Which view does Zechariah 14 support? Premil or Amil?

[Randy Kluth]

No, the Full Preterists vehemently deny that Christ intended to bodily return to the Mount of Olives. They flatly deny any bodily resurrection whatever, and the main proponents of Full Preterism also deny that Christ Jesus still retains today His glorified resurrected body that left the planet back in Acts 1. I'm saying that Christ did bodily return, just as He promised - exactly when and where He and the prophets said He would bodily return, and also leave from there to return to heaven with the bodily-resurrected saints.

You and I have not missed out. We are waiting on His next coming return with a third bodily resurrection event.

That seems like a mix of Full Preterism with conventional Christian eschatology? Full Preterism doesn't appear to believe in a future bodily Coming, whereas you do. But Full Preterists believe that the 2nd Coming happened in the 1st generation of the Church, during the fall of Jerusalem 70 AD, unless I'm mistaken?

 

[3 Resurrections]

That seems like a mix of Full Preterism with conventional Christian eschatology? Full Preterism doesn't appear to believe in a future bodily Coming, whereas you do. But Full Preterists believe that the 2nd Coming happened in the 1st generation of the Church, during the fall of Jerusalem 70 AD, unless I'm mistaken?

You're right - Full Preterists deny a future return of Christ - especially one involving His resurrected body. The Full Preterist makes a great effort to emphasize the OT examples such as God's symbolic "coming on a cloud into Egypt" judgments, and then say that Christ's second coming was likewise only a sort of symbolic "coming in the clouds" (not bodily, and not really with actual clouds) to judge Jerusalem in the AD 66-70 period. They conveniently discard the fact that any coming return which the incarnated Christ would perform would necessarily require His presence as the very same body of glorified "flesh and bone" which ascended in a cloud to heaven in Acts 1, and in which He promised to return "in like manner".

Christ Jesus never discarded that glorified, resurrected body of flesh and bones as our deathless "Great High Priest". We would have no mediating representative for us between God and man if that were the case. But the leadership of the Full Preterists erroneously teach that Christ's physical body sort of disintegrated on its way into the heavens in Acts 1, and that He is a mere Spirit being today. I have had a number of interchanges with Full Preterists, presenting them with scripture which denies this error.

 

[PinSeeker]

As to those verses, once again, until verse 12 is fulfilled first, those verses can't come to pass in the meantime. The text indicates that there are some who the plagues per verse 12 were not poured upon as well. One can't have verses 16-19 already being applicable before verse 12 is fulfilled first. Or if one can I'm certainly not seeing how since it's not even logical that there can be some remaining of the nations which came against Jerusalem before there is first judgment against these nations, verse 12 being part of that judgment.

If verses 16-19 can already be in progress before verse 12 is fulfilled first, may as well insist that the 2nd advent was already in progress before the 1st advent even took place, as an example. No one would think that or argue that though, yet, that is pretty much what one is doing with verses 16-19 id they already have that in preogress before verse 12 is fulfilled first.

Explain why the following would be wrong? BTW, the point is not what these things might look like when they are being fulfilled. The point is, what must happen first before these things can to pass?

Per this chapter, when did all the nations come against Jerusalem?

And what eventually happens to these battling Jerusalem?

Let's consider verses 16-19 some more.

And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

When shall this come to pass?

1) Before all nations shall come against Jerusalem

2) While all nations are still coming against Jerusalem

3) After all nations have already come against Jerusalem?

My answer is 3). And since my answer is 3), and the fact the text then states this---shall even go up from year to year---it is then unreasonable to think there is no era of time reserved post that of verse 12 in order to fulfill this.


And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

What families of the earth? Families per these, obviously---that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem. The text says--- even upon them shall be no rain. Whether meaning literal or not, that I can't tell you. All I can tell you is what the text states and when it is meaning and who it is meaning. It is meaning after verse 12 has been fulfilled. And it is meaning the families of the earth that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem.


And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

We already saw in the previous verse that if any of the families remaining of the nations which came against Jerusalem, don't come up from year to year, upon them shall be no rain. It uses the family of Egypt as an example, and it goes on to say---there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Except it can't be the same plague meant in verse 12, because of it is, how could the family of Egypt meant here, which appears to maybe be symbollic for the heathen in general, refuse or not refuse to go up post that of verse 12 if verse 12 happened to them instead?

Yet, there is another plague to consider here. IOW, one prior to the beginning of the era of time involving verses 16-19, and another one like it following the era of time involving verses 16-19 .

Isaiah 60:12...
Revelation 20:7-9..


Though, I see a lot of this making sense, thus some of it I actually agree with.... Yet it's not possible that anything pertaining to verses 16-19 can be meaning before verse 12 is fulfilled first. And once again, if that can be possible, may as well say that the 2nd advent can already be in progress before the first advent is even fulfilled first. IOW, making nonsense out of crystal clear chronology of events, where it's plainly obvious that the 1st advent has to precede the 2nd one. And in the same way, it is plainly obvious that nothing pertaining to verses 16-19 can come to pass until verse 12 has been fulfilled first. So why insist verses 16-19 are already in progress before verse 12 is fulfilled first?

In my view verses 16-19 is involving verses 6-11, and that nothing pertaining to verses 6-11 is meaning before verse 12 is fulfilled.

So... understood. Fair warning, I'm gonna get a little long-winded here... I'm going to focus on your numbers 1, 2, and 3 above, and your assertion that number 3 is correct (bolded). I think you're being too strict (that may not be the correct term to use, there, 'strict,' but I think you'll understand... maybe 'stringent'...?) with the text, particularly so with verse 16. I'll say to you here, David, a very similar thing I said to 3 Resurrections in another current thread. The subject there was not Zechariah 14, but a passage in Luke 21, with Revelation 20 a part of that discussion, but the same thing applies here; funny how all these things in God's Word run together, right? You will probably agree that there are a few ~ even several ~ great themes that run throughout Scripture. There are several authors, of course, but really only one true Author, as Peter tells us explicitly in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. So:

What Zechariah says here in chapter 14 of his prophecy ~ and this is really regarding more than just verse 16 ~ is that this has both short-range and long-range fulfillments. It is a layered prophecy, probably not even fully understood by Zechariah himself. But again, it's really coming from God, Who spoke to our fathers through the prophets (Hebrews 1:1), in this case Zechariah, not Zechariah in and of himself. I submit to you, then, David, that the short-term fulfillment is is 70 A.D., and the long-term fulfillment coming after the end of the millennium of Revelation 20... a lesser and a greater fulfillment. This pattern runs throughout Scripture. Yes, there are some things sprinkled in here that pertain to one or the other... and like I said, in verses 16 through 19, he kind of goes back and forth between the two, and is a sort of summation, generally speaking, of what has come before in verses 1 through 15. Again, it is a layered prophecy ~ very relevant and prescient to the original hearers also ~ which is very prevalent throughout Scripture.

Continued below...

 

[PinSeeker]

...

In view of the above, then... Well, you know, I'm going to quote a great commentator... (emphasis [bold text] mine):

ZECHARIAH PREFACE:

"...the people had to contend with various and most grievous trials. Satan had already raised up great opposition to them; but there were still greater evils at hand. Hence, to prevent them from despairing, it was necessary to encourage them; by many testimonies. But what our Prophet had especially in view was, to remind the Jews why it was that God dealt so severely with their fathers, and also to animate them with hope, provided they really repented, and elevated their minds to the hope of true and complete deliverance. ...He at the same time severely reproves them; for there was need of much cleansing... being not conscious of having been punished for their sins, they were so secure, that there was among them hardly any fear of God, or hardly any religion. It was therefore needful to blend strong and sharp reproofs with promises of favor, that they might thus be prepared to receive Christ."​

ZECHARIAH 14:

"Some apply this chapter to the time of Antichrist, some refer it to the last day, others explain it of the destruction of the city which happened in the reign of Vespasian; but I doubt not but that the Prophet meant here to include the calamities which were near at hand, for the city had not yet been built, the Jews having been much harassed by their neighbors... God designed to declare by the mouth of Zechariah what evils were at hand, that the faithful might with a courageous mind be prepared to undergo their trials, and that they might never succumb under any evils, for the Lord had promised more to them than what they could have attained in Chaldea and other countries."​

ZECHARIAH 14:16:

"Zechariah here advances farther, — that those who shall have escaped the ruin of which he had spoken shall be so humbled that they would of their own accord submit to God. He said before, that God would take vengeance and destroy all the enemies of his Church; but the promise here is still more valuable, — that He would turn the hearts of those who escaped punishment, so that without any constraint they would become obedient; for come, he says, shall they every year to worship God in his temple. Then the sum of what is said is this, that God would subdue all the enemies of his Church, and in two ways, for some he would destroy, and he would humble others, so as to make them willing servants and ready of themselves to obey his authority. It shall be then that every one who shall remain of all the nations which came against Jerusalem, shall ascend to supplicate God, or humbly to worship God."​

​

"We indeed know, that the name of the people of Israel was universally hated, so that their religion was disliked by almost the whole world. It was then a thing incredible when Zechariah said, that men from all countries would be so changed as to worship the true God of Israel. But many Churches we know were everywhere formed in the world, and men without number professed God’s name, and undertook His yoke, and embraced that religion which before had been despised by them, and which indeed they had persecuted with the greatest hatred. It is therefore no wonder that the Prophet should say, that the remnant who escaped the sword of vengeance would at length become the willing servants of God. But we ought to notice, as I have said, the mode of speaking commonly adopted by the Prophets, for, in order to amplify the grace of God, they speak in general terms, though what they say ought to be confined to the elect alone."​

​

"Ascend, he says, shall every one from year to year. Zechariah speaks here also according to the apprehensions of the people. Festivals, we know, were appointed by God; the Israelites ascended at least three times a year unto the temple, but as this was too hard and difficult for the miserable exiles to do, who had been scattered through all countries, those influenced by zeal for religion were wont to descend unto Jerusalem once a year. To this custom of the law the Prophet now alludes, as though he had said, 'God indeed spares some, yet they will at length come to his service without any constraint, and submit to the God of Israel.' But he speaks, as I have said, according to the rites of the law; and of this mode of speaking we have often reminded you... Ascend then shall every one to supplicate the king, Jehovah of hosts; that is, that they might confess the only true God to be king: for he has regard to the Prophecy which we considered yesterday (regarding Zechariah 13), when he said that the only true God would be king. So also in this place, confirming the former truth he says, that they who had before furiously assailed the Church would become the worshipers of God, for they would understand him to be the king of the whole world..."​

I submit to you, David, that this is what is happening now; more and more people from all tongues, tribes, and nations/people-groups are coming to Christ in God-given faith, being born again of the Spirit, and worshiping the One True God in Spirit and truth. This is the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6. Yes, Zechariah alludes to God's ultimate promises, for sure, and that He will keep every one of them; all God's promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ (Paul, 2 Corinthians 1:20). So it's just as relevant and prescient for us today as it was for his original audience. With all this said, regarding your statements one through three above and your assertion that number 3 is correct, I would say two things:

• Those nations themselves are not really what Zechariah is speaking of here, but rather members of the elect that are within those nations
• I agree that your number 3 is correct, but number 2 is also correct.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You're right - Full Preterists deny a future return of Christ - especially one involving His resurrected body. The Full Preterist makes a great effort to emphasize the OT examples such as God's symbolic "coming on a cloud into Egypt" judgments, and then say that Christ's second coming was likewise only a sort of symbolic "coming in the clouds" (not bodily, and not really with actual clouds) to judge Jerusalem in the AD 66-70 period. They conveniently discard the fact that any coming return which the incarnated Christ would perform would necessarily require His presence as the very same body of glorified "flesh and bone" which ascended in a cloud to heaven in Acts 1, and in which He promised to return "in like manner".

Christ Jesus never discarded that glorified, resurrected body of flesh and bones as our deathless "Great High Priest". We would have no mediating representative for us between God and man if that were the case. But the leadership of the Full Preterists erroneously teach that Christ's physical body sort of disintegrated on its way into the heavens in Acts 1, and that He is a mere Spirit being today. I have had a number of interchanges with Full Preterists, presenting them with scripture which denies this error.

I can see why Full Preterists do not then believe in the *bodily* return of Christ in 70 AD, because *it didn't happen!* The Messianic Prophecies of the OT Scriptures portrayed the bodily coming of Messiah as designed to immediately institute the Kingdom of God on earth. That didn't happen. If it is to be believed that the Kingdom of Christ was established in 70 AD, I see no evidence of that?

 

[PinSeeker]

... If it is to be believed that the Kingdom of Christ was established in 70 AD, I see no evidence of that?

I am most certainly not a Preterist. However, Christ did say He was King, and His Kingdom was not of this world, and the Kingdom here now, several times in His earthly ministry, Randy. And as you know, He was worshiped as King even at His birth by the shepherds, who were told by the angel that Jesus was in fact Lord (Luke 2), and He was worshiped as King at about two years old by the Magi (the wise men); we know this because they even asked Herod, "Where is He Who has been born King of the Jews?" (Matthew 2).

Who is ~ Who is ~ your King, Randy? Are you a Jew? Well, to the first question, the answer is Jesus (as is the answer to pretty much every question in Sunday School...) And to the second question, the answer is yes (even if you are not ethnically Jewish).

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I am most certainly not a Preterist. However, Christ did say He was King, and His Kingdom was not of this world, and the Kingdom here now, several times in His earthly ministry, Randy. And as you know, He was worshiped as King even at His birth by the shepherds, who were told by the angel that Jesus was in fact Lord (Luke 2), and He was worshiped as King at about two years old by the Magi (the wise men); we know this because they even asked Herod, "Where is He Who has been born King of the Jews?" (Matthew 2).

Who is ~ Who is ~ your King, Randy? Are you a Jew? Well, to the first question, the answer is Jesus (as is the answer to pretty much every question in Sunday School...) And to the second question, the answer is yes (even if you are not ethnically Jewish).

Grace and peace to you.

Jesus was born destined to be King as a man. As God he has always been King. Let's not get the two roles confused?

Let me ask you, "Did Jesus begin his Reign when he was born in a manger? No, of course not. Did he begin his reign when he rose from the dead, or when he ascended into heaven? I don't think so.

In my view, the Reign of the Kingdom of God has to do with when God imposes a more rigid spiritual order upon the earth at Jesus' return. That's when the Kingdom of God truly begins. That's when Jesus' Reign as King truly begins, in my opinion.

And no, I'm not remotely Jewish, unless there is unknown Jewish blood in me. I'm told that's possible, but I don't know anything about it. It is *not* my ethnicity. It is not my nationality. And it doesn't matter because God promised Abraham many ethnicities and many nations. I belong to the ethnicity and nationality I have.

 

[PinSeeker]

Jesus was born destined to be King as a man. As God he has always been King. Let's not get the two roles confused?

Point taken about not getting the two confused, of course, but I would turn that around to you Randy and say, let's not soft-pedal either one either, especially the latter; yes, He has always been King. To what you say initially here... I would put it more in terms of what Paul says to the Philippians, that "though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men... found in human form..." During His approximately 33 years of life on earth, He was 100% God (and thus King), and 100% man. I think you agree with this...

Let me ask you, "Did Jesus begin his Reign when he was born in a manger? No, of course not. Did he begin his reign when he rose from the dead, or when he ascended into heaven? I don't think so.

We disagree. His millennial reign had not started yet; that began when He ascended and sat down (which means far more than just that he pulled up a chair and "took a load off"; He had completed ~ "It is finished!" as He proclaimed on the Cross just before His death ~ His work of redemption) at the right hand (which means far more than that he was then just to the right of the Father, but fully in and with the power ~ "right hand" (Exodus 15:6; Psalm 20:6) ~ and glory of the Father) of God, and especially when the Holy Spirit came (Pentecost) as Jesus said He would. God's millennium, Randy, referred to explicitly in Revelation 20:1-6, is the same time period that Jeremiah prophesied of in chapter 31 of his prophecy, namely, his quoting of God Himself from verses 31-34:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt..." (the Mosaic Covenant, the Law) "...My covenant that they broke, though I was their Husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”​

The writer of Hebrews (as you probably know) quotes this passage in Hebrews 8:10, in speaking of Jesus as the High Priest of a better covenant, and again in Hebrews 10:16, after saying that "Christ... offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins" and then "sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet," and "the Holy Spirit bears witness to us" of this... now.

One thing in the middle of this passage that is very easily overlooked ~ or, if not overlooked, glossed over ~ "this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days..." Well, after what days? After the days of the Mosaic Law, right? Well, yes. So for us, we are not under this Mosaic Law now, we are under the Law of Christ, which we fulfill by bearing one another's burdens (Paul, Galatians 6:2), which is also a loaded... so to speak; meaning far, far more meaningful than it might at first appear... directive/requirement); it is summed up in the two great commandments, as Jesus said, the first being that we love the Lord our God with all our heart and with all our soul and with all our mind, and the second like it, that we love our neighbors as ourselves... on these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets (Jesus, Matthew 22).

In my view, the Reign of the Kingdom of God has to do with when God imposes a more rigid spiritual order upon the earth at Jesus' return. That's when the Kingdom of God truly begins. That's when Jesus' Reign as King truly begins, in my opinion.

Hmmmm... I don't completely disagree... The "more rigid spiritual order" thing is curious, but you could mean different things in saying that, so I'm not going to project. But the Kingdom of God has begun. We don't have it in full yet ~ Jesus will make that a reality when He returns, but is most assuredly now (Jesus said so, as I said above) and at this point advancing toward that reality. This is the simultaneous now-and-not-yet... God is making all things new.

And no, I'm not remotely Jewish, unless there is unknown Jewish blood in me...

Right, neither am I, but you and I are true Jews, in the sense that Paul speaks of in Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9-11... and Ephesians 2:11-22, where he finally writes ~ to Gentiles ~ "...you..." (so we) "...are no longer strangers and aliens, but you..." (again we) "...are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In Him you also..." (and we also) "...are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."

...God promised Abraham many ethnicities and many nations.

God promised Abraham that He would make him a great nation, consisting of an innumerable multitude...

• as the stars of heaven (Genesis 22:17, 26:4; Exodus 32:13; Deuteronomy 1:10, 10:22: 1 Chronicles 27:23; Nehemiah 9:23; Jeremiah 33:22; Hebrews 11:12)
• as the grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17, 32:12, 41:49; Jeremiah 33:22; Hosea 1:10; Hebrews 11:12)

...of people from every tongue, tribe, and nation/people-group. In this way, Abraham is our father. As the writer of Hebrews (vv.1-2) says, "Long ago... God spoke to our..." (not 'their') "...fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us..." (not 'them') "...by his Son..."

And here too I would point out, in Hebrews 1:1-2, "these last days," which corresponds intensely with ~ is the same period referred to by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:33 and the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 ("...this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days..."), cited above, and ~ and, Randy ~ is the same period spoken of by Jesus through John just prior to the beginning of the visions (plural) given to him in Revelation when He says, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this."

I belong to the ethnicity and nationality I have.

In the earthly sense, yes. But in God's economy... God's promises are for all those in Christ, and they all have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Him (2 Corinthians 1:20), and those promises are far greater than many imagine them to be, e.g., "the meek shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5).

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

 

[Zao is life]

One way way to try and determine that is by comparing how Premils interpret these events as opposed to how Amils interpret them. Then seeing which view is agreeing with what the text indicates, which includes events that involve chronology. For example, verse 2 as opposed to verses 16-19. Would anyone argue, chronologically speaking, that verses 16-19 can be fulfilled before verse 2 is even fulfilled first? It would be like arguing that Christ's 2nd advent can precede His 1st advent. Clearly then, when it comes to events in the Bible, especially in regards to prophetic events, chronology matters, thus is relevant.

And what do chronological events do? They lead from one thing into another, etc.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
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

One thing that is already crystal clear here, none of this can be involving 70 AD. For example, compare the following.

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.

With that of this.

Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

Does it sound like any of that fits this---and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city

Obviously then, since Zechariah 14:2 can't logically fit 70 AD, it still has to fit somewhere, though. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, that if it can't fit 70 AD, it has to fit an era of time post 70 AD.

The question is, is verse 2 supposed to be interpreted in the literal sense to begin with? Is it involving literal Jerusalem in the middle east being literally surrounded by all nations on the planet? If we factor in verse 4, how can Jerusalem not be understood in the literal sense here? Is there a way to understand the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, in a sense that is not even literal? Do things pertaining to the non literal typically involve compass directions? Is it literally true that the mount of Olives, that it is before Jerusalem on the east?

Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.


What should we make of this verse, keeping in mind that chronology is relevant here. IOW, we can't have this verse meaning during a time when Jesus literally walked upon the earth prior to His death, then have verse 2 involving an era of time post his death, and that we then think that makes good sense of the text. Because, clearly, verse 4 is pertaining to verse 3 and that verse 3 is pertaining to verse 2. That's how chronology works, as in, how one event leads into another event, so on and so on.

I think I will stop here for now. There's a lot more to discuss/debate involving this chapter. But first we need to make sense of these first 4 verses before we can try and make sense of any of the verses that follow.

I believe this prophecy begins with this verse:

1 The revelation of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: The LORD - he who stretches out the heavens and lays the foundations of the earth, who forms the human spirit within a person - says, 2 "I am about to make Jerusalem a cup that brings dizziness to all the surrounding nations; indeed, Judah will also be included when Jerusalem is besieged. 3 Moreover, on that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy burden for all the nations, and all who try to carry it will be seriously injured; yet all the peoples of the earth will be assembled against it. (Zechariah 12).

I don't have a problem associating it with the return of Christ and the millennium that follows, which IMO commences at the same time as the NHNE, so in that sense Amils who see it as talking about the time of the end of our Age and the NHNE that follows, as well as Premillennialists, are on the same page, though they don't know it.

It becomes confusing for me though how Revelation's holy city in Revelation 11:2 fits in with this (if at all) because the Revelation does not assign the title "the holy city" to the city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt, nor to Babylon the Great, nor to the cities of the nations that fell when the 7th bowl was poured out.

Yet the Revelation calls New Jerusalem the holy city three times, each time unambiguously.

But the bodies of the two witnesses will lie in the street of the city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt "where also their Lord was crucified", which IMO can only mean Jerusalem.

The valley between the Temple Mount and the Mount of Olives is known as the Kidron Valley, which Joel Chapter 3 calls the Valley of Jehoshaphat.

I see Joel Chapter 3 as the literal judgment of the nations. So then I must see Zechariah Chapters 12-14 as literal also. Even doing so does not preclude Revelation 11:2's holy city from referring to the part of New Jerusalem that exists on earth - the saints.​

 

[Randy Kluth]

Point taken about not getting the two confused, of course, but I would turn that around to you Randy and say, let's not soft-pedal either one either, especially the latter; yes, He has always been King. To what you say initially here... I would put it more in terms of what Paul says to the Philippians, that "though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men... found in human form..." During His approximately 33 years of life on earth, He was 100% God (and thus King), and 100% man. I think you agree with this...

Yes.

We disagree. His millennial reign had not started yet; that began when He ascended and sat down (which means far more than just that he pulled up a chair and "took a load off"; He had completed ~ "It is finished!" as He proclaimed on the Cross just before His death ~ His work of redemption) at the right hand (which means far more than that he was then just to the right of the Father, but fully in and with the power ~ "right hand" (Exodus 15:6; Psalm 20:6) ~ and glory of the Father) of God, and especially when the Holy Spirit came (Pentecost) as Jesus said He would.

Again, I'd like to separate 2 different issues. One, your view depends here on your own view of the Millennium, and my view depends on mine. We need to lay that issue aside, because we have our biases, and that's that.

So issue number two is, Did Jesus' ascension into heaven, to sit on the right hand of God, constitute the start of the Kingdom of God on earth? If we leave aside your argument about what constitutes the "Millennium," I don't think you have a completely satisfying argument to say that the Kingdom of God is already ruling on earth?

You might say that the Church has been given a certain amount of authority from Christ who in heaven has been given all authority. But is Christ exercising all of his authority on earth now, or is he giving the Church only limited power?

I would say the latter, since Paul indicated that the Church suffers the attacks of Satan regularly. I don't think the authority we do have to successfully preach the Gospel to all the earth means that we have unlimited capacity to do so. We are hindered, oppressed, and limited, if not by Satan certainly by those who on earth reject and resist the Gospel. We will succeed by the authority of Christ, but it will come by satanic opposition and by suffering resistance.

God's millennium, Randy, referred to explicitly in Revelation 20:1-6, is the same time period that Jeremiah prophesied of in chapter 31 of his prophecy, namely, his quoting of God Himself from verses 31-34:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt..." (the Mosaic Covenant, the Law) "...My covenant that they broke, though I was their Husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”​

A good number of Christians view Jer 31.31 as having been fulfilled at Jesus' cross. But I don't think so--not completely so.

It appears to apply the legal work Christ did at the cross to Israel at his 2nd Coming. As Paul said in Rom 11, Israel will be fully saved as a nation when "the Deliverer comes."

Hmmmm... I don't completely disagree... The "more rigid spiritual order" thing is curious, but you could mean different things in saying that, so I'm not going to project. But the Kingdom of God has begun. We don't have it in full yet ~ Jesus will make that a reality when He returns, but is most assuredly now (Jesus said so, as I said above) and at this point advancing toward that reality. This is the simultaneous now-and-not-yet... God is making all things new.

I can only go so far with you, based on my own position. We do have limited authority from Christ in heaven now, who as God has unlimited power but who as the Son delivers his authority progressively.

1 Cor 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.

Full authority has not yet been given the Church. Death is not yet overcome in our own lives. We have the legal rights to overcome death, but we cannot yet exercise power over our own death.

Right, neither am I, but you and I are true Jews, in the sense that Paul speaks of in Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9-11... and Ephesians 2:11-22, where he finally writes ~ to Gentiles ~ "...you..." (so we) "...are no longer strangers and aliens, but you..." (again we) "...are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In Him you also..." (and we also) "...are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."

I interpret Eph 2 differently than you do. Being "fellow citizens with the Jews in the Kingdom of God" does not imply a single ethnicity and a single nationality. On the contrary, there are multiple ethnicities and nationalities in the coming Kingdom of God.

The significant factor, according to Paul, is that the dividing wall between them, allowing the Jews in and keeping the Gentiles out, has been broken down. It is not a uniting of all ethnicities into one, but rather, a removal of the exclusion clause keeping the Gentiles out of the Kingdom of God.

God promised Abraham that He would make him a great nation, consisting of an innumerable multitude...

He promised Abraham not just a single "great nation" but a fatherhood of "many nations!" You can't have one without the other.

Hence, you do not have the many nations united into a single nation. Rather, you have the element separating them legally removed so that there is unity in diversity, ie many nations spiritually united in the Kingdom of God. That is actually what we have now, or at least *should have.*

The Jews we are spiritually united with are presently very small in number, being only a remnant of the full nation. The full nation has not yet been restored in covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

But we are united with Jews who have already converted to Christ. My uncle, who came from Eastern Europe was a German Christian who spoke Yiddish. What does that tell you?

And here too I would point out, in Hebrews 1:1-2, "these last days," which corresponds intensely with ~ is the same period referred to by Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:33 and the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16 ("...this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days..."), cited above, and ~ and, Randy ~ is the same period spoken of by Jesus through John just prior to the beginning of the visions (plural) given to him in Revelation when He says, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this."

I view the "Last Days" as you do, as the entire NT period. However, it is speaking of a time when the nation Israel will enter into the Kingdom of God once again. They lost that Kingdom and passed it on to the Gentile nations, since they rejected Jesus.

So the time Israel returns to the Kingdom of God will necessarily be after the times of the Law had passed away but only at the end of that time. As Jesus said, "the first will be last." The Jews, who began with the Kingdom of God, will be last to come to the Kingdom of God in the NT era.

Grace and peace to you, Randy.

Thanks. You have a kind spirit, and that's more important than our agreement on these other matters. The Kingdom of God is all about putting Christ on now, and not at some future time. God bless!

 

[PinSeeker]

Again, I'd like to separate 2 different issues.

Hm. Okay, but I think that's a big part of this. I'm not going to attribute this directly to you, Randy, but there are some things that people try to separate that cannot be separated.

One, your view depends here on your own view of the Millennium, and my view depends on mine. We need to lay that issue aside, because we have our biases, and that's that.

Well, we should lay aside any predetermined ~ yes, based on biases ~ conclusions, for sure. But at least as far as I'm concerned, it's really the opposite of what you say here for me; my view of the millennium follows from the things I pointed out, mainly Jeremiah's prophecy ~ and Jesus's conversation with Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus's promise of the coming Holy Spirit in John 14 and what He would do, and a number of other passages of Scripture, including various parts of Paul's and Peter's letters (cited above) ~ and what we see happening among believers since then, including what we know about our own conversions to Christ and the changes in us personally, and what the apostles say in the rest of the New Testament, including John.

So issue number two is, Did Jesus' ascension into heaven, to sit on the right hand of God, constitute the start of the Kingdom of God on earth?

Well, I said Jesus was King at His birth, and gave several Scripture references for that. I said His ascension and Pentecost constituted the start of His millennial reign. Which you want to separate out... I mean, we can discuss them separately, maybe, but really, the two "issues" as you called them are inseparable; in talking about one, you're talking about the other, and vice versa. And you can call that my opinion, but...

If we leave aside your argument about what constitutes the "Millennium," I don't think you have a completely satisfying argument to say that the Kingdom of God is already ruling on earth?

Okay, fair enough, but that's just your personal assessment, your perspective, right? I'm certainly not saying it "means nothing" or is "irrelevant," but, well, that's what it is.

You might say that the Church has been given a certain amount of authority from Christ who in heaven has been given all authority. But is Christ exercising all of his authority on earth now, or is he giving the Church only limited power?

I would say the latter, since Paul indicated that the Church suffers the attacks of Satan regularly. I don't think the authority we do have to successfully preach the Gospel to all the earth means that we have unlimited capacity to do so. We are hindered, oppressed, and limited, if not by Satan certainly by those who on earth reject and resist the Gospel. We will succeed by the authority of Christ, but it will come by satanic opposition and by suffering resistance.

No offense to you, Randy, of course, but all this seems only tangentially relevant to this discussion, if that. To what you say here, this may seem irrelevant to you, maybe, but as you know, God works all things together for the good of those who love Him and who are called according to His purpose. So, neither the Father nor the Son are sitting idly by... Nor are they wringing their hands and going, "Come on! What you could have had! This is not rocket science...!"

A good number of Christians view Jer 31.31 as having been fulfilled at Jesus' cross. But I don't think so--not completely so.

Fulfilled... What do you mean by "fulfilled?" Completed? If so, then I would disagree with that. I really think the more correct term to used there, instead of 'fulfilled,' is 'inaugurated.' That was pretty much my point. As you know, my position is that God's millennium has been in progress since then, or at least since Pentecost, and is not over yet ~ the full number of the Gentile elect, whatever that is, has not been realized yet, and the partial hardening now on Israel has not been removed yet; not all Israel has been saved. So I agree with your "not completely so" assertion, actually. And, based on what I have said, too, God's millennium is not yet over, for the same reason, because it is the same thing.

Continued....

 

[PinSeeker]

That seemed like a pretty good break; here's the rest...

It appears to apply the legal work Christ did at the cross to Israel at his 2nd Coming. As Paul said in Rom 11, Israel will be fully saved as a nation when "the Deliverer comes."

There is only one Israel, Randy, and it is not an earthly nation-state. It is not insignificant that the physical nation-state Israel actually was actually constituted in 1948, but God's Israel is much greater than that, at any one point ~ before 1948 or after, it consists of all those who are elect and have been converted to Christ... are in Christ. We are all one in Christ Jesus.

I can only go so far with you, based on my own position...I interpret Eph 2 differently than you do.

I'm aware of those things.

Being "fellow citizens with the Jews in the Kingdom of God" does not imply a single ethnicity and a single nationality.

Ethnicity and/or nationality is irrelevant in God's economy. As Paul says to the Gentile believers in Ephesus there, they (and we) are "reconcile(d)..." with ethnic Jewish believers "...to God in one body through the cross..." and "...through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father." And Paul explicitly says to the Galatians (3:26-29), there is no ethnicity, no inequality regarding status of any kind, there is not even gender, really ~ no division between Jew and Gentile, or slave or free, or male or female ~ "...in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith... (T)here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."

On the contrary, there are multiple ethnicities and nationalities in the coming Kingdom of God.

Sure, but we will all be one, and we are one ~ in Christ ~ even in this life, with other believers around the world.

It is not a uniting of all ethnicities into one...

Is this what you understand me to be saying? Surely not.

He promised Abraham not just a single "great nation" but a fatherhood of "many nations!" You can't have one without the other.

God did promise Abraham, Randy ~ then still Abram ~ that He would make of him, Abram, a great nation (Genesis 12:2). And yes, God promised also in Genesis 17:4-6 that He would make Abram (whom God renamed Abraham at that point, which is significant) the father of a multitude of nations. Is the promise of Genesis 12:2 not valid, as well as the promise of Genesis 17. I say yes, they both are, and I have full confidence that you will agree, so you have to reconcile the two.

...you have the element separating them legally removed so that there is unity in diversity, ie many nations spiritually united in the Kingdom of God. That is actually what we have now, or at least *should have.*

Hmmm... I'm not sure what you mean by "legally removed," but no matter. Again, I would say, people of every tongue, tribe, and nation gathered into one great Nation, the Israel of God, which, again, at any one point consists of God's elect who have been converted to Christ and are thus in Christ... these are the true offspring of Abraham, true Jews, of the Israel of God.

The Jews we are spiritually united with are presently very small in number, being only a remnant of the full nation.

Sure, if by nation in reference to Jewish people you mean only the ethnic group. But, well, as Paul says in Romans 9, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel... not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." I submit to you, Randy, that you and I both are children of the promise and thus children of God, and this is true of all those in Christ, regardless of ethnicity.

The full nation has not yet been restored in covenant relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

Yes, not all the elect have been called... yet.

But we are united with Jews who have already converted to Christ.

Yes, and thus along with those Jews, we are true Jews, in Paul's context in Romans 2:28-29, and together we make up God's Israel.

I view the "Last Days" as you do, as the entire NT period.

Good. If you are including the Jesus's "after this" statement in Revelation 4, then great. If you then apply it to Revelation 20:1-6, then that would be magnificent.

However, it is speaking of a time when the nation Israel will enter into the Kingdom of God once again. They lost that Kingdom and passed it on to the Gentile nations, since they rejected Jesus.

Not all of them did. There were believers among them. They didn't "pass it on" to Gentiles; with the advent of Jesus, God opened it to them.

So the time Israel returns to the Kingdom of God will necessarily be after the times of the Law had passed away but only at the end of that time. As Jesus said, "the first will be last." The Jews, who began with the Kingdom of God, will be last to come to the Kingdom of God in the NT era.

Well, I agree with this, but in... maybe... a different context. The partial hardening that is now on Israel will be removed. As I have said, when we see large numbers of Jews coming to Christ, this will be evidence that the full number of the Gentile elect will have been reached, will have been brought into the Israel of God. Zechariah 13, which has come up in another current thread, is all about that.

You have a kind spirit, and that's more important than our agreement on these other matters.

Well thanks, Randy! Same to you. I agree, regarding agreement; sure.

The Kingdom of God is all about putting Christ on now, and not at some future time.

Hmmm... I agree with you here, but you're statement here seems to fly in the face of your apparent position that the Kingdom of God is future only.

God bless!

The same to you. Grace and peace to you.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I can see why Full Preterists do not then believe in the *bodily* return of Christ in 70 AD, because *it didn't happen!* The Messianic Prophecies of the OT Scriptures portrayed the bodily coming of Messiah as designed to immediately institute the Kingdom of God on earth. That didn't happen. If it is to be believed that the Kingdom of Christ was established in 70 AD, I see no evidence of that?

The reign of the Lord in His kingdom was not established in AD 70.

In a very real sense, that reign of the Lord has always existed. The Psalms are full of this, with the phrase, "The Lord reigneth...". For example, Ps. 103:19, "The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all." And another in Ps. 145:13, "Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations." And another in Ps. 146:10, "The Lord shall reign for ever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations. Praise ye the Lord."

That "everlasting kingdom" has manifested itself in various ways over history. The incarnate Christ told the multitudes that the proof that the kingdom had come unto them was shown by His casting out devils during His earthly ministry. The kingdom of God was then presently "at hand" and "in your midst" in the person of the incarnate Christ (Mark 1:15, Luke 17:21)

Peter told the multitudes at Pentecost in Acts 2:29-36 that King David's prophecy of an enthroned Christ as Lord had been fulfilled by the newly-ascended Jesus. This enthronement in heaven was Jesus having been consecrated as a high priest King of kings upon His heavenly throne. This was a new facet of the Lord's everlasting reign, with Jesus's New Covenant role beginning as our deathless mediator / intercessor Great High Priest. This was the single kingdom given to the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14's account of Christ's ascension.

After Christ's AD 70 return, Satan and the entire demonic realm was destroyed, leaving all of those "many crowns" (Rev. 19:12) of the "Prince of this world" confiscated by the still-reigning Christ. Satan had once boasted to Christ in Luke 4:5-6 that the glory and power of the kingdoms of this world had been given to him. With Satan's AD 70 death, whatever power and glory was behind those kingdoms of the world clearly belonged to Christ, as pictured by the "many crowns" added to the kingdom which Christ already ruled.

 

[rwb]

One way way to try and determine that is by comparing how Premils interpret these events as opposed to how Amils interpret them. Then seeing which view is agreeing with what the text indicates, which includes events that involve chronology. For example, verse 2 as opposed to verses 16-19. Would anyone argue, chronologically speaking, that verses 16-19 can be fulfilled before verse 2 is even fulfilled first? It would be like arguing that Christ's 2nd advent can precede His 1st advent. Clearly then, when it comes to events in the Bible, especially in regards to prophetic events, chronology matters, thus is relevant.

And what do chronological events do? They lead from one thing into another, etc.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
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

One thing that is already crystal clear here, none of this can be involving 70 AD. For example, compare the following.

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.

With that of this.

Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

Does it sound like any of that fits this---and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city

Obviously then, since Zechariah 14:2 can't logically fit 70 AD, it still has to fit somewhere, though. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, that if it can't fit 70 AD, it has to fit an era of time post 70 AD.

The question is, is verse 2 supposed to be interpreted in the literal sense to begin with? Is it involving literal Jerusalem in the middle east being literally surrounded by all nations on the planet? If we factor in verse 4, how can Jerusalem not be understood in the literal sense here? Is there a way to understand the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, in a sense that is not even literal? Do things pertaining to the non literal typically involve compass directions? Is it literally true that the mount of Olives, that it is before Jerusalem on the east?

Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.


What should we make of this verse, keeping in mind that chronology is relevant here. IOW, we can't have this verse meaning during a time when Jesus literally walked upon the earth prior to His death, then have verse 2 involving an era of time post his death, and that we then think that makes good sense of the text. Because, clearly, verse 4 is pertaining to verse 3 and that verse 3 is pertaining to verse 2. That's how chronology works, as in, how one event leads into another event, so on and so on.

I think I will stop here for now. There's a lot more to discuss/debate involving this chapter. But first we need to make sense of these first 4 verses before we can try and make sense of any of the verses that follow.

David, the prophesy begins with: "Behold, the day of the LORD cometh..." What time period do you believe the prophet was foretelling to come? Was he foretelling a single day that was coming, or is "day" here to be understood as a period of time? Is the prophet speaking literally or symbolically of things that would come to pass when "the day of the Lord cometh"? Bearing in mind that when the Lord came, He came with the spiritual Kingdom of God will help you (hopefully) to rightly understand the time for fulfilling this prophecy.

 

[WPM]

David, the prophesy begins with: "Behold, the day of the LORD cometh..." What time period do you believe the prophet was foretelling to come? Was he foretelling a single day that was coming, or is "day" here to be understood as a period of time? Is the prophet speaking literally or symbolically of things that would come to pass when "the day of the Lord cometh"? Bearing in mind that when the Lord came, He came with the spiritual Kingdom of God will help you (hopefully) to rightly understand the time for fulfilling this prophecy.

Amen! Zechariah 14 occurred 2000 years ago. Zechariah 14:1 declares, “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.”

Hinneh Behold
yowm- day
baa' cometh
la-Yahweh the Lord
wªchulaq divides
shªlaaleek the spoils
bªqirbeek in the midst

This passage and especially its rendering in the King James Version has caused confusion to many Bible students over the years. However, a closer examination of the original dispels a lot of ambiguity surrounding the text. Firstly, the Hebrew does not actually say “the day of the Lord” as the King James Version renders it but ‘a day is coming for the Lord’.

There is no doubt, the phrase “the day of the Lord” normally relates to the second coming in Scripture, but Zechariah 14:1 does not state that in the original. We cannot therefore, with any certainty, insist upon the fact that this verse is referring to the day of the Lord. This places a completely different slant on the meaning of the whole chapter. Other versions translate the reading more accurate.

The NASB says: "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you."

The YLT states: "Lo, a day hath come to Jehovah, And divided hath been thy spoil in thy midst."

A perusal of the Greek LXX Septuagint rendering of this passage supports this interpretation:

idou Behold
hmerai day
erxontai comes
tou the
kuriou Lord
kai even (or indeed)
diamerisqhsetai divides
ta the
skula spoils
sou you
en with
soi you

When we look at the usage of the Greek throughout the Old Testament (in the Greek LXX Septuagint) and our New Testament we find a definite pattern in relation to the wording and identification of the day of the Lord in the original.

In the New Testament:

Of the five “day of the Lord” passages in the New Testament, they read in the original:

Three are: “hemera kurios” (Acts 2:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3).

Two are: “hemera ho kurios” (1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14).

In the Greek LXX Septuagint

Of the twenty “day of the Lord” passages in the Old Testament:

Eleven are: “hemera kurios” (Isaiah 13:6, 9, Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 2:31, 3:14, Obadiah 1:15, Zephaniah 1:14, Malachi 4:5)

Four are: “hemera ho kurios” (Joel 2:11, Amos 5:18, 20, Zephaniah 1:7)

We can see, fifteen align precisely with the Greek New Testament wording and confirm that this would be the normal rendering of the coming of Christ in the Greek. That is 75%.

One reads: “hemera ekeinos kurios” (Jeremiah 46:10), also meaning day of the Lord.

One is: “hemera gar kurios” (Isaiah 2:12), literally meaning day for the Lord.

Finally, there are two references (one after the other in Zephaniah) that refer to the same climactic day. One says, “hemera thumos kurios” (Zephaniah 2:2), meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. The other reads, “hemera orge kurios” (Zephaniah 2:3), similarly meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. Plainly, they are both speaking of the same day in the same reading and in the same context.

That brings us to Zechariah 14:1, which is worded completely different from the rest, saying, “hmerai erxontai tou kuriou,” literally meaning “a day is coming for the LORD.” None of the other passages say this. It is not unreasonable to make a distinction between Zechariah’s description and that of the other nineteen references. The only similarity is the King James Version’s translation of the same in the English. Notwithstanding, regardless of how high one values the A.V. one cannot use this as conclusive proof for equating the day Zechariah is speaking of to the other nineteen. The original rendering supersedes any other translations.

Because this does not literally read “the day of the Lord” then we don’t have to understand it as “the day of the Lord.” If it were, it would have most likely read hemera kurios or hemera ho kurios in the Greek LXX Septuagint. Or failing that: hemera ekeinos kurios.

Whilst the wording of Zechariah 14:1 doesn't prevent it referring to the second coming of the Lord Jesus, the phrase ‘a day is coming for the Lord’ and ‘the day of the Lord’ are definitely not synonymous. It is therefore reasonable for us to question Premils identification of it with the second coming of the Lord and to consider the possibility that it relates to Christ’s first advent.

 

[Marty fox]

Amen! Zechariah 14 occurred 2000 years ago. Zechariah 14:1 declares, “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.”

Hinneh Behold
yowm- day
baa' cometh
la-Yahweh the Lord
wªchulaq divides
shªlaaleek the spoils
bªqirbeek in the midst

This passage and especially its rendering in the King James Version has caused confusion to many Bible students over the years. However, a closer examination of the original dispels a lot of ambiguity surrounding the text. Firstly, the Hebrew does not actually say “the day of the Lord” as the King James Version renders it but ‘a day is coming for the Lord’.

There is no doubt, the phrase “the day of the Lord” normally relates to the second coming in Scripture, but Zechariah 14:1 does not state that in the original. We cannot therefore, with any certainty, insist upon the fact that this verse is referring to the day of the Lord. This places a completely different slant on the meaning of the whole chapter. Other versions translate the reading more accurate.

The NASB says: "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you."

The YLT states: "Lo, a day hath come to Jehovah, And divided hath been thy spoil in thy midst."

A perusal of the Greek LXX Septuagint rendering of this passage supports this interpretation:

idou Behold
hmerai day
erxontai comes
tou the
kuriou Lord
kai even (or indeed)
diamerisqhsetai divides
ta the
skula spoils
sou you
en with
soi you

When we look at the usage of the Greek throughout the Old Testament (in the Greek LXX Septuagint) and our New Testament we find a definite pattern in relation to the wording and identification of the day of the Lord in the original.

In the New Testament:

Of the five “day of the Lord” passages in the New Testament, they read in the original:

Three are: “hemera kurios” (Acts 2:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3).

Two are: “hemera ho kurios” (1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14).

In the Greek LXX Septuagint

Of the twenty “day of the Lord” passages in the Old Testament:

Eleven are: “hemera kurios” (Isaiah 13:6, 9, Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 2:31, 3:14, Obadiah 1:15, Zephaniah 1:14, Malachi 4:5)

Four are: “hemera ho kurios” (Joel 2:11, Amos 5:18, 20, Zephaniah 1:7)

We can see, fifteen align precisely with the Greek New Testament wording and confirm that this would be the normal rendering of the coming of Christ in the Greek. That is 75%.

One reads: “hemera ekeinos kurios” (Jeremiah 46:10), also meaning day of the Lord.

One is: “hemera gar kurios” (Isaiah 2:12), literally meaning day for the Lord.

Finally, there are two references (one after the other in Zephaniah) that refer to the same climactic day. One says, “hemera thumos kurios” (Zephaniah 2:2), meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. The other reads, “hemera orge kurios” (Zephaniah 2:3), similarly meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. Plainly, they are both speaking of the same day in the same reading and in the same context.

That brings us to Zechariah 14:1, which is worded completely different from the rest, saying, “hmerai erxontai tou kuriou,” literally meaning “a day is coming for the LORD.” None of the other passages say this. It is not unreasonable to make a distinction between Zechariah’s description and that of the other nineteen references. The only similarity is the King James Version’s translation of the same in the English. Notwithstanding, regardless of how high one values the A.V. one cannot use this as conclusive proof for equating the day Zechariah is speaking of to the other nineteen. The original rendering supersedes any other translations.

Because this does not literally read “the day of the Lord” then we don’t have to understand it as “the day of the Lord.” If it were, it would have most likely read hemera kurios or hemera ho kurios in the Greek LXX Septuagint. Or failing that: hemera ekeinos kurios.

Whilst the wording of Zechariah 14:1 doesn't prevent it referring to the second coming of the Lord Jesus, the phrase ‘a day is coming for the Lord’ and ‘the day of the Lord’ are definitely not synonymous. It is therefore reasonable for us to question Premils identification of it with the second coming of the Lord and to consider the possibility that it relates to Christ’s first advent.

Hi Paul if you haven't yet check out my post #18 it adds o this post

 

[WPM]

Hi Paul if you haven't yet check out my post #18 it adds o this post

I will check this out.

 

[Davidpt]

Amen! Zechariah 14 occurred 2000 years ago. Zechariah 14:1 declares, “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.”

Hinneh Behold
yowm- day
baa' cometh
la-Yahweh the Lord
wªchulaq divides
shªlaaleek the spoils
bªqirbeek in the midst

This passage and especially its rendering in the King James Version has caused confusion to many Bible students over the years. However, a closer examination of the original dispels a lot of ambiguity surrounding the text. Firstly, the Hebrew does not actually say “the day of the Lord” as the King James Version renders it but ‘a day is coming for the Lord’.

There is no doubt, the phrase “the day of the Lord” normally relates to the second coming in Scripture, but Zechariah 14:1 does not state that in the original. We cannot therefore, with any certainty, insist upon the fact that this verse is referring to the day of the Lord. This places a completely different slant on the meaning of the whole chapter. Other versions translate the reading more accurate.

The NASB says: "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you."

The YLT states: "Lo, a day hath come to Jehovah, And divided hath been thy spoil in thy midst."

A perusal of the Greek LXX Septuagint rendering of this passage supports this interpretation:

idou Behold
hmerai day
erxontai comes
tou the
kuriou Lord
kai even (or indeed)
diamerisqhsetai divides
ta the
skula spoils
sou you
en with
soi you

When we look at the usage of the Greek throughout the Old Testament (in the Greek LXX Septuagint) and our New Testament we find a definite pattern in relation to the wording and identification of the day of the Lord in the original.

In the New Testament:

Of the five “day of the Lord” passages in the New Testament, they read in the original:

Three are: “hemera kurios” (Acts 2:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3).

Two are: “hemera ho kurios” (1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14).

In the Greek LXX Septuagint

Of the twenty “day of the Lord” passages in the Old Testament:

Eleven are: “hemera kurios” (Isaiah 13:6, 9, Ezekiel 13:5, 30:3, Joel 1:15, 2:1, 2:31, 3:14, Obadiah 1:15, Zephaniah 1:14, Malachi 4:5)

Four are: “hemera ho kurios” (Joel 2:11, Amos 5:18, 20, Zephaniah 1:7)

We can see, fifteen align precisely with the Greek New Testament wording and confirm that this would be the normal rendering of the coming of Christ in the Greek. That is 75%.

One reads: “hemera ekeinos kurios” (Jeremiah 46:10), also meaning day of the Lord.

One is: “hemera gar kurios” (Isaiah 2:12), literally meaning day for the Lord.

Finally, there are two references (one after the other in Zephaniah) that refer to the same climactic day. One says, “hemera thumos kurios” (Zephaniah 2:2), meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. The other reads, “hemera orge kurios” (Zephaniah 2:3), similarly meaning a day of the Lord’s anger. Plainly, they are both speaking of the same day in the same reading and in the same context.

That brings us to Zechariah 14:1, which is worded completely different from the rest, saying, “hmerai erxontai tou kuriou,” literally meaning “a day is coming for the LORD.” None of the other passages say this. It is not unreasonable to make a distinction between Zechariah’s description and that of the other nineteen references. The only similarity is the King James Version’s translation of the same in the English. Notwithstanding, regardless of how high one values the A.V. one cannot use this as conclusive proof for equating the day Zechariah is speaking of to the other nineteen. The original rendering supersedes any other translations.

Because this does not literally read “the day of the Lord” then we don’t have to understand it as “the day of the Lord.” If it were, it would have most likely read hemera kurios or hemera ho kurios in the Greek LXX Septuagint. Or failing that: hemera ekeinos kurios.

Whilst the wording of Zechariah 14:1 doesn't prevent it referring to the second coming of the Lord Jesus, the phrase ‘a day is coming for the Lord’ and ‘the day of the Lord’ are definitely not synonymous. It is therefore reasonable for us to question Premils identification of it with the second coming of the Lord and to consider the possibility that it relates to Christ’s first advent.

Even though I didn't see you mention 70 AD, unless I overlooked it or something, it is still obvious that you take some of Zechariah 14 to be involving 70 AD. And besides, I already know you do from past discussions with you.

Any interpretation that insists anything in Zechariah 14 is involving 70 AD should not be taken serious. It is plainly obvious that the following things do not remotely fit with what happened in 70 AD.

1) I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle

Do some interpreters not grasp that the Romans can't be meaning all nations?

2) the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.


Can some interpreters not grasp that both the city and the temple were basically leveled in 70 AD? How then does that equal this---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

Can some interpreters not grasp that God wanted Jerusalem destroyed in 70 AD, and that He wanted the unbelieving Jews that remained there to be destroyed with this city? How then does that equal the Lord then going forth to fight the Romans, who are not even meaning all nations to begin with, in order to protect the unbelieving Jews? As if it makes sense, first God wants unbelieving Jews that remained in Jerusalem, to be destroyed. Then He changes His mind altogether and decides to fight against the Romans on behalf of the unebelieving Jews He was wanting destroyed.

I know how some interpreters apparently go about things at times. They simply think, the fact 70 AD happened and that Jerusalem was literally surrounded at the time, and that since Zechariah 14 also has Jerusalem being surrounded, it's a no brainer then, some of Zechariah 14 is involving 70 AD. Who cares if what is written in Zechariah 14 can't remotely fit what happened in 70 AD, it's still involving what happened in 70 AD, nothing to debate. No other way to try and understand this, it's involving 70 AD, end of story.

Which then has me scratching my head about some of these same Amils and how they argue that Revelation 20:7-9 is meaning in the end of this age but then are not even at least using that to interpret some of Zechariah 14. They have it instead involving literal events pertaining to 70 AD. Yet, isn't Jerusalem in Revelation 20:7-9 being surrounded by all nations? Isn't that involving a battle, and isn't Zechariah 14 involving a battle? If one is going to insist Revelation 20:7-9 involves the end of this age, maybe one should try and use that to make sense out of some of Zechariah 14 rather than using 70 AD to make nonsense out of some of Zechariah 14. Granted, some Amils already do use Revelation 20:7-9 to interpret some of Zechariah 14, so not meaning any of them.


Regardless, who is correct about where the millennium fits, one thing that should not be debatable, not one single thing recorded in Zechariah 14 is involving 70 AD. As in zero.

 

[WPM]

Even though I didn't see you mention 70 AD, unless I overlooked it or something, it is still obvious that you take some of Zechariah 14 to be involving 70 AD. And besides, I already know you do from past discussions with you.

Any interpretation that insists anything in Zechariah 14 is involving 70 AD should not be taken serious. It is plainly obvious that the following things do not remotely fit with what happened in 70 AD.

1) I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle

Do some interpreters not grasp that the Romans can't be meaning all nations?

2) the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.


Can some interpreters not grasp that both the city and the temple were basically leveled in 70 AD? How then does that equal this---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

Can some interpreters not grasp that God wanted Jerusalem destroyed in 70 AD, and that He wanted the unbelieving Jews that remained there to be destroyed with this city? How then does that equal the Lord then going forth to fight the Romans, who are not even meaning all nations to begin with, in order to protect the unbelieving Jews? As if it makes sense, first God wants unbelieving Jews that remained in Jerusalem, to be destroyed. Then He changes His mind altogether and decides to fight against the Romans on behalf of the unebelieving Jews He was wanting destroyed.

I know how some interpreters apparently go about things at times. They simply think, the fact 70 AD happened and that Jerusalem was literally surrounded at the time, and that since Zechariah 14 also has Jerusalem being surrounded, it's a no brainer then, some of Zechariah 14 is involving 70 AD. Who cares if what is written in Zechariah 14 can't remotely fit what happened in 70 AD, it's still involving what happened in 70 AD, nothing to debate. No other way to try and understand this, it's involving 70 AD, end of story.

Which then has me scratching my head about some of these same Amils and how they argue that Revelation 20:7-9 is meaning in the end of this age but then are not even at least using that to interpret some of Zechariah 14. They have it instead involving literal events pertaining to 70 AD. Yet, isn't Jerusalem in Revelation 20:7-9 being surrounded by all nations? Isn't that involving a battle, and isn't Zechariah 14 involving a battle? If one is going to insist Revelation 20:7-9 involves the end of this age, maybe one should try and use that to make sense out of some of Zechariah 14 rather than using 70 AD to make nonsense out of some of Zechariah 14. Granted, some Amils already do use Revelation 20:7-9 to interpret some of Zechariah 14, so not meaning any of them.


Regardless, who is correct about where the millennium fits, one thing that should not be debatable, not one single thing recorded in Zechariah 14 is involving 70 AD. As in zero.

Totally disagree. The Roman Empire represented the Gentile nations of the known world at that time. It came against Jerusalem a long time ago. You need to read the historic accounts of AD70 especially Josephus and note how horrendous the destruction was and deep the persecution and lasting the consequences, and then you would not be a dismissive about the gravity of AD70.

The destruction of the city and the raping of the city occurred in AD 70. At that time the Roman Empire enjoyed jurisdiction over the whole known world (Luke 2:1). Jerusalem was destroyed because of their rejection of Christ. The Gentiles came against the city, but the Gospel in turn went out among the Gentiles with great success.

 

[Marty fox]

Even though I didn't see you mention 70 AD, unless I overlooked it or something, it is still obvious that you take some of Zechariah 14 to be involving 70 AD. And besides, I already know you do from past discussions with you.

Any interpretation that insists anything in Zechariah 14 is involving 70 AD should not be taken serious. It is plainly obvious that the following things do not remotely fit with what happened in 70 AD.

1) I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle

Do some interpreters not grasp that the Romans can't be meaning all nations?

2) the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.


Can some interpreters not grasp that both the city and the temple were basically leveled in 70 AD? How then does that equal this---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

Can some interpreters not grasp that God wanted Jerusalem destroyed in 70 AD, and that He wanted the unbelieving Jews that remained there to be destroyed with this city? How then does that equal the Lord then going forth to fight the Romans, who are not even meaning all nations to begin with, in order to protect the unbelieving Jews? As if it makes sense, first God wants unbelieving Jews that remained in Jerusalem, to be destroyed. Then He changes His mind altogether and decides to fight against the Romans on behalf of the unebelieving Jews He was wanting destroyed.

I know how some interpreters apparently go about things at times. They simply think, the fact 70 AD happened and that Jerusalem was literally surrounded at the time, and that since Zechariah 14 also has Jerusalem being surrounded, it's a no brainer then, some of Zechariah 14 is involving 70 AD. Who cares if what is written in Zechariah 14 can't remotely fit what happened in 70 AD, it's still involving what happened in 70 AD, nothing to debate. No other way to try and understand this, it's involving 70 AD, end of story.

Which then has me scratching my head about some of these same Amils and how they argue that Revelation 20:7-9 is meaning in the end of this age but then are not even at least using that to interpret some of Zechariah 14. They have it instead involving literal events pertaining to 70 AD. Yet, isn't Jerusalem in Revelation 20:7-9 being surrounded by all nations? Isn't that involving a battle, and isn't Zechariah 14 involving a battle? If one is going to insist Revelation 20:7-9 involves the end of this age, maybe one should try and use that to make sense out of some of Zechariah 14 rather than using 70 AD to make nonsense out of some of Zechariah 14. Granted, some Amils already do use Revelation 20:7-9 to interpret some of Zechariah 14, so not meaning any of them.


Regardless, who is correct about where the millennium fits, one thing that should not be debatable, not one single thing recorded in Zechariah 14 is involving 70 AD. As in zero.

David my post #18 answers some of this

Rome was made up of many concurred nations so the nations did gather around Jerusalem

Revelation 20:7-9 does not mention Jerusalem it mentions the camp of Gods people the city He loves.

We the church are now the city God loves