning the text. Now I have verses 17-19 meaning all throughout eternity and maybe verses 6-7 as well, which would be absurd to take those verses to be meaning all throughout eternity. But it wouldn't be nor is absurd to take verses 8-11 to be meaning throughout all of eternity. Actually, that is what I already take them to mean.

You're all over the place on this and that is because any honest person will admit that Zechariah 14 is a very difficult passage to interpret. Do you acknowledge that and that it should not be used as part of the foundation of your end times doctrine?