The Conundrum of Zechariah Ch. 14

[Spiritual Israelite]

Where in the NT does it ever say that what happened in 70 AD it was via the DOTL that comes as a thief in the night(thus 1 Thessalonians 5:3, 2 Peter 3:10)?

Where do 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 indicate that the day of the Lord is an event that centers around earthly Jerusalem rather than being a global event that affects the entire world?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Consider the following, for example.

Psalms 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


What did the NT eventually reveal about this prophecy? Is it not the following?

The NT reveals the 'my Lord' is meaning Christ and the LORD is meaning the Father.


And that it reveals it involves a leaving and coming and a returning, in the following manners.

Initially Christ is in heaven with the Father, even before the beginning of creation and before the beginning of time.

The Father then sends the Son into the world, the earth below, via the Son being born upon the earth.

At this point it involves a leaving, which led to a coming to somewhere else instead, the earth in this case.

Later on it involves yet another leaving, but this time it involves a return. It involves leaving the earth then returning to where He was initially, heaven in this case.

But the prophecy doesn't end there. It still involves yet another leaving and yet another return. The leaving pertaining to leaving heaven yet again. The returning involving Jesus coming back to where He previously was before He ascended into heaven 2000 years ago, the earth in this case.

And in Zechariah 14 that is precisely where we are in the prophecy concerning Psalms 110:1, as of Zechariah 14:4-5. We are in the returning to the earth phase as of verses 4 and 5. But some of you would have us believe that verse 4 somehow involves a time when Jesus walked the earth before He died, rose, then eventually ascended back into heaven. IOW, who cares about context, right? Who cares that if true of verse 4 it then has zero connection with verses 1-3, 5. Right? Not to mention, where is the connection to this in Psalms 110:1--until I make thine enemies thy footstool-- when interpreting verse 4 in the manner some of you are?

Does the rest of scripture mean anything to you when you interpret Zechariah 14? Paul said we will meet Jesus in the air when He returns, not in Jerusalem. Nowhere does scripture ever teach that Jesus is returning to Jerusalem. It says He is coming down from heaven in like manner as He ascended there (Acts 1:9-11), but it doesn't say He is coming to the earth. If He was, then why would we meet Him in the air? Why wouldn't we just be taken directly to meet Him in Jerusalem rather than in the air?

 

[Marty fox]

I disagree that there's any direct connection between the parable that Jesus told in Matthew 22:1-13 and Revelation 19:11-21. The armies referenced in Matthew 22:7 refer to the actual armies who destroyed Jerusalem, which were the Roman armies. Revelation 19 does not refer to the Roman armies and it does not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. I don't believe the reference to Armageddon is meant to be taken literally, but even it was, most agree that it refers to Mount Megiddo which is located 55-60 miles north of Jerusalem.

I don't think that they are the same events either or is there a literal battle of Armageddon my point was that Jesus speaks judgment with t the sword of His mouth His words

Jesus spoke judgment on Jerusalem in Matthew chapters 23 and 24

 

[Davidpt]

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.

I did not say you did. What I meant got lost in the unfortunate conflation I caused by bringing you up. I was basically applying that to @Marty fox in this case, not you. Then when I mentioned you I was not including you yet was including you in regards to other portions of Zecharian 14, such as verse 4 and verse 8, for example, where you and @Marty fox appear to be interpreting those verses in the same manner. Therefore, my bad for making it appear I was including you when I was critiquing @Marty fox interpretation of verse 2 in light of verse 3.

Obviously, you can't read my mind in this case, and obviously it is not your fault if you misunderstand what I was meaning in this case by me not being a bit clearer. But now that I have made it clear, you need to grow up yourself and quit insisting I'm misrepresenting your view when I'm not. Or are you now going to argue that you and @Marty fox are not basically interpreting verse 4 and 8 in the same manner, thus my conclusion that you and he are basically interpreting Zechariah 14 in the same manner, at least in regard to these verses, thus I am yet again allegedly misrepresenting your view?

And something else I have been trying to make clear to you forever is, except you obviously lack the ability to grasp it, therefore, prefer to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting your view, that when I attempt to refute your view, I'm not coming from your perspective, I'm coming from the perspective I feel the texts in question are coming from, which then does not equal the perspective you feel the texts are coming from. Nor I have I ever been saying that the perspective I feel the texts are coming from is the perspective you feel they are coming from.

I simply use the perspective I feel the texts in question are coming from in order to attempt to debunk your view of those same texts. You are not me. Your mind does not operate in the same manner or on the same level as mine does. You have your way of reasoning through things and I have my way of reasoning through things. I am not obligated to reason through things in the manner you might, nor are you obligated to reason through things in the manner I might. You need to accept that and move on. So quit falsely accusing me of misrepresenting your view of things when I'm doing no such thing to begin with. And I have explained this to you countless times already, but you seem to have a hard of hearing issue, which in itself is something childish, and prefer to bear false witness against me instead. And I'm the one that needs to grow up? Quit being a hypocrite in this case by telling me I need to grow up when you need to grow up yourself.

And quit telling me that I'm the one being unreasonable here, that I can't be reasoned with when this post alone proves which one of us can't be reasoned with. Mark my words, despite this post, you will still insist I have been and and continue to misrepresent your view of things, whatever that might involve, so not just meaning Zechariah 14 in this case, but meaning in general.

 

[Marty fox]

Consider the following, for example.

Psalms 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


What did the NT eventually reveal about this prophecy? Is it not the following?

The NT reveals the 'my Lord' is meaning Christ and the LORD is meaning the Father.


And that it reveals it involves a leaving and coming and a returning, in the following manners.

Initially Christ is in heaven with the Father, even before the beginning of creation and before the beginning of time.

The Father then sends the Son into the world, the earth below, via the Son being born upon the earth.

At this point it involves a leaving, which led to a coming to somewhere else instead, the earth in this case.

Later on it involves yet another leaving, but this time it involves a return. It involves leaving the earth then returning to where He was initially, heaven in this case.

But the prophecy doesn't end there. It still involves yet another leaving and yet another return. The leaving pertaining to leaving heaven yet again. The returning involving Jesus coming back to where He previously was before He ascended into heaven 2000 years ago, the earth in this case.

And in Zechariah 14 that is precisely where we are in the prophecy concerning Psalms 110:1, as of Zechariah 14:4-5. We are in the returning to the earth phase as of verses 4 and 5. But some of you would have us believe that verse 4 somehow involves a time when Jesus walked the earth before He died, rose, then eventually ascended back into heaven. IOW, who cares about context, right? Who cares that if true of verse 4 it then has zero connection with verses 1-3, 5. Right? Not to mention, where is the connection to this in Psalms 110:1--until I make thine enemies thy footstool-- when interpreting verse 4 in the manner some of you are?

So how does Psalms 110:1 line up with a literal thousand year reigning on the earth?

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


This verse states that Jesus will sit at the Fathers right hand until He makes His enemies His foot stool. That proves that Jesus will only come again after the thousand years and the defeat of satan in Revelation 20:7, not before the thousand years because He will still have enemies after the release of satan.

 

[Marty fox]

So? What does the DOTL in the future have to do with the past 2000 years ago? I'm saying that when it comes to the phrase 'in that day', that we can identify the era of time meant via the context and verses surrounding it. For example, the DOTL. There is only one DOTL in the future and it hasn't arrived yet. Therefore, the DOTL meant in Zechariah 14 is future still, not past instead. Only someone desperate and needing to defend doctrine would invent an entirely different DOTL in Zechariah 14 the NT knows nothing about.

And it's not like Zechariah 14:1 is not involving any of the past 2000 years the NT is involving. Therefore, one can't argue that anything in Zechariah 14 is meaning prior to the NT era that began 2000 years ago. Nor can one argue that the NT knows of multiple days of the Lord that come as a thief in the night in the future and at different times. There is not one verse in all of the NT that supports that. Therefore, the DOTL meant in Zechariah 14 is the same DOTL meant in the NT. And guess what is missing in Zechariah 14? The entire earth literally engulfed in flames at the time. Therefore, telling us that it is absurd to take 2 Peter 3:10-12 in the literal sense where the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames at the time.

It really makes sense, doesn't it? That first the entire planet is engulfed in flames, thus destroying all lifeforms on the planet, and then following that verses 16-19 begin to come to pass. Now one has to explain where these in verses 16-19 magically came from all of a sudden like if there are no survivors remaining on the earth because everyone was literally burned to ashes instead.

Because the Jerusalem in verses 16-19 is the new Jerusalem the church the earth is gone

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I did not say you did. What I meant got lost in the unfortunate conflation I caused by bringing you up. I was basically applying that to @Marty fox in this case, not you. Then when I mentioned you I was not including you yet was including you in regards to other portions of Zecharian 14, such as verse 4 and verse 8, for example, where you and @Marty fox appear to be interpreting those verses in the same manner. Therefore, my bad for making it appear I was including you when I was critiquing @Marty fox interpretation of verse 2 in light of verse 3.

Obviously, you can't read my mind in this case, and obviously it is not your fault if you misunderstand what I was meaning in this case by me not being a bit clearer. But now that I have made it clear, you need to grow up yourself and quit insisting I'm misrepresenting your view when I'm not. Or are you now going to argue that you and @Marty fox are not basically interpreting verse 4 and 8 in the same manner, thus my conclusion that you and he are basically interpreting Zechariah 14 in the same manner, at least in regard to these verses, thus I am yet again allegedly misrepresenting your view?

I haven't paid close enough attention to his view to know how he interprets verse 4, but I did see that he referenced John 7:37-39 in relation to Zechariah 14:8, which I think is a viable possibility of what the verse is talking about. Can you just stop referencing me in any post where you are replying to someone else? That would prevent this situation from happening.

And something else I have been trying to make clear to you forever is, except you obviously lack the ability to grasp it, therefore, prefer to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting your view, that when I attempt to refute your view, I'm not coming from your perspective, I'm coming from the perspective I feel the texts in question are coming from, which then does not equal the perspective you feel the texts are coming from. Nor I have I ever been saying that the perspective I feel the texts are coming from is the perspective you feel they are coming from.

I simply use the perspective I feel the texts in question are coming from in order to attempt to debunk your view of those same texts. You are not me. Your mind does not operate in the same manner or on the same level as mine does. You have your way of reasoning through things and I have my way of reasoning through things. I am not obligated to reason through things in the manner you might, nor are you obligated to reason through things in the manner I might. You need to accept that and move on. So quit falsely accusing me of misrepresenting your view of things when I'm doing no such thing to begin with. And I have explained this to you countless times already, but you seem to have a hard of hearing issue, which in itself is something childish, and prefer to bear false witness against me instead. And I'm the one that needs to grow up? Quit being a hypocrite in this case by telling me I need to grow up when you need to grow up yourself.

And quit telling me that I'm the one being unreasonable here, that I can't be reasoned with when this post alone proves which one of us can't be reasoned with. Mark my words, despite this post, you will still insist I have been and and continue to misrepresent your view of things, whatever that might involve, so not just meaning Zechariah 14 in this case, but meaning in general.

Don't try to tell me what to do. If I see you being unreasonable, then I will say so every time. You are not being reasonable at all when it comes to Zechariah 14. All I see you say in response to anyone who tries to engage you on this is they're wrong and can't possibly be right and you immediately dismiss every single thing anyone says about anything in the chapter. That's childish. You act like you have such a strong grasp of the chapter, yet you can't explain at all what verses 16 to 21 are about. That's ridiculous.

If you really want to convince someone that their view is wrong then you need to be willing to look at it from their perspective to see if it can make sense from another perspective instead of forcing everything to fit into your own perspective. You are not doing that at all in your discussion with marty, for example. You're being rude to him and immediately dismissing everything he says while he is trying to discuss things reasonably, politely and respectfully.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So? What does the DOTL in the future have to do with the past 2000 years ago? I'm saying that when it comes to the phrase 'in that day', that we can identify the era of time meant via the context and verses surrounding it. For example, the DOTL. There is only one DOTL in the future and it hasn't arrived yet. Therefore, the DOTL meant in Zechariah 14 is future still, not past instead. Only someone desperate and needing to defend doctrine would invent an entirely different DOTL in Zechariah 14 the NT knows nothing about.

And it's not like Zechariah 14:1 is not involving any of the past 2000 years the NT is involving. Therefore, one can't argue that anything in Zechariah 14 is meaning prior to the NT era that began 2000 years ago. Nor can one argue that the NT knows of multiple days of the Lord that come as a thief in the night in the future and at different times. There is not one verse in all of the NT that supports that. Therefore, the DOTL meant in Zechariah 14 is the same DOTL meant in the NT. And guess what is missing in Zechariah 14? The entire earth literally engulfed in flames at the time. Therefore, telling us that it is absurd to take 2 Peter 3:10-12 in the literal sense where the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames at the time.

It really makes sense, doesn't it? That first the entire planet is engulfed in flames, thus destroying all lifeforms on the planet, and then following that verses 16-19 begin to come to pass. Now one has to explain where these in verses 16-19 magically came from all of a sudden like if there are no survivors remaining on the earth because everyone was literally burned to ashes instead.

If you're going to insist that Zechariah 14 is describing the same day of the Lord as 2 Peter 3:10-12, then you need to be able to explain how to reconcile the two passages, but you make no attempt to do so. You do know enough that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in upon the arrival of the day of the Lord because of what is written in 2 Peter 3:10-13, but then you come up with the unsupportable notion that sin and death will occur on the new earth despite Peter saying it will be a place where righteousness dwells and despite John saying there will be no more death at that point.

 

[Davidpt]

So how does Psalms 110:1 line up with a literal thousand year reigning on the earth?

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


This verse states that Jesus will sit at the Fathers right hand until He makes His enemies His foot stool. That proves that Jesus will only come again after the thousand years and the defeat of satan in Revelation 20:7, not before the thousand years because He will still have enemies after the release of satan.

In my view even when Christ leaves heaven He is still technically sitting on the right hand of the Father, thus on the right hand of power, until the GWTJ has been completed.

Assuming there are a thousand years after He returns, plus the fact He continues to sit on the right hand of power until the GWTJ is accomplished, this indicates He is still sitting on the right hand of power during the millennium as well, That it is still being worked out via the millennium then satan's little season, His enemies being His footstool.

I see that also basically connecting with Revelation 3:9--- behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. This hasn't been fulfilled yet, in any sense, Therefore, it finds it's fulfillment during the future millennium.

Jesus is the speaker in that verse. Obviously then, what is meant by these 2 'thy' is not meaning Jesus since it is absurd to take this to mean this instead--behold, I will make them to come and worship before MY feet, and to know that I have loved MYSELF.

I propose that the following per Isaiah 60 can perhaps help us interpret that part in Revelation 3:9. And guess what is not in view in all of Isaiah 60? The GWTJ and the LOF.

Isaiah 60:14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

IOW, in light of Revelation 3:9, maybe this---the sons also of them that afflicted thee , them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie, shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel. And, BTW, that certain sounds eerily similar to Zechariah 14:16-19. Probably just a coincidence. Right?

 

[Marty fox]

If you're going to insist that Zechariah 14 is describing the same day of the Lord as 2 Peter 3:10-12, then you need to be able to explain how to reconcile the two passages, but you make no attempt to do so. You do know enough that the new heavens and new earth are ushered in upon the arrival of the day of the Lord because of what is written in 2 Peter 3:10-13, but then you come up with the unsupportable notion that sin and death will occur on the new earth despite Peter saying it will be a place where righteousness dwells and despite John saying there will be no more death at that point.

Yes that point of sin on the new earth has been avoided

 

[Marty fox]

In my view even when Christ leaves heaven He is still technically sitting on the right hand of the Father, thus on the right hand of power, until the GWTJ has been completed.

Assuming there are a thousand years after He returns, plus the fact He continues to sit on the right hand of power until the GWTJ is accomplished, this indicates He is still sitting on the right hand of power during the millennium as well, That it is still being worked out via the millennium then satan's little season, His enemies being His footstool.

I see that also basically connecting with Revelation 3:9--- behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. This hasn't been fulfilled yet, in any sense, Therefore, it finds it's fulfillment during the future millennium.

Jesus is the speaker in that verse. Obviously then, what is meant by these 2 'thy' is not meaning Jesus since it is absurd to take this to mean this instead--behold, I will make them to come and worship before MY feet, and to know that I have loved MYSELF.

I propose that the following per Isaiah 60 can perhaps help us interpret that part in Revelation 3:9. And guess what is not in view in all of Isaiah 60? The GWTJ and the LOF.

Isaiah 60:14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

IOW, in light of Revelation 3:9, maybe this---the sons also of them that afflicted thee , them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie, shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

So He's sitting at the right hand of the Father until He makes His enemies His footstool but also on the earth at the same time? So doesn't Jesus currently sitting on the right hand of the Father at this moment prove that He is reigning now?

Revelation 3

To the Church in Philadelphia​

7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:

These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 8 I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you. 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth.
11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. 12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. 13 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Revelation 3 was clearly a current time to the writing of Revelation

 

[Davidpt]

So? What does the DOTL in the future have to do with the past 2000 years ago? I'm saying that when it comes to the phrase 'in that day', that we can identify the era of time meant via the context and verses surrounding it. For example, the DOTL. There is only one DOTL in the future and it hasn't arrived yet. Therefore, the DOTL meant in Zechariah 14 is future still, not past instead. Only someone desperate and needing to defend doctrine would invent an entirely different DOTL in Zechariah 14 the NT knows nothing about.

Because the Jerusalem in verses 16-19 is the new Jerusalem the church the earth is gone

Expand on this a bit more if you would, since there is a chance we might have some common ground here. I for sure take verses 16-19 to be involving the NJ, but maybe not in the sense you do. I take it to mean after the NJ has literally descended out of heaven, thus Revelation 21-22, and that I'm not instead applying it spiritually to the here and now. After all, how can it be applicable to the here and now when it can't even get fulfilled until verse 12 has been fulfilled first? Clearly, verse 12 has not been fulfilled, in any sense, period.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Consider the following, for example.

Psalms 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.


What did the NT eventually reveal about this prophecy? Is it not the following?

The NT reveals the 'my Lord' is meaning Christ and the LORD is meaning the Father.

Yes, and here is what Paul revealed about that prophecy.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Scripture is very clear that Jesus began to reign after His resurrection from the dead (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22, Revelation 1:5-6, Colossians 1:12-13, etc.). In verses 23 and 24 above Paul indicates that "the end will come" when Jesus comes again. It is at that point when all of His enemies will be made His footstool because it's at that point when the last enemy, death, will be defeated and destroyed (1 Cor 15:25-26). So, Paul taught that Christ's enemies will be made His footstool when He returns, not 1,000+ years later.

We should use straightforward texts like the above in order to understand more difficult texts like Zechariah 14. I know you think Zechariah 14 is straightforward, but that claim can't be taken seriously because you can't even offer a guess as to what Zechariah 14:16-21 means.

 

[Marty fox]

Yes, and he is what Paul revealed about that prophecy.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Scripture is very clear that Jesus began to reign after His resurrection from the dead (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22, Revelation 1:5-6, Colossians 1:12-13, etc.). In verses 23 and 24 above Paul indicates that "the end will come" when Jesus comes again. It is at that point when all of His enemies will be made His footstool because it's at that point when the last enemy, death, will be defeated and destroyed (1 Cor 15:25-26). So, Paul taught that Christ's enemies will be made His footstool when He returns, not 1,000+ years later.

We should use straightforward texts like the above in order to understand more difficult texts like Zechariah 14. I know you think Zechariah 14 is straightforward, but that claim can't be taken seriously because you can't even offer a guess as to what Zechariah 14:16-21 means.

Yes amen He reigns now

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Expand on this a bit more if you would, since there is a chance we might have some common ground here. I for sure take verses 16-19 to be involving the NJ, but maybe not in the sense you do. I take it to mean after the NJ has literally descended out of heaven, thus Revelation 21-22, and that I'm not instead applying it spiritually to the here and now. After all, how can it be applicable to the here and now when it can't even get fulfilled until verse 12 has been fulfilled first? Clearly, verse 12 has not been fulfilled, in any sense, period.

So, you're saying you think the references to Jerusalem in verses 16-19 refer to the new Jerusalem. In that case, why do you think the references to Jerusalem in verses 1, 2 and 4 refer to earthly Jerusalem?

Zechariah 14:16 Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 17 If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, they will have no rain. 18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The Lord will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 19 This will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.

Verse 16 refers to Jerusalem. You are saying you believe that refers to the new Jerusalem? It's referring to the Jerusalem that was attacked by people from "all the nations". It's referring back to this...

Zechariah 14:2 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.

You believe this verse is talking about earthly Jerusalem, right? So, how can you say that verse 16 is talking about the new Jerusalem when it's referring back to verse 2 which you believe refers to earthly Jerusalem?