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.