Zecheriah 14 is it literal or figurative what proves it

I believe Zechariah 14 is just as literal as Micah 1:3; Isaiah 64:1-3. That verse 3 was a past event BTW. But just as literal as Zech. 14.

No more, nor less.

 

Do yiu see the Zechariah 14 was already fulfilled in History than? Similiar verses in Revelation, telling us when messiah returns, stepsdown upon earth, moutain will cleave apart, and he will defend isreal against all armies on earth gathered against them...

Symbolic, or already fulfilled, if so when?

 

Been to the Rattlesnake Rodeo lately?

 

My point was that there are a lot of metaphors just like what you have in Zechariah 14. Metaphors that could not have been fulfilled literally.

I realize that futurists love to zero on this particular passage in Zechariah, but they overlook many of the other metaphors verses elsewhere in the prophetic books and elsewhere.

They also overlook the unifying phrase "in that day" in Zechariah. The nineteen occurrences of that phrase need to be considered together. The Bible views these all as happening in the same time period. We should too.

 

Just curious...

just How do you view the events described in revelation that ties into this part of Zechariah?
Says that the Lord Himself, messiah, shall rise up to fight against nations of earth assembled against Jerusalem, city of God?

Are you saying ALL prophecies in Bible were already either done in History, or else symbolic in nature?

 

It's about time we recognized the strong preterists teaching of Zecheriah 14

revmwc you are to be complemented for calling attention to one of the most pro preterists chapters in the entire bible—Zecheriah 14.

Obviously with all the Jewish ritualism, festivals, etc going on here one has to realize that this could only be talking of Old Covenant Jerusalem not some future Jerusalem that is not a part of the Old Covenant.

Therefore since it is Old Covenant Jerusalem we automatically know all prophecy here has to be completed by 70 AD since the historical record will show that it and the temple were destroyed in 70 AD.

I would like to call your attention to verse 12 when it says the plague with which the Lord will strike all the people that wage war against Jerusalem: their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, eyes rot in sockets and tongues rot in their mouths.

Then verse 13 talks about panic coming on them and will the hand of one will be raised against the hand of another.

Obviously this is describing the events inside Jerusalem during the Roman siege.

Flesh rotting is an excellent description of the starving people inside Jerusalem who are driven to cannibalism as Josephus reports and he further reports of the infighting going on in the city between the people trapped within its walls.

John of Japan maybe you have some Hebrew skills which could be put to good use in straightening out the mistake in the English translations in verse 12 where it states those fighting against Jerusalem when it is clear from the Hebrew interlinear that it means those inside Jerusalem.

The Hebrew interlinear bible says “The people which they muster on Jerusalem”
Strong describes the word for “on” as being # 5921 which means upon, above, over—obviously meaning the people in Jerusalem as it is used here. It goes on to state especially exerting a downward influence on—obviously meaning those standing or occupying Jerusalem not those fighting against it.

Thanks so much for helping to call peoples attention to this glorious chapter of the bible and helping to straighten out the futurist’s misconceptions on it.

 

So you have the Lord fighting on behalf of His people, while at the same time judging and bring destruction on His very same people?

And again, why do you keep insisting that God did away with His relationship with Isreal in 70 AD, when Apostle paul would say 'God forbid!"

 

They are not the very same people. Rom. 9:25-26 and Hos. 1 and 2 show that there was a great opening up here for the people of God. Through the Gospel those who were formerly estranged from commonwealth of Israel are now brought into the fold. And those, Israel of the flesh - who relied on that, were excluded.

You are putting words into Paul's mouth.

 

Well. didn't the Apostle say that IF the turning of the gentiles to God because of Him casting off Isreal meant that He forever had cut off the Jewish peoples/nation from their Messiah...

that brought the "God forbid!"

God WILL turn back to dealing with jewish peoples on a whole, once fulness of gentiles are saved,,,

than God will send forth messiah, jesus, and Isreal will indeed be brought to messiah as a race and people "in that day"

You have the scenerio where God forever deals with them, cuts them off at second coming in 70 AD, yet paul says they will be fully restored back at time second coming...

No disrespect, but take view of Apostle Paul over yours in this!

 

Taking the view of the Apostle Paul of mine is good. This is what he wrote - but the larger context, not just that phrase by itself:

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.

4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

This shows that it is the remnant that Paul is speaking of, not all of Israel. Earlier in this epistle he already brings up this point that the the real Jews are the ones who Jews in their hearts, not according to the flesh. Rom. 2:28-29:

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Then Paul goes on to say, here in Romans and in other places like Ephesians and 1 Corinthians, that Gentiles are brought into these same promises that were earlier just the possession of the Jews.

 

So you are saying that God took some people who had been his people and made them not his people and took some other people who had never been his people and now made them the people of God?

I have always wondered about this.

 

Yes, that is what I am saying - as long as it is understood that there is an overlap. Some of the Israel according to the flesh are also the Israel of God, like Paul and many of the Jews in the NT.

This is the "nation of priests" (1 Peter 2:9), "the nation that was born in a day" (Isa. 66:8), plenty of other descriptions.

But this is not replacement theology, rather fulfillment theology. The very thing that Israel had been promised, and the very thing that the Gentiles had no right to hope for, was graciously granted. This is why Paul puts it this way (Romans 15:8-9):

"Now I say that Jesus Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy,"

Promises fulfilled for the Jews, unforeseen mercy and incorporation into the commonwealth of the Jews for the Gentiles.

 

I will ask you the same question I asked someone else. Does the word reconciled have the meaning of having known someone in an intimate manner being separated and then coming together again?

1 Cor. 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

Interestingly they had the same fathers.

For space just a few high spots. From Ezekiel 36 And I scattered them among the heathen,(Gentiles)
And when they entered unto the heathen,(Gentiles) whither they went, they profaned my holy name. Would these be παρεπίδημος (strangers) among the gentiles? 1 Peter 1:1
Are these the same not my people as in Hosea?
E36 again Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not [this] for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I [am] the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
Does this mean all at this time? From Jer. 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Are these the same as not my people in Hosea? Reconciliation? Who is Zion?

Compare above with Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles,(Heathen) to take out of them a people for his name. Is this still going on or is it past? What happens after this taking out a people for his name? Sake?

V16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Why?
V17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

 

Say what?

You have a very slight problem with your theory.

You left out Luke’s, 21 chapter, parallel passage. He adds additional information for the Gentile reader that the Jewish readers didn’t need. He tells us what the desolation is—armies surrounding Jerusalem. Therefore we know the holy place is Jerusalem and the desolators are armies.


Jesus Foretells Destruction of Jerusalem

20"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, 22for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 23Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people.24They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, andJerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Well so much for the temple theory I guess. I’m not sure how you derive at how I’m suppose to be calling Christ a liar—want to explain that one a little more.

 

Not at all. Don’t put those words in my mouth. I’m saying that Christ is fighting against the Jews who rejected him—he is coming in judgment on them in 70 AD. His people are Christians and they have left the building as it were. Read my Luke passage to revmwc above and you can see where Jesus told his people to leave Jerusalem.

Again, you seem too lazy to make a point with scriptural references—Is your opinion inspired by the Holy Spirit and is your authority on a par with the bible?

 

I see, your opinion, based on a rather subjective interpretation of the word enables you to make such authoritative statements. I guess we can infer that your opinion is inspired? Seems like that is what you are saying.

 

I don't feel the need to respond thomas. You can have the last word on it.
Happy now?