Zacharia

[asterisktom]

Given your statement above, how do you reconcile Paul's statement to the Galatians (3)? Certainly, he included them when discussing the law becoming the tutor that leads men to Christ. Does he not plainly state that believers are Abraham descendants?

Whatever Paul writes to them about the Law he writes as a 1st-century Jew, writing in the 1st-century. Yet, even so, he does not say what you seem to think. He does not tell the Gentiles among the Galatians that they had the Law as tutor. He wrote in Gal. 3:23 - 24:

"Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith."

Yes, there is also a law in all men's hearts, hardwired into their conscience, but the Law here in this passage is the Mosaic Law - the Law that the foolish Galatians, in their desire to be circumcised, were wanting to be under.

Abrahamic Covenant is not the same as Mosaic "law." The Mosaic covenant dealing with the law is found in Ex. 19. There are some who would confuse the discussion by taking that which pertains to the law and mark them as having "vanished" which is correct (Galatians 3) , but then mark the unconditional covenant given to Abraham as the same.

Certainly. Abrahamic Covenant is not the same as Mosaic "law." But that is my point.

HOWEVER, the Covenant with Abraham was NOT according to the law, but according to the promise (again, Galatians 3). As such, that promise was only partly fulfilled at the first advent, and will be completely fulfilled at the second. Again, the believers are not stand alone, but also the seed of Abraham, so the promise given Abraham remains.

Just so I understand your point - what part of the Abrahamic promise was not fulfilled?

...
The problem is not that I read the Scriptures from a "futurist presupposition," but that some would take what is obviously not been fulfilled and attempt to smush it into a time frame that must oblige a great amount of prophetic statements to be taken non-literal. (again, I point back to Zachariah 14 as one).

Why would you question me about Habakkuk and the Psalms when you can't effectively deal with Zachariah?

Effective dealing with any passage or book is to take other passages into consideration. The Bible is its own best commentary.

Do you think a prayer by Habakkuk or the care of God the Psalmist would sing about destroys the evidence of Zachariah?

Those two passages I quoted were to show that those supposed literal passages have earlier passages written in the same vein. Make them all literal, if you can. Or - if you can't - then concede the possibility that perhaps Zech. 14 might also be viewed in the same light as those earlier passages.

...

Deal with Zachariah. Look at the statements and see if the land, rivers and seas have changed so that Jerusalem becomes a seaport at any time in history. Then, ask, if it hasn't happened, when will it happen?

Did God touch down on earth, per earlier passages? Did mountains smoke when He did? Hills melt?

Such is not "futurist presuppositions" it is taking the Scriptures at face value, looking at the evidence of history, and placing the account in a time line were it actually fits.

Some are biased against any literal rendering time line, because it would cause them to have to come to terms with their own presuppositions that must the prophets and cause them to be manipulated into non-literal interpretation to fit.

Instead of taking the Bible at face value - by definition a superficial reading - why don't you dig deeper and try to understand how the Bible communicates truth. That sounds disrespectful, which is not intended, but I am in earnest. So many Christians do not take OT language and methodology into consideration when they read the NT or, as you do in Zech, even other parts of the OT.

The Bible is a spiritual book. Much of its language is spiritual. That entails metaphor, types, etc. It is not to be read like the New York Times.

 

[asterisktom]

Over and over there is historical evidence of the factual working out of prophecy.

Taking "imaginative" thinking into prophecy is like taking water not to be wet.

Certainly, there are situations in which the prophets would use terms to describe, yet their descriptions were accurate. For example pre-WWII there was no stripping of the flesh blood muscle and sinew off a body in a blink of an eye. Now there is. So the prophetic statement was at times considered by some to be over exuberant or hyperbole. But, it is in fact a literal.

In a different post you challenged me to "Deal with Zechariah". And looking at the above quote I suppose you are referring to a passage in Zech. 14. I don't have time t get all through Zech. 14, but lets chip away here and there as time permits.

"And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the peoples that wage war against Jerusalem: their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths." - Zech. 14:12

Here is a good example of "newspaper eschatology". Even some modern versions help out this misreading of the text.

This is a perfect illustration of the crucial importance of comparing Scripture with Scripture. If you read it in isolation it does look like something clearly modern. But this passage - this very word that I underlined - comes up several times earlier.

The way it is used there helps us to understand it here. First, the idea, though not the actual word (a similar one is used) is found in Zech. 5: 1 - 4:

"1. Again I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, a flying scroll! 2. And he said to me, “What do you see?” I answered, “I see a flying scroll. Its length is twenty cubits, and its width ten cubits.” 3. Then he said to me, “This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole land. For everyone who steals shall be cleaned out according to what is on one side, and everyone who swears falsely shall be cleaned out according to what is on the other side. 4. I will send it out, declares the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter the house of the thief, and the house of him who swears falsely by my name. And it shall remain in his house and consume it, both timber and stones.”"

The following verses use the same "eyes melting in socket" word as Zech. 14:12. Ezek. 4:16 - 17:

"Moreover, he said to me, “Son of man, behold, I will break the supply of bread in Jerusalem. They shall eat bread by weight and with anxiety, and they shall drink water by measure and in dismay. I will do this that they may lack bread and water, and look at one another in dismay, and rot away because of their punishment."

See also Ezek. 24:23; 33:10. Lev. 26:39. The first two Ezek. passages are specifically directed to Jerusalem. All of these passages have to do with Israel's breaking of the Covenant.

Another passage that deals with this idea of covenantal unfaithfulness, both personal
and national, is in Numbers 5, where the woman suspected of unfaithful is made to drink the "waters of bitterness". If she proves to have been unfaithful she rots, literally.

But, to get back to Zechariah, I believe the Numbers 5 passage is a figurative warning of a very real judgment that would overtake the Jews. We read in Revelation about the waters that became bitter, and of the judgment of the harlot - Israel.

The rotting of the flesh in Zech. 14, the consuming of the house in Zech. 5, the judgment of the woman in Numbers and in Revelation are all the same event.

An objection might be raised that the disaster in Zech. 14 falls upon the enemies of Jerusalem, not Jerusalem itself. But the biggest enemy of Jerusalem was Jerusalem. There is a heavenly Jerusalem, those whose names were written in heaven, and an earthly Jerusalem, those whose names are cursedly written on earth. One is free, the other in slavery. Gal. 4:24 - 26:

"Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother."

Zechariah 14 is an account of God's judgment on unfaithful Israel. Context and cross-reference - not futuristic imagination - helps us to accurately interpret this passage.