The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Marty fox]

It's simple. For one, some of us, unlike some of you, are paying attention to the context and chronology in Zechariah 14.

In my view, so maybe not in the view of all Premils, 'in that day' began 2000 years ago(Zechariah 12 not Zechariah 14) and is involving 3 days total, thus 3000 years. From His first advent through His return = 2 days, 2000 years. The millennium that follows equals the third day, thus the third 1000 year day era. And in Zechariah 14 there is not one single thing in that entire chapter that is involving the first century. Zechariah 14 becomes relevant only when the approaching DOTL becomes relevant. Which means Zechariah 14 starts off with great tribulation, thus verse 2. Followed by the DOTL, thus verses 4-5, 12. Followed by the millennium, thus verses 6-11 and verses 16-19(these latter verses involving ruling with a rod of iron).

Are some of you blind or something? Can you not see how Zechariah 14 starts off? What does the DOTL have to do with first century events? Explain that one? Especially any Amils who are not also Preterists like you are.

So your saying that Jesus will return when you say hum. Christians have been wrong for 2000 years now.

In the first century

Jerusalem was attacked
Jewish women were rapped
Jews were exiled
Jews didn't leave the city because they died there
Jesus stood on the mount of Olives
The saints fled Jerusalem
Living water flowed to the world from Jerusalem through the saints

So how is there not one single thing in that entire chapter that is involving the first century? And you are saying that we are blind.

The day of the Lord came upon apostate Isreal who rejected and killed their God and Messiah

 

[Davidpt]

So your saying that Jesus will return when you say hum. Christians have been wrong for 2000 years now.

That's assuming Jesus returns sometime within in our lifetime, which may or may not be the case. But if He does, that basically equals 2000 years from His ascension to His return. Surely, His return is not still hundreds of years away or something. Especially the way this world continues to rapidly get worse day by day.

Jerusalem was attacked
Jewish women were rapped
Jews were exiled
Jews didn't leave the city because they died there
Jesus stood on the mount of Olives
The saints fled Jerusalem
Living water flowed to the world from Jerusalem through the saints

The context in verse 1 is the DOTL. Where I come from context is relevant, period. The DOTL was not relevant in the first century. As to verse 2, did you not notice this part in verse 3---Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations?

If we apply verse 2 to 70 AD that means this in verse 3 in that case--Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against the Romans on behalf of the unbelieving Jews being attacked by the Romans. Which then means utter nonsense according to what actually took place at the time.

But some of you are so doctrinally biased you throw the truth right out the window by making verse 3 a flat out lie instead. The Lord did not go forth and fight against the Romans in the first century, and you clearly know it. Yet in spite of you clearly knowing it you would still rather make verse 3 a lie instead. Apparently, that is how some of you determine supposed truth. If it is contradictory and out of context, that apparently equals the truth to some of you, such as you and @Spiritual Israelite, to name a few.

Verse 4 is meaning post verse 2 not prior to verse 2. Verse 8 is meaning post verse 5, 12, not prior to verse 5, 12.

Some of you have Zechariah all over the place in Zechariah 14 the same way some of you have Jesus all over the place in Matthew 24, for example. That's the pattern for some of you, including @Spiritual Israelite, since he is basically interpreting Zechariah 14 in the same manner as you are. And that he exhibits this same pattern in Matthew 24 where he has Jesus all over the place, therefore, making Jesus look like He was on drugs or something.

As if it makes sense, that if Matthew 24:30 involves the 2nd coming, this means Jesus was still prophesying events pertaining to the first century in verse 15-21, in spite of, for example, verse 14, where Jesus had obviously already moved well beyond the first century at that point.

The pattern, thus the theme, in Zechariah 14 is this---great tribulation followed by DOTL judgment followed by restoration.

great tribulation = verse 2.

judgment = verses 1, 3-5, 12

restoration = verses 6-11, 16-19.

For example, one cannot have restoration being fulfilled before great tribulation and judgment are fulfilled first, then expected to be taken serious by anyone with reading comprehension. The question then is, per this scenario, since this scenario is obviously the correct scenario---great trib followed by DOTL judgment followed by restoration--- that according to the texts involved, which, BTW, the NT clearly echoes this same pattern, does this then require a future millennium? Maybe, maybe not. Though, I tend to think it's more 'maybe' than 'maybe not'. That aside.

One cannot have verse 11 meaning before verse 2 is fulfilled first, then expected to be taken serious by anyone with reading comprehension. Nor can one have verse 8 fulfilled before verse 11 is fulfilled since verse 8 is obviously meaning during verse 11, then expected to be taken serious by anyone with reading comprehension.

 

[Marty fox]

That's assuming Jesus returns sometime within in our lifetime, which may or may not be the case. But if He does, that basically equals 2000 years from His ascension to His return. Surely, His return is not still hundreds of years away or something. Especially the way this world continues to rapidly get worse day by day.



The context in verse 1 is the DOTL. Where I come from context is relevant, period. The DOTL was not relevant in the first century. As to verse 2, did you not notice this part in verse 3---Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations?

If we apply verse 2 to 70 AD that means this in verse 3 in that case--Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against the Romans on behalf of the unbelieving Jews being attacked by the Romans. Which then means utter nonsense according to what actually took place at the time.

But some of you are so doctrinally biased you throw the truth right out the window by making verse 3 a flat out lie instead. The Lord did not go forth and fight against the Romans in the first century, and you clearly know it. Yet in spite of you clearly knowing it you would still rather make verse 3 a lie instead. Apparently, that is how some of you determine supposed truth. If it is contradictory and out of context, that apparently equals the truth to some of you, such as you and @Spiritual Israelite, to name a few.

Verse 4 is meaning post verse 2 not prior to verse 2. Verse 8 is meaning post verse 5, 12, not prior to verse 5, 12.

Some of you have Zechariah all over the place in Zechariah 14 the same way some of you have Jesus all over the place in Matthew 24, for example. That's the pattern for some of you, including @Spiritual Israelite, since he is basically interpreting Zechariah 14 in the same manner as you are. And that he exhibits this same pattern in Matthew 24 where he has Jesus all over the place, therefore, making Jesus look like He was on drugs or something.

As if it makes sense, that if Matthew 24:30 involves the 2nd coming, this means Jesus was still prophesying events pertaining to the first century in verse 15-21, in spite of, for example, verse 14, where Jesus had obviously already moved well beyond the first century at that point.

The pattern in Zechariah 14 is this---great tribulation followed by judgment followed by restoration.

great tribulation = verse 2.

judgment = verses 1, 3-5, 12

restoration = verses 6-11, 16-19.

For example, one cannot have restoration being fulfilled before great tribulation and judgment are fulfilled first, then expected to be taken serious by anyone with reading comprehension. The question then is, per this scenario, since this scenario is obviously the correct scenario---great trib followed by judgment followed by restoration--- that according to the texts involved, does this then require a future millennium? Maybe, maybe not. Though, I tend to think it's more 'maybe' than 'maybe not'. That aside.

One cannot have verse 11 meaning before verse 2 is fulfilled first, then expected to be taken serious by anyone with reading comprehension. Nor can one have verse 8 fulfilled before verse 11 is fulfilled since verse 8 is obviously meaning during verse 11, then expected to be taken serious by anyone with reading comprehension.

You are doing the exact same thing as you claim that we are doing yet you are right and we are wrong!

You say that we jump all over and then you claim that the day of the Lord goes all the way from the first century and then for three thousand more years. If the day of the Lord can be that long then how come the thousand years can't be the church age?

That can also mean the day of the Lord can be longer then 70AD too right?

My point was that you said nothing in Zechariah 14 was from the first century and I proved that some of the events were.

Rome was eventually judged after 70AD were they not?

You said that Zechariah 12-14 was a three thousand three-day theory and now you say "assuming if"? That leaves room for other theories right?

 

[ewq1938]

So your saying that Jesus will return when you say hum. Christians have been wrong for 2000 years now.

In the first century

Jerusalem was attacked
Jewish women were rapped
Jews were exiled
Jews didn't leave the city because they died there
Jesus stood on the mount of Olives
The saints fled Jerusalem
Living water flowed to the world from Jerusalem through the saints

So how there is not one single thing in that entire chapter that is involving the first century? And you are saying that we are blind.

The day of the Lord came upon apostate Isreal who rejected and killed their God and Messiah

That's full Preterism which many classify as a heresy. Jesus did not return yet and none of the end times prophecies found in the OD has come to pass yet.

 

[Marty fox]

That's full Preterism which many classify as a heresy. Jesus did not return yet and none of the end times prophecies found in the OD has come to pass yet.

Not sure how that's full Preterism, I'm not one

 

[ewq1938]

Not sure how that's full Preterism, I'm not one

Well, if the second coming has happened that is full preterism.

 

[Marty fox]

Well, if the second coming has happened that is full preterism.

I'm not claiming that "the second coming" has already come but Jesus did come in judgement

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But some of you are so doctrinally biased you throw the truth right out the window by making verse 3 a flat out lie instead. The Lord did not go forth and fight against the Romans in the first century, and you clearly know it. Yet in spite of you clearly knowing it you would still rather make verse 3 a lie instead. Apparently, that is how some of you determine supposed truth. If it is contradictory and out of context, that apparently equals the truth to some of you, such as you and @Spiritual Israelite, to name a few.

For the love of God, will you stop misrepresenting my views already? You've been doing that for about 20 years and you need to grow up already and stop doing that. When did I say that I believe Zechariah 14:3 is about 70 AD? Never. What have I said about it? You have no idea because you don't pay attention to what people actually say because you have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever. What I have said is that it's a difficult passage to interpret and I'm not sure what it means exactly. But, I have pointed out what I'm sure Zechariah 14 can't be about, which is a future thousand year earthly kingdom and it can't be about people being required to go to Jerusalem to worship or to perform animal sacrifices and offerings. Other than that, I've offered possibilities of what verses like Zechariah 14:9 could mean, but I'm just not sure what Zechariah 14 is all about because I'm honest like many other Christians who acknowledge that Zechariah 14 is a difficult passage to interpret and reconcile with the rest of scripture. But, you, in your extreme pride and arrogance and foolish childishness, cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge that.

Verse 4 is meaning post verse 2 not prior to verse 2. Verse 8 is meaning post verse 5, 12, not prior to verse 5, 12.

Some of you have Zechariah all over the place in Zechariah 14 the same way some of you have Jesus all over the place in Matthew 24, for example. That's the pattern for some of you, including @Spiritual Israelite, since he is basically interpreting Zechariah 14 in the same manner as you are. And that he exhibits this same pattern in Matthew 24 where he has Jesus all over the place, therefore, making Jesus look like He was on drugs or something.

Why do you make so many foolish comments?! What is wrong with you? I think you might be on drugs right now! That could explain a lot of things. How else can you explain that you inexplicably think that Matthew and Mark didn't record the answer to the disciples' first question that they asked Jesus on the mount of Olives? Surely, you have to be on drugs or have some other serious issue to think that. Notice I'm accusing you of possibly being on drugs rather than accusing you of making Jesus look like He was on drugs, which is about as offensive as can be. I have no respect for you whatsoever if that's the kind of false accusations you're going to make.

As if it makes sense, that if Matthew 24:30 involves the 2nd coming, this means Jesus was still prophesying events pertaining to the first century in verse 15-21, in spite of, for example, verse 14, where Jesus had obviously already moved well beyond the first century at that point.

As if it makes sense for anyone who studies Bible prophecy to not understand that it's not always written in chronological order.

The pattern, thus the theme, in Zechariah 14 is this---great tribulation followed by DOTL judgment followed by restoration.

That doesn't line up with what is written in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 about the day of the Lord, but God forbid for you to care about that.

great tribulation = verse 2.

judgment = verses 1, 3-5, 12

restoration = verses 6-11, 16-19.

How do you interpret verses 16-19 exactly? Are you ever going to tell us or are you just going to tell us we're interpreting it wrong without telling us how it should be interpreted?

For example, one cannot have restoration being fulfilled before great tribulation and judgment are fulfilled first, then expected to be taken serious by anyone with reading comprehension.

How ironic for you to try to claim that you have reading comprehension.

The question then is, per this scenario, since this scenario is obviously the correct scenario---great trib followed by DOTL judgment followed by restoration--- that according to the texts involved, which, BTW, the NT clearly echoes this same pattern

The NT does NOT echo that same pattern at all as you understand it! In the NT the pattern is the complete destruction of unbelievers and the dissolving of the heavens and burning up and renewing of the earth resulting in the eternal new heavens and new earth where only righteousness will dwell and where there will be no more death. You have wickedness and death occurring on the new earth which blatantly contradicts 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21:4.

, does this then require a future millennium? Maybe, maybe not. Though, I tend to think it's more 'maybe' than 'maybe not'. That aside.

Say what? Is that not the main thing that you're trying to argue for here? If you would agree that it could be talking about the restoration of the earth into the new earth without wickedness and death continuing, then I could be open to your particular interpretation. But, never before have you allowed that possibility.

One cannot have verse 11 meaning before verse 2 is fulfilled first, then expected to be taken serious by anyone with reading comprehension.

I don't claim that, so lumping me in with the preterists shows how much you don't understand what I believe and how much you make a fool out of yourself by misrepresenting my beliefs over and over again.

Nor can one have verse 8 fulfilled before verse 11 is fulfilled since verse 8 is obviously meaning during verse 11, then expected to be taken serious by anyone with reading comprehension.

I agree with that. Yet, you still lump me in with the preterist interpretation of Zechariah 14. I am not a preterist. How can you not know that by now? Just because I interpret one passage the way they do in the Olivet Discourse somehow makes me just like them? Get a clue. Even you agree with them in how they interpret Luke 21:20-24. Does that make you a preterist? Of course not. Grow up and address what I actually believe instead of making your dumb strawman arguments over and over again, as you've been doing the past 20 years.

 

[Davidpt]

You are doing the exact same thing as you claim that we are doing yet you are right and we are wrong!

You say that we jump all over and then you claim that the day of the Lord goes all the way from the first century and then for three thousand more years. If the day of the Lord can be that long then how come the thousand years can't be the church age?

That can also mean the day of the Lord can be longer then 70AD too right?

My point was that you said nothing in Zechariah 14 was from the first century and I proved that some of the events were.

Rome was eventually judged after 70AD were they not?

You said that Zechariah 12-14 was a three thousand three-day theory and now you say "assuming if"? That leaves room for other theories right?

As to your theory concerning Zechariah 14 over all, it is simply not legit. Not according to me, but according to the texts involved. There is a logical flow to Zechariah 14 and some of you have decided to throw a monkey wrench into it. Nothing in Zechariah 14 is meaning before His ascension back into heaven. Until you get and accept that first, you are going to continue to interpret that chapter entirely wrong in the meantime.

The fundamental problem with this interpretation of Zechariah 14 is that it destroys the chapter's own logical flow.

Zechariah 14 follows a straightforward pattern---Great tribulation followed by the DOTL Judgment followed by restoration Verse 2 describes a siege of Jerusalem and great distress. Verses 3–5,12 describe the Lord personally intervening in judgment against the nations. Verses 6–11 and 16–19 describe the resulting restoration, security, blessing, and worldwide acknowledgment of the Lord's kingship.

The chapter moves from crisis to divine intervention to restoration. That is the natural reading.

Yet some want verse 2 to refer to 70 AD, verse 4 to refer to Jesus' first coming, and verse 8 to refer to Pentecost. The result is that restoration is occurring before the judgment that supposedly produces it. The effect is to scatter the chapter across decades and centuries while ignoring the sequence Zechariah himself presents.

Verse 11 is especially problematic for that approach. Jerusalem is described as dwelling securely after the Lord's intervention. How can that restoration occur before the tribulation and judgment that precede it in the chapter? Likewise, how can the living waters of verse 8 be fulfilled at Pentecost when verse 8 belongs to the restoration section of the prophecy and is connected to the conditions described in verses 9–11?

The issue is not whether one is Premil, Amil, or something else. The issue is whether the chapter should be allowed to speak in its own order.

The text does not present--restoration followed by great tribulation followed by the DOTL judgment

Nor does it present---great tribulation (70 AD) then switches back to prior 70 AD via Jesus having stood on the mount of Olives while He was still alive, followed by Pentecost after He left the planet, followed by restoration. Even that scenario doesn't agree with the text.


So on and so on. There is only one legit chronology of events.


Rather, it presents great tribulation followed by the Lord's intervention in judgment followed by restoration.

That same broad pattern appears repeatedly throughout Scripture and is echoed in passages such as Matthew 24 and Revelation 19–22: distress, divine intervention, and then restoration.

Therefore, the burden is not on those who read Zechariah 14 sequentially. The burden is on those who break the chapter apart and place its verses into different centuries while still claiming to preserve the prophet's intended meaning. The plain reading of the chapter is that the events belong together as a unified eschatological scenario culminating in the Lord's intervention and the restoration that follows.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not claiming that "the second coming" has already come but Jesus did come in judgement

That's not what is indicated here...

Matthew 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

The king in this parable is God the Father and He is the one who came in judgment against the Jews in 70 AD, not the king's son, who obviously represents Jesus.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are doing the exact same thing as you claim that we are doing yet you are right and we are wrong!

You say that we jump all over and then you claim that the day of the Lord goes all the way from the first century and then for three thousand more years. If the day of the Lord can be that long then how come the thousand years can't be the church age?

That can also mean the day of the Lord can be longer then 70AD too right?

My point was that you said nothing in Zechariah 14 was from the first century and I proved that some of the events were.

Rome was eventually judged after 70AD were they not?

You said that Zechariah 12-14 was a three thousand three-day theory and now you say "assuming if"? That leaves room for other theories right?

You're trying to reason with someone who is unreasonable. It can't be done.

 

[Marty fox]

You're trying to reason with someone who is unreasonable. It can't be done.

Yes but there’s always hope and other people reading the post

 

[Davidpt]

You are doing the exact same thing as you claim that we are doing yet you are right and we are wrong!

You say that we jump all over and then you claim that the day of the Lord goes all the way from the first century and then for three thousand more years. If the day of the Lord can be that long then how come the thousand years can't be the church age?

Woa, hold your horses there, partner. I am making no such claim. Not even remotely. There is only one day of the Lord event in the future, not multiple ones instead. Nor is there one continuous one expanding multiple millennia. Which then obviously means that the same DOTL event meant in Zechariah 14 is the same DOTL event meant in the NT. The fact Zechariah 14 is obviously covering some of the same time frame the NT covers. And that the NT only knows of one day of the Lord event in the future. Therefore, logic says these day of the Lord events are one and the same, and that Zechariah 14 is showing it from a different angle, so to speak.

Where are you getting the idea that I have the DOTL beginning in the first century then continuing during His return? That is not my position nor has it ever been my position nor will it ever be my position.

My view of Zechariah 14 is basically this. When we get to that chapter we are in the final days of this age and are in the final days of His ascension. Great tribulation happens during His ascension and that the DOTL immediately follows great tribulation(Matthew 24:29) , the DOTL then involving His 2nd coming at some point. Then following all of that the restoration begins, thus verses 6-11, 16-19. Thus when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began(Acts 3:19-21, which can also be compared with Matthew 19:28, for example)

And in one breath some of you adamantly insist Scripture interprets Scripture and that the NT reveals the meaning of things meant in the OT, then turn around and in the next breath contradict your claims of those things by interpreting Zechariah 14 in the absurd manner some of you do. Wow, is all I can say.

 

[Marty fox]

That's not what is indicated here...

Matthew 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

The king in this parable is God the Father and He is the one who came in judgment against the Jews in 70 AD, not the king's son, who obviously represents Jesus.

It actually says says that the King sent His Amy and Jesus is the leader and He does the fighting with the sword of His mouth His word like in the verse below

Revelation 2
16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It actually says says that the King sent His Amy and Jesus is the leader and He does the fighting with the sword of His mouth His word like in the verse below

Revelation 2
16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Marty, please address what it says in Matthew 22:2-7. You are conflating two different things here. Matthew 22:2-7 is very clear that it is God the Father who brought judgment against the Jews in 70 AD.

 

[Marty fox]

Woa, hold your horses there, partner. I am making no such claim. Not even remotely. There is only one day of the Lord event in the future, not multiple ones instead. Nor is there one continuous one expanding multiple millennia. Which then obviously means that the same DOTL event meant in Zechariah 14 is the same DOTL event meant in the NT. The fact Zechariah 14 is obviously covering some of the same timeframe the NT covers. And that the NT only knows of one day of the Lord event in the future. Therefore, logic says these day of the Lord events are one and the same, and that Zechariah 14 is showing it from a different angle, so to speak.

Where are you getting the idea that I have the DOTL beginning in the first century then continuing during His return? That is not my position nor has it ever been my position nor will it ever be my position.

You,claimEd that “in that day” from Zechariah 12-14 also speaks of the future, that day is the day of the Lord

 

[Marty fox]

Marty, please address what it says in Matthew 22:2-7. You are conflating two different things here. Matthew 22:2-7 is very clear that it is God the Father who brought judgment against the Jews in 70 ADs

Marty, please address what it says in Matthew 22:2-7. You are conflating two different things here. Matthew 22:2-7 is very clear that it is God the Father who brought judgment against the Jews in 70 AD.

Yes of course I didn’t dispute that just like the parable of the wicked tenants but as I said in Matthew 22 sthe king sent His armies

 

[Marty fox]

As to your theory concerning Zechariah 14 over all, it is simply not legit. Not according to me, but according to the texts involved. There is a logical flow to Zechariah 14 and some of you have decided to throw a monkey wrench into it. Nothing in Zechariah 14 is meaning before His ascension back into heaven. Until you get and accept that first, you are going to continue to interpret that chapter entirely wrong in the meantime.

The fundamental problem with this interpretation of Zechariah 14 is that it destroys the chapter's own logical flow.

Zechariah 14 follows a straightforward pattern---Great tribulation followed by the DOTL Judgment followed by restoration Verse 2 describes a siege of Jerusalem and great distress. Verses 3–5,12 describe the Lord personally intervening in judgment against the nations. Verses 6–11 and 16–19 describe the resulting restoration, security, blessing, and worldwide acknowledgment of the Lord's kingship.

The chapter moves from crisis to divine intervention to restoration. That is the natural reading.

Yet some want verse 2 to refer to 70 AD, verse 4 to refer to Jesus' first coming, and verse 8 to refer to Pentecost. The result is that restoration is occurring before the judgment that supposedly produces it. The effect is to scatter the chapter across decades and centuries while ignoring the sequence Zechariah himself presents.

Verse 11 is especially problematic for that approach. Jerusalem is described as dwelling securely after the Lord's intervention. How can that restoration occur before the tribulation and judgment that precede it in the chapter? Likewise, how can the living waters of verse 8 be fulfilled at Pentecost when verse 8 belongs to the restoration section of the prophecy and is connected to the conditions described in verses 9–11?

The issue is not whether one is Premil, Amil, or something else. The issue is whether the chapter should be allowed to speak in its own order.

The text does not present--restoration followed by great tribulation followed by the DOTL judgment

Nor does it present---great tribulation (70 AD) then switches back to prior 70 AD via Jesus having stood on the mount of Olives while He was still alive, followed by Pentecost after He left the planet, followed by restoration. Even that scenario doesn't agree with the text.


So on and so on. There is only one legit chronology of events.


Rather, it presents great tribulation followed by the Lord's intervention in judgment followed by restoration.

That same broad pattern appears repeatedly throughout Scripture and is echoed in passages such as Matthew 24 and Revelation 19–22: distress, divine intervention, and then restoration.

Therefore, the burden is not on those who read Zechariah 14 sequentially. The burden is on those who break the chapter apart and place its verses into different centuries while still claiming to preserve the prophet's intended meaning. The plain reading of the chapter is that the events belong together as a unified eschatological scenario culminating in the Lord's intervention and the restoration that follows.

Do you really that that the living water in Zechariah 14 isn’t the same living water as below?

John 7
37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[c] 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes of course I didn’t dispute that just like the parable of the wicked tenants but as I said in Matthew 22 sthe king sent His armies

The king in the parable is God the Father. It specifically says the king, representing God the Father, sent His armies to destroy them and their city. He used the Roman armies to do that. All people are His in a certain sense, so the Romans armies were His armies in the sense that He used them for His purposes at that time.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm not claiming that "the second coming" has already come but Jesus did come in judgement

A coming in the past would be a second coming. Believing in a third coming (or more) would not make the beliefs not full preterism IMO.